John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, a silent killer is loose in America. It contributes to the deaths of 15,000 and threatens the health of 5.3 million Americans each year. It is more common than HIV/AIDS. It is the leading cause of liver cancer, which is on the rise and continues to be a fatal and costly disease. Yet it remains unrecognized as a serious threat to public health. This silent killer is viral hepatitis. That is why I am introducing the Viral Hepatitis and Liver Cancer Control and Prevention Act of 2010, which authorizes $600 million to develop a national strategy over the next five years to prevent and control Hepatitis B and C. Most people don't even know they have it until years later when it causes cancer or liver disease. We can help avoid such needless tragedies with prevention and surveillance programs and by educating Americans on the pervasive nature of Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C. In January, the Institute of Medicine, IOM, released a report entitled ``Hepatitis and Liver Cancer.'' The report concludes that the current approach toward treating hepatitis is not working. Too many Americans at-risk for hepatitis or living with it do not know it and too many health providers are not screening for it. That should come as no surprise because there is no Federal funding of core public health services for viral hepatitis. Also, there is no federally funded chronic Hepatitis B and C surveillance system. The IOM report calls for a national strategy to prevent and control Hepatitis B and C. Hepatitis B is 100 times more infectious than HIV and, left untreated, can cause liver disease, liver cancer and premature death decades after infection. About 2 billion people worldwide have been infected with Hepatitis B and about 170 million people are chronically infected with Hepatitis C. Tragically, \2/3\ of those infected, on average, are unaware of their status, which increases the chance of spreading the disease. Dr. Howard Koh, Assistant Secretary of Health, has convened a task force including representatives from all Department of Health and Human Services agencies to develop an action plan to implement the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine Report. Unless action is taken to prevent chronic Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C, thousands more Americans will die each year from liver cancer or liver disease related to these preventable diseases. The Viral Hepatitis and Liver Cancer Control and Prevention Act directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop a national plan for the prevention, control and medical management of viral hepatitis in coordination with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, the National Institutes for Health, the National Cancer Institute, NCI, the Health Resources and Services Administration, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, SAMHSA, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The national plan is required to include the following components: education and awareness programs; an expansion of current vaccination programs; counseling regarding the ongoing risk factors associated with viral hepatitis; support for medical evaluation and ongoing medical management; increased support for adult viral hepatitis coordinators; and the establishment of an epidemiological surveillance program to identify trends in incidence and prevalence in the disease. The Viral Hepatitis and Liver Cancer Control and Prevention Act of 2010 also enhances SAMHSA's role in hepatitis activities by providing the agency with the authority to develop educational materials and intervention strategies to reduce the risks of hepatitis among substance abusers and individuals with mental illness. It authorizes nearly $600 million over the next five years to fund the national strategy to prevent and control viral hepatitis. I believe this investment in hepatitis control and prevention could save our country billions of dollars in the coming years. The baby boomer population is estimated to account for two out of every three cases of chronic Hepatitis C. As these Americans age into Medicare they are likely to develop complications and require expensive medical interventions at great cost to taxpayers. In the next decade, the costs of Hepatitis C to commercial insurance and Medicare will more than double, and within 20 years Medicare costs will increase five-fold. Projecting further out, over the next 20 years, total medical costs for patients with Hepatitis C infection could increase more than 2.5 times--from $30 billion to more than $85 billion. However, the costs for early detection and intervention are dramatically less than the costs for treatment post-infection. The costs for Hepatitis B vaccinations vary but range from $75 to $165, whereas treatment can cost up to $16,000 per year. Screening for Hepatitis C is also relatively inexpensive compared to treatment that can cost up to $25,000 per year. Untreated, these infections will develop into liver disease that can cost up to $110,000 per hospital admission. We can do better. Viral hepatitis is an increasingly significant issue for Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Department of Public Health reports over 2,000 cases of newly diagnosed chronic Hepatitis B infection and 8,000 to 10,000 cases of newly diagnosed chronic Hepatitis C infection each year. Viral hepatitis infections are by far the highest volume of reportable infectious diseases to the state. Additionally, there has been and continues to be a striking increase of cases of Hepatitis C infection among adolescents and young adults in the state. The Department of Public Health has received reports on over 1,000 cases in people under the age of 25 years every year since 2007, indicating that there is a new epidemic of Hepatitis C disease. Resources to address these complex problems have been extremely limited. Federal resources are scarce with the average award per state of $90,000 from the Division of Viral Hepatitis at CDC. That is less than the cost of one hospital admission for liver disease. The Massachusetts State Legislature has, until recently, provided modest funding to support Hepatitis C initiatives in the state. At this time, all of that funding, $1.4 million annually for the past several years, has been eliminated due to the ongoing fiscal crisis. However, past funding has allowed Massachusetts to develop innovative programs in many areas. State funds have supported disease surveillance initiatives so that changes in the epidemics can be detected, such as the increase of cases of Hepatitis C infection among young people or to identify cases of viral hepatitis that are being transmitted through non-sterile practices in health care settings. Disease surveillance programs have been used to identify women of childbearing age that are infected with Hepatitis B so that transmission to their babies can be prevented. The Viral Hepatitis and Liver Cancer Control and Prevention Act of 2010 would provide critical assistance to Massachusetts and other states by starting to provide appropriate levels of funding to address these epidemics of disease. In Massachusetts, funding would be used to expand disease surveillance efforts so that we can better understand the impact of these infections and direct services appropriately to highly impacted communities. It would help to expand screening and educational services to help identify the large numbers of people in the state living with Hepatitis B and C that have not been identified. It would provide support to address the complex prevention needs of adolescents and young adults who are using drugs and at-risk for infection. Increased funding for adult immunization would assist the State in better targeting and providing Hepatitis B vaccine to the adults at highest risk, including those that are incarcerated and being treated for drug abuse. Finally, it would also help to provide essential medical management for people already infected with Hepatitis B and C who are not able to access appropriate care currently. I would like to thank a number of organizations who have been integral to the development of the Viral Hepatitis and Liver Cancer Control and Prevention Act of 2010. I am pleased that 102 hepatitis focused organizations from across the Nation have endorsed the legislation, including the National Viral Hepatitis Roundtable, National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors, NASTAD, the Hepatitis B Foundation, the Hepatitis C Association, American Association for the Study of Liver Disease, and the Hepatitis Education Project. We have no time to waste. This legislation, along with strategic investments in public health and prevention programs, can save billions of hard earned taxpayer dollars. It can improve the quality of life for tens of thousands of people all over America. I urge my colleagues to support activities that promote early detection and education and to cosponsor this important legislation.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Clean Energy Technology Leadership Act. This legislation would provide tax incentives for clean energy manufacturing, renewable energy, and conservation. This is a critical package of incentives to drive the development and deployment of clean energy technology in the United States. It also will expand our manufacturing base to ensure that these advanced energy technologies are made here in America. This bill is not intended to serve as a substitute for comprehensive energy and climate legislation. However, it does provide a near-term opportunity to support the development and deployment of clean energy technologies. Congress must continue working on legislation that will put us on a course to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but the events of the last several weeks have made it clear that there is no bipartisan support for a strong energy and climate bill. In the interim, we should act on areas where there is potential agreement. The Clean Energy Technology Leadership Act is broad energy tax legislation that focuses on tax incentives to encourage renewable energy and conservation. This legislation would extend and improve existing provisions in the tax code and provides some targeted new incentives. The legislation would promote clean energy manufacturing by providing additional funding for the advanced energy manufacturing credit and uncapping the credit for solar energy property, fuel cell power generation, and advanced energy storage systems, including batteries for advanced vehicles. In addition, the legislation would extend the credit for domestic manufacturers of energy appliances. To encourage the production of renewable energy, the Clean Energy Technology Leadership Act would extend for 2 years and codify the grant in lieu of tax credit program created by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. It modifies the program to clarify that real estate investment trusts and public power would be eligible for the program. The legislation provides an additional $3.5 billion for clean renewable energy bonds, with 60 percent allocated to public power and the remaining 40 percent to cooperative electric rural companies. The Clean Energy Technology Leadership Act extends the research and development tax credit retroactively through 2012. For 2011 and 2012, it would increase the R&D credit by ten percent for research expenditures related to the fields of fuel cells and battery technology, renewable energy, energy conservation technology, efficient transmission and distribution of electricity, and carbon capture and sequestration. To encourage conservation, the Clean Energy Technology Leadership Act would extend and modify tax incentives for new energy efficient homes, nonbusiness energy property improvements, and energy efficient commercial buildings. The bill also would provide incentives for clean transportation by providing incentives for natural gas use in heavy vehicles. These provisions will encourage investments in developing and deploying renewable energy and conservation solutions, which will result in lower greenhouse gas emissions. The Clean Energy Technology Leadership Act is not a comprehensive energy and climate solution, but I believe it is an important starting point. I am hopeful that we can secure bipartisan support for these and other important tax provisions and pass them this year.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Clean Energy Technology Leadership Act. This legislation would provide tax incentives for clean energy manufacturing, renewable energy, and conservation. This is a critical package of incentives to drive the development and deployment of clean energy technology in the United States. It also will expand our manufacturing base to ensure that these advanced energy technologies are made here in America. This bill is not intended to serve as a substitute for comprehensive energy and climate legislation. However, it does provide a near-term opportunity to support the development and deployment of clean energy technologies. Congress must continue working on legislation that will put us on a course to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but the events of the last several weeks have made it clear that there is no bipartisan support for a strong energy and climate bill. In the interim, we should act on areas where there is potential agreement. The Clean Energy Technology Leadership Act is broad energy tax legislation that focuses on tax incentives to encourage renewable energy and conservation. This legislation would extend and improve existing provisions in the tax code and provides some targeted new incentives. The legislation would promote clean energy manufacturing by providing additional funding for the advanced energy manufacturing credit and uncapping the credit for solar energy property, fuel cell power generation, and advanced energy storage systems, including batteries for advanced vehicles. In addition, the legislation would extend the credit for domestic manufacturers of energy appliances. To encourage the production of renewable energy, the Clean Energy Technology Leadership Act would extend for 2 years and codify the grant in lieu of tax credit program created by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. It modifies the program to clarify that real estate investment trusts and public power would be eligible for the program. The legislation provides an additional $3.5 billion for clean renewable energy bonds, with 60 percent allocated to public power and the remaining 40 percent to cooperative electric rural companies. The Clean Energy Technology Leadership Act extends the research and development tax credit retroactively through 2012. For 2011 and 2012, it would increase the R&D credit by ten percent for research expenditures related to the fields of fuel cells and battery technology, renewable energy, energy conservation technology, efficient transmission and distribution of electricity, and carbon capture and sequestration. To encourage conservation, the Clean Energy Technology Leadership Act would extend and modify tax incentives for new energy efficient homes, nonbusiness energy property improvements, and energy efficient commercial buildings. The bill also would provide incentives for clean transportation by providing incentives for natural gas use in heavy vehicles. These provisions will encourage investments in developing and deploying renewable energy and conservation solutions, which will result in lower greenhouse gas emissions. The Clean Energy Technology Leadership Act is not a comprehensive energy and climate solution, but I believe it is an important starting point. I am hopeful that we can secure bipartisan support for these and other important tax provisions and pass them this year.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the RECORDS on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, our Nation has suffered through the worst recession since the 1930s. As the economy begins to recover, the availability of affordable and safe child care is a necessary component of enabling parents to find and maintain employment to support their family. The recession has caused States across the country to scale back funding for child care. The waiting lists for subsidized child care in some States are beginning to rise and a few states have stopped or are planning to stop providing child care assistance to families who are not receiving Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, TANF, altogether. Restrictions of the availability of child care assistance make it harder for parents to afford child care and force some parents to leave their jobs and turn to welfare programs for support. That is wrong and we can do better. Child care consumes a large portion of family budgets, and can range from $4,560 to $15,895 annually for full-time care depending on where the family lives, the type of care, and the age of the child. Child care prices are higher than other household expenses and typically exceed the average amount families spend on food. In 39 States and the District of Columbia, the average annual price for child care for an infant in a child care center was higher than a year's tuition at many 4-year public colleges. Without assistance, low-income families can find it impossible to secure child care. For example, in 2005, the median monthly income of families receiving child care assistance was just $15,396 a year. Nearly half of, 49 percent, of families receiving child care assistance live below the poverty line and 86 percent of these families were single parent households. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 increased mandatory child care funding by $1 billion over 5 years, fiscal years 2006 to 2010. Without legislative action this funding will expire on September 30, 2010. The President's fiscal year 2011 budget calls for mandatory child care to be reauthorized and provided an $800 million increase above the past 5 years. This increase is necessary because only about one in six children eligible for Federal child care assistance receives help. Today I am introducing the Children First Act to address the growing unmet need for affordable and safe child care. I am pleased Senator Lincoln is an original cosponsors of this important legislation. The Children First Act would help states meet the significant demand for child care assistance by increasing funding for mandatory child care by $800 million annually for fiscal year 2011 through 2015. This legislation would also annually index mandatory child care funding to inflation beginning in fiscal year 2012. This increased funding would allow approximately 117,500 more children to have access to safe and affordable child care. The Children First Act would exclude child care from the definition of TANF assistance so that unemployed families who receive child care assistance will not have it count towards the 5-year time limit for Federal TANF assistance. The legislation would also ensure that the minimum child care health and safety standards required for providers receiving Child Care Development Block Grant, CCDBG, funding also apply to providers who receive funding through TANF. In Massachusetts, all licensed providers are required to the same health and safety standards regardless of subsidy type received. This legislation would increase the availability of child care for parents who are required to work. States are currently prohibited from withholding or reducing assistance to a single parent with children under 6 who does not meet work requirements for reasons related to the unavailability or unsuitability of appropriate, affordable child care arrangements. The Children First Act would prevent States from withholding to reducing child care assistance to parents of a child with children under age 13. Enactment of this legislation is incredibly important for my home State of Massachusetts which currently has approximately 18,000 children on a waitlist for child care subsidies. Approximately half of the parents with at least one preschool age child in the household have been on the waitlist for 13 months or more. The high cost of child care is the most significant issue facing families currently on the waitlist in Massachusetts. Massachusetts families pay more on average than families in any other state for most types of child care; the average price of full time care in center based settings is: $15,895 for an infant and $11,678 for a preschooler. This means a single parent at the State median income in Massachusetts, $26,680, would have to spend nearly 44 percent of their income to pay for the average full day pre-kindergarten program. I would like to thank a number of organizations who have been integral to the development of the Children First Act and who have endorsed it today, including the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFSCME, the Children's Defense Fund, CLASP, the First Focus Campaign for Children, the National Women's Law Center, the Service Employees International Union, SEIU, and the YMCA of the USA. These reforms would significantly increase access to stable and affordable child care to low-income families and would make our nation's children more prepared for school and success later in life. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to pass this legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, our Nation has suffered through the worst recession since the 1930s. As the economy begins to recover, the availability of affordable and safe child care is a necessary component of enabling parents to find and maintain employment to support their family. The recession has caused States across the country to scale back funding for child care. The waiting lists for subsidized child care in some States are beginning to rise and a few states have stopped or are planning to stop providing child care assistance to families who are not receiving Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, TANF, altogether. Restrictions of the availability of child care assistance make it harder for parents to afford child care and force some parents to leave their jobs and turn to welfare programs for support. That is wrong and we can do better. Child care consumes a large portion of family budgets, and can range from $4,560 to $15,895 annually for full-time care depending on where the family lives, the type of care, and the age of the child. Child care prices are higher than other household expenses and typically exceed the average amount families spend on food. In 39 States and the District of Columbia, the average annual price for child care for an infant in a child care center was higher than a year's tuition at many 4-year public colleges. Without assistance, low-income families can find it impossible to secure child care. For example, in 2005, the median monthly income of families receiving child care assistance was just $15,396 a year. Nearly half of, 49 percent, of families receiving child care assistance live below the poverty line and 86 percent of these families were single parent households. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 increased mandatory child care funding by $1 billion over 5 years, fiscal years 2006 to 2010. Without legislative action this funding will expire on September 30, 2010. The President's fiscal year 2011 budget calls for mandatory child care to be reauthorized and provided an $800 million increase above the past 5 years. This increase is necessary because only about one in six children eligible for Federal child care assistance receives help. Today I am introducing the Children First Act to address the growing unmet need for affordable and safe child care. I am pleased Senator Lincoln is an original cosponsors of this important legislation. The Children First Act would help states meet the significant demand for child care assistance by increasing funding for mandatory child care by $800 million annually for fiscal year 2011 through 2015. This legislation would also annually index mandatory child care funding to inflation beginning in fiscal year 2012. This increased funding would allow approximately 117,500 more children to have access to safe and affordable child care. The Children First Act would exclude child care from the definition of TANF assistance so that unemployed families who receive child care assistance will not have it count towards the 5-year time limit for Federal TANF assistance. The legislation would also ensure that the minimum child care health and safety standards required for providers receiving Child Care Development Block Grant, CCDBG, funding also apply to providers who receive funding through TANF. In Massachusetts, all licensed providers are required to the same health and safety standards regardless of subsidy type received. This legislation would increase the availability of child care for parents who are required to work. States are currently prohibited from withholding or reducing assistance to a single parent with children under 6 who does not meet work requirements for reasons related to the unavailability or unsuitability of appropriate, affordable child care arrangements. The Children First Act would prevent States from withholding to reducing child care assistance to parents of a child with children under age 13. Enactment of this legislation is incredibly important for my home State of Massachusetts which currently has approximately 18,000 children on a waitlist for child care subsidies. Approximately half of the parents with at least one preschool age child in the household have been on the waitlist for 13 months or more. The high cost of child care is the most significant issue facing families currently on the waitlist in Massachusetts. Massachusetts families pay more on average than families in any other state for most types of child care; the average price of full time care in center based settings is: $15,895 for an infant and $11,678 for a preschooler. This means a single parent at the State median income in Massachusetts, $26,680, would have to spend nearly 44 percent of their income to pay for the average full day pre-kindergarten program. I would like to thank a number of organizations who have been integral to the development of the Children First Act and who have endorsed it today, including the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFSCME, the Children's Defense Fund, CLASP, the First Focus Campaign for Children, the National Women's Law Center, the Service Employees International Union, SEIU, and the YMCA of the USA. These reforms would significantly increase access to stable and affordable child care to low-income families and would make our nation's children more prepared for school and success later in life. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to pass this legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this vote is a true test of political character because it goes to the very heart of American democracy. It will determine who will choose our Nation's leaders--faceless corporations or we the people. The Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case earlier this year dealt a crushing blow to fairness in our Federal elections. This decision is why we are here today, taking a closer look at the hard realities of how the political system works here in the United States. For far too long, our Federal election system has been broken and the remedies ignored. In 1997, I wrote the Clean Money, Clean Elections Act to help tackle some of our most important campaign finance problems. That bill sought to limit the power of special interests in elections by offering incentives for ``clean candidates'' who swore off private campaign contributions and ran using only a clean money fund. Unfortunately, during the 13 years since that bill's introduction, we have seen an increase in the influence of special interests and now corporations on our Federal elections. Make no mistake about it--the ruling by the Supreme Court has only exacerbated the problems of the system. And that makes it all the more important that we no longer keep our heads buried in the sand. I have always believed that the single biggest flaw in our Federal election system is the disproportionate power and influence of money that drowns out the voice of average Americans. I am concerned that the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United will produce an even bigger tidal wave of special interest advertising funded by large faceless corporations, drowning out the views and opinions of our citizens. The Supreme Court has opened the flood gates for an unlimited amount of unchecked political spending by corporations--including the dangerous new precedent for unimpeded funding by subsidiaries of foreign corporations. Yes, for the first time in our history Federal elections in this country can be actively influenced according to the desires of foreign interests. These are dangerous developments that require immediate attention. But the ultimate solution must be equal in scope to the magnitude of the problem we face. We must undertake some remedial actions now, but there is only so much we can do legislatively. In my view, the case of Citizens United requires nothing short of a constitutional amendment that makes it crystal clear--that corporations do not have the same free speech rights as individuals. It is time that average Americans regain their voice in choosing who will represent them in our Nation's Capital.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, my friend Senator Tom Harkin has been championing the rights of Americans with disabilities his whole life. He witnessed the challenges and discriminations of people with disabilities first hand. His brother Frank lost his hearing at a very young age and he has witnessed the many ways that people with disabilities are prevented from fully participating in activities that most Americans take for granted. Senator Harkin has said that the 1990 signing of his bill, Americans with Disabilities Act remains one of the proudest days of his life. The vote I cast for Americans with Disabilities Act was one of my proudest days as a U.S. Senator. This month will mark two decades since the landmark passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, known as the ADA. This important civil rights law seeks to ensure equality rights and opportunities for the more than 54 million Americans with physical and mental disabilities. Prior to the passage of the ADA, people with disabilities faced significantly lower employment rates, lower graduation rates, and higher rates of poverty than people without disabilities, and were too often denied the opportunity to fully participate in society due to intolerance and unfair stereotypes. The ADA sought to eliminate the indignities and prejudice faced by individuals with disabilities on a daily basis. Before passage of this law, individuals with disabilities were prevented from attending schools, subject to discriminatory hiring practices, and were unable to enter public buildings, safely cross a street, or ride a public bus. On July 26, 1990, the ADA was signed into law signed into law by President George H.W. Bush with the promise of fostering full and equal access to civic, economic and social life for individuals with disabilities. Upon its passage Senator Edward M. Kennedy, who played an important role in the enactment of this legislation, said: The act has the potential to become one of the great civil rights laws of our generation. This legislation is a bill of rights for the disabled, and America will be a better and fairer nation because of it. Indeed, over the last 20 years, the ADA has become one of our country's most important and treasured civil rights laws. The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in employment, public accommodations, commercial facilities, transportation and telecommunications, as well as federal, state and local government programs. It has been a critical part of our efforts to fulfill the Nation's goals of equality of opportunity, independent living, economic self- sufficiency, and full participation for Americans with disabilities. It has played an historic role in allowing over 50 million Americans with disabilities to participate more fully in national life by removing barriers to employment, transportation, public services, telecommunications, and public accommodations. Specifically, it prohibits employers from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities and it requires that State and local governmental entities accommodate qualified individuals with disabilities. Because of the ADA, places of public accommodation must take reasonable steps to make their goods and services accessible to individuals with disabilities. And new trains and buses must be accessible to individuals with disabilities. All Americans, not just those with disabilities, benefit from the accommodations that have become commonplace since the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act like curb cuts at street intersections, ramps for access to buildings, greater access to public transportation, stadiums, telecommunications, voting machines, and Web sites benefit all Americans. The ADA has been one of the most significant and effective civil rights laws passed by Congress. We have come a long way in the 20 years since enactment with of the ADA, but children and adults with disabilities continue to experience barriers that interfere with their full participation in mainstream American life. People with disabilities are still twice as likely to live in poverty as their fellow citizens and continue to experience high rates of unemployment and underemployment. And many people with disabilities still live in segregated institutional settings because of a lack of support services that would allow them to live in the community. While technology and the Internet have broken down barriers, new technologies are still not accessible to all Americans. I have cosponsored the Equal Access to 21st Century Communications Act by Senator Mark Pryor to improve internet technology access for the blind and deaf communities. If passed, this legislation would make it easier for deaf and hard of hearing Americans to access the same technologies that hearing people take for granted. In particular, it would require all devices to be capable of captioning video and it would require all Internet videos to be captioned. No one should be or has to be excluded from modern communications and the new economy because of a disability. For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Senator Harkin's Senate resolution that recognizes and honors the 20th anniversary of the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. This resolution not only honors passage of the ADA, it also pledges to continue to work on a bipartisan basis to identify and address the remaining barriers that undermine the Nation's goals of equality of opportunity, independent living, economic self-sufficiency, and full participation for Americans with disabilities.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the conference report to accompany H.R. 4173, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform bill, creates a mechanism through which the Financial Stability Oversight Council may determine that material financial distress at a U.S. nonbank financial company could pose such a threat to the financial stability of the United States that the company should be supervised by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and should be subject to heightened prudential standards. It is my understanding that in making such a determination, the Congress intends that the council should focus on risk factors that contributed to the recent financial crisis, such as the use of excessive leverage and major off-balance-sheet exposure. The fact that a company is large or is significantly involved in financial services does not mean that it poses significant risks to the financial stability of the United States. There are large companies providing financial services that are in fact traditionally low-risk businesses, such as mutual funds and mutual fund advisers. We do not envision nonbank financial companies that pose little risk to the stability of the financial system to be supervised by the Federal Reserve. Does the chairman of the Banking Committee share my understanding of this provision?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, on July 15, 2009, Natalia Estemirova, head of the Memorial Human Rights Center in Grozny, Chechnya, was abducted from her home and murdered. Estemirova belonged to a tradition of Russian heroism, persevering for truth and justice in spite of great danger, but she deserves recognition from all nations. Today, as we commemorate the 1-year anniversary of her tragic passing, it is fitting to recall the words of the Memorial's founder, Andrei Sakharov: You always have to be aware of [your ideals], even if there is no direct path to their realization. Were there no ideals, there would be no hope whatsoever. Then everything would be hopelessness, darkness--a blind alley. In her life and in her work, Estemirova radiated hope in the face of adversity, and was steadfast in her ideals even when pursuing them entailed great risk and personal sacrifice. Natalia Estemirova was born in 1958 to a Russian mother and a Chechen father, embodying in her parentage what was to become her life's calling: reconciling both peoples through her keen sense of justice and singular commitment to the truth. A widow and a mother, a teacher and an advocate, Estemirova found her purest voice in Chechnya. Her reporting on the second Chechen war and its aftermath exposed countless abuses committed by both sides, and provided an invaluable source of information to the outside world. Estemirova was no stranger to controversy. On more than one occasion, her work raised the ire of the local authorities, and twice she was forced to flee her homeland. But Estemirova was not one to surrender to fear. It is said that above all she was motivated by the love of her daughter, Lana, and the desire to help the victims of Chechnya's tragic wars. And help other people she did. From the wrongly accused in need of legal assistance to the families in search of their loved ones, Estemirova provided solace and service to generations of Russians. She pursued hidden graves, requested investigations from the authorities, and gave voice to Chechens by bringing their cases to the European Court of Human Rights. Estemirova knew better than anyone about the tenuous stability that reigns in Chechnya. She knew that corruption there could spread to neighboring provinces and corrode the institutions of the Russian state. She knew that violence and instability are seldom contained within internationally recognized borders. And she believed that justice for victims must be at the center of any effort to rebuild societies devastated by war. On this day, we are called to remember Estemirova's generosity of spirit and dedication of purpose in spite of the many blind alleys that confronted her in life. Her voice may be silenced, but her message of hope and reconciliation endure.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to recognize the dedication and tireless efforts of a group of approximately 50 men and women from the North Shore of Massachusetts called the Pink Angels. Formed in January 2005 as a group with the common goal of finding a cure for breast cancer, they have completed the Boston 3-Day Cancer Walk every year since. They are survivors, daughters, wives, husbands, sisters, brothers and friends of people stricken with breast cancer. When they first met, they were strangers simply sharing their experience with the disease and now they have become lifelong friends. They began training together that year in February, sharing stories and some tears, creating a bond that holds a reservoir of strength, determination and hope. Their mutual support of one another during the training, the fundraising and ultimately the 60-mile route allowed each of them to begin a transformation from victim to warrior. Each has a different story that brought them to the group but together they created a unity of purpose signified by their crossing of the finish line as a group. Since 2005, the Pink Angels walk around the city of Boston every year. Many team members have also walked in Arizona, Cleveland, Philadelphia, San Diego, San Francisco, and Washington, DC. In May 2009, under the leadership of Joanne Seneta and Hilda Santos, they achieved a significant milestone by raising more than $1 million. On July 23 in Framingham, MA, the Pink Angels will take flight again and on the 25th in Boston they will again cross the finish line as a group. I would like to thank them for their commitment to help find a cure for breast cancer.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the Senate, in its 223-year history, has never had a greater champion than Robert Byrd. West Virginia, in its 147-year history, has never had a more powerful advocate or public servant than Robert Byrd. Like so many Senators elected before and after me, I learned very quickly how passionate Robert Byrd was about this institution, its roots in the Constitution. As all of us remember, he had that dog-eared copy of the Constitution he carried in the front pocket of his suit, and sometimes in the caucus or other times on the floor, he would pull it out to help reinforce a point he was making, even though we all knew he could recite the Constitution by memory. But he consulted it often without hesitation. In its words, he reminded us that he always found wisdom, truth, and excitement--the same excitement he felt as a young boy in Wolf Creek Hollow, reading by kerosene lamp about the heroes of the American Revolution and the birth of our Nation. Those words literally guided him through the 58 years he spent in Washington as a Member of the Congress and as a Senator. It is fair to say that no one knew the Senate--its history, its traditions, and its precedents--better than Robert Byrd. It is all there in the four-volume collection of his speeches on the Senate, which we were all privileged to receive from him. Every freshman Senator got a personal crash course on the Senate's history from Robert Byrd himself. I was one of five Democratic freshmen elected in 1984. The class of 1984 was privileged to share some lofty hopes and goals. Four of the five of us eventually ran for President: Al Gore, Paul Simon, Tom Harkin, and myself. All of us can tell you that we arrived in the Senate with a thirst for action and an impatience for delay. Then-minority leader Robert Byrd didn't discourage any of that. In fact, he encouraged it, and he helped all of us with our committee assignments so we could push the list of our policy ideas that we exuberantly believed we could and would pass into law. But in meetings with us individually, he also helped each of us to see the bigger picture, to impress upon us the fact that one of our most important responsibilities as Senators was to be caretakers of this institution--an institution he regarded as both the morning star and the evening star of the American constitutional constellation. To Robert Byrd, the Senate was, as he said, ``the last bastion of minority rights, where a minority can be heard, where a minority can stand on its feet, one individual if necessary, and speak until he falls into the dust.'' Indeed, earlier this year, when many of us felt frustration over the Senate's rules governing filibusters-- specifically, the requirement of 60 votes to cut off debate--Robert Byrd cautioned against amending the rules to facilitate expeditious action by a simple majority. In a letter sent to all of us, he observed that: The occasional abuse of the rules has been, at times, a painful side effect of what is otherwise the Senate's greatest purpose--the right to extended, or even unlimited, debate. The Senate is the only place in government where the rights of a numerical minority are still protected. He added: Majorities change with elections. A minority can be right, and minority views can certainly improve legislation. . . . Extended deliberations and debate--when employed judiciously--protect every Senator, and the interests of their constituency, and are essential to the protection of the liberties of a free people. Robert Byrd also impressed upon us the fact that we did not serve ``under'' any President; that as a separate but equal branch of government, we served ``with'' Presidents, acted as a check on the executive's power. Robert Byrd was the longest serving Member of Congress in all of our Nation's history, and as such he served with 11 Presidents. At no time in his career was Robert Byrd's defense of legislative prerogatives more pronounced and more eloquent than in arguing against granting the Bush administration's broad power to wage preemptive war against Iraq. He chided the Senate for standing ``passively mute . . . paralyzed by our own uncertainty,'' ceding its war powers to President Bush. Robert Byrd was, as we all know, a lot more than the guardian of the Senate. He was a major figure in the great panorama of American history over more than half a century. He was a thinker--thinking and reevaluating more in his eighties and nineties than many Senators do in a lifetime. He was an ardent supporter of the Vietnam war but surprised many with his fierce opposition to President Bush's invasion of Iraq. He was a protector of West Virginia's coal industry but came to accept the mounting scientific data of global warming and took part in finding a solution. To do otherwise, he said, would be ``to stick our heads in the sand.'' Robert Byrd cast more than 18,500 votes in the Senate--a record that will never be equalled. His last vote was June 17 against a Republican proposal to prevent the extension of unemployment benefits. Earlier this year, even with his health failing, he cast one of the most historic votes of his career in support of legislation to expand health care to all Americans--the life work of his old and departed friend Ted Kennedy. Whether he voted with you or against you, it was never hard ideology with Robert Byrd. He had no use for narrow partisanship that trades on attack and values only victory. I learned that as a candidate for President in 2004 when Senator Byrd came to my defense after opponents aimed religious smears at me. I was forever grateful to him for doing that. It all began one Sunday when Senator Byrd was home in West Virginia and found that a brochure had been inserted in a church bulletin saying that if elected President, I would ban the Bible. Senator Byrd exploded. ``No one side has the market on Christianity or belief in God,'' said this born-again Baptist. Later at a rally in Beckley, he accused my opponents of having ``improperly hijacked the issue of faith'' and said that the suggestion that I intended to ban the Bible was ``trash and a lie.'' But Senator Byrd was not done. He also went to the Senate floor to denounce this kind of politics: Paid henchmen who talk about Democratic politicians who are eager to ban the Bible obviously think that West Virginians are gullible, ignorant fools. They must think that West Virginians just bounced off the turnip truck. But the people of West Virginia are smarter than that. We are not country bumpkins who will swallow whatever garbage some high-priced political consultant makes up. That was Robert Byrd telling it the way he thought. Anytime Senator Byrd spoke, any of us who had the privilege of serving with him remember his speeches were filled with as many Bible references as historical references. When the Senator spoke, the Senate kind of came to a halt. Senators would lean forward and listen, as they did not necessarily do otherwise, and learn. It is fitting that this teacher in the Senate, this guardian of the Senate, will lie in state in this Chamber on the floor of the institution he revered and which also had so much respect for him. He is as much a part of this Chamber in many ways as the historic desks or galleries or the busts of Senate presidents. He ran for public office 15 times, and he never lost. He was first elected to the West Virginia legislature in 1946 and served three terms in the House of Representatives before his election to the Senate. It is no wonder that he was such a keen observer of politics. I remember when I decided to run in 2004, I went to talk with Senator Byrd. His advice, in fact, was among the first I sought. He advised me to ``go to West Virginia,'' ``get a little coal dust'' on my hands and face and ``live in spirit with the working people.'' In keeping with his advice, I did just that. What a great experience it was. He was deeply proud of West Virginia and its people. He proudly defended his work to invest Federal dollars in his State, the kind of spending that some people deride as pork. Robert Byrd knew it was something else. It was opportunity for his people. He took pride in the way that Federal funding helped to lift the economy of West Virginia, one of the ``rock bottomest of States,'' as he put it. He breathed new life into so many communities across that State with funding for highways, hospitals, universities, research institutes, scholarships, and housing--all the time giving people the opportunities that he knew so many West Virginians of his generation never had. ``You take those things away, imagine, it would be blank,'' he once said. Robert Byrd's journey was, in many ways, America's journey. He came of age in an America segregated by race. But like America, he changed, even repenting, and he made amends. Not only did he come to regret his segregationist past, but he became an ardent advocate of all kinds of civil rights legislation, including a national holiday honoring Dr. Martin Luther King. And in the end, Robert Byrd endorsed Barack Obama for President. ``I have lived with the weight of my own youthful mistakes my whole life, like a millstone around my neck,'' he wrote in 2008. ``And I accept that those mistakes will forever be mentioned when people talk about me. I believe I have learned from those mistakes. I know I've tried very hard to do so.'' That is the expression of a man with a big heart and a big mind. The moments that define most men's lives are few. Not so with Robert Byrd. He devoted his life to Erma and his family and to public service, compiling an extraordinary record of accomplishment and service in more than half a century in Congress. His mastery of Senate rules and parliamentary procedure was legendary. His devotion to his colleagues and to this institution was unequaled. And his contributions to his State and to the Nation were monumental. Robert Byrd spent most of his life making sure the Senate remained what the Founding Fathers intended it to be: a citadel of law, of order, of liberty, the anchor of the Republic. And in doing so, he takes his place among the giants of the Senate, such as Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun and, of course, his and our dear friend Ted Kennedy. May Robert Byrd rest in peace.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today, Congress takes an important and forceful step to address one of our most serious national security challenges to America and our allies. A nuclear armed Iran would pose an intolerable threat to our ally Israel, risk igniting an arms race in what is already one of the world's most dangerous regions, and undermine our global effort to halt the spread of nuclear weapons. These steps to increase pressure are necessary because Iran continues to defy the international community, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the U.N. Security Council. Iran's publicly disclosed stocks at its Natanz enrichment facility now include more than 2,400 kilograms of reactor-grade low enriched uranium. It is especially troubling that Iran has recently begun enriching small quantities of uranium to a concentration of around 20 percent, crossing yet another nuclear threshold. That is why, as part of a comprehensive and international effort to persuade Iran to alter its current dangerous course, we in Congress have worked together to pass tough new sanctions that will increase the cost that Iran must pay for its continued defiance. In particular, this legislation targets businesses involved in refined petroleum sales to Iran, support for Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, and Iran's nuclear program. It imposes strong penalties on those in the Iranian government who have abused the rights of their own people. It tightens the enforcement of those sanctions already on the books. And it takes important steps to ensure that companies receiving U.S. Government contracts are not also doing business that enables, directly or indirectly, Iran's nuclear program. This cannot be an American effort alone and, thankfully, it isn't. Our own efforts are now joined by U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929, as well as a range of follow-on efforts from European and other allies. It is very important that we work to ensure that all of these efforts are coordinated into a comprehensive strategy--and I am confident that we have done so. As we implement these new sanctions, expanding and preserving a muscular international effort must remain a priority. The joint explanatory statement accompanying the act suggests that, before exercising the 4(c)(B) waiver, a determination of sanctionability must be made. We understand that some may believe that the closely cooperating waiver may be available without a determination having been made. While different from the views in the joint explanatory statement, we accept that this may be a fair reading of the obligations under section 4(c)(B). In the face of a serious threat, Congress has put aside bipartisan divisions to act decisively. Even as we negotiated the details, we were united by a common goal: to bring maximum leverage to bear on Iran to change its behavior and abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions. It is important to note that the President's willingness to explore a diplomatic solution is a crucial reason why today it is Iran--not those who seek to pressure Iran--who is isolated. Recent experience suggests that neither sanctions nor engagement alone will convince Iran to abandon its nuclear program. Only by combining both pressure and diplomacy into a comprehensive and coordinated strategy will we have a chance at altering Iran's behavior. Finally, we do not seek to punish the people of Iran, but to persuade the Iranian regime to do what is in their best interests and the world's. These sanctions bring us one step closer to peacefully resolving this grave threat.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today Senator Lugar and I introduce, by request, a resolution of approval of the proposed agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation between the United States and the Russian Federation, which the President transmitted to Congress on May 10, 2010, pursuant to section 123 b. and 123 d. of the Atomic Energy Act. Pursuant to Section 130 i.(2) of that Act, the majority and minority leaders have designated Senator Lugar and me to introduce this resolution.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we have heard the arguments on both sides of this debate. But for all the discussion and all the rhetoric, the choice before us is really stark and simple. This is a vote and choice between recognizing the greatest environmental risk of our time or legitimizing the deniers. It is a choice between protecting the health of our families and the air we breathe or continuing a pattern of pollution that threatens our children and our communities. It is a choice between getting serious about policies that will put America on a real path to energy independence or increasing our Nation's oil dependency by 450 million barrels. The stakes for our country are enormous. And if you have any doubt about that, any doubt at all, look no further than what is happening in the Gulf of Mexico even as we debate this choice. Every hour on our television screens we are watching another tragic and costly reminder of the hazards of our oil addiction, all that from only a single accident at a single offshore oil well. In April 2007, the Supreme Court for the first time issued a ruling on the issue of climate change. The Roberts Court was asked to consider the Bush administration's refusal to issue greenhouse gas standards for cars and trucks. The case hinged on two key issues: (1) does the Clean Air Act authorize regulation of greenhouse gases and (2) if so, should EPA set emissions standards for motor vehicles. The decision by the majority in the landmark Massachusetts v. EPA case was conclusive on both fronts. The justices determined that ``the harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized,'' and they firmly and positively identified greenhouse gas emissions as the cause of those harms. In light of that assessment, they found that greenhouse gases ``fit well within the Clean Air Act's capacious definition of `air pollutant.' '' In light of that, the justices directed EPA to fulfill its obligation under the Clean Air Act to determine, based on scientific evidence alone, whether greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks pose a threat to human health or welfare. This ``endangerment finding'' was finalized in December of last year. The resolution under consideration today, S.J. Res. 26, seeks to overturn this finding and permanently prohibit EPA from ever issuing a similar determination, regardless of the strength of the science and the urgency of action. This resolution is not based in substance or in fact. We know that the threats of climate change are widespread, compelling and urgent. In fact, on May 19, the National Research Council, our Nation's leading scientific body, declared in its most comprehensive study to date that the evidence of climate change is ``overwhelming.'' They urged ``early, aggressive, and concerted actions to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.'' However, the resolution we are debating today would achieve precisely the opposite goal. We are being asked to literally vote down the science, squander billions of barrels of oil savings, and shirk our responsibility to address the greatest energy, national security, and environmental challenge of our time. By invalidating the scientific finding that greenhouse gases pose a threat to human health and welfare, this resolution would remove the legal basis for the landmark agreement that was reached last year to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, this agreement is on track to save American consumers a total of $34 billion and create 263,000 American jobs in 2020. This agreement also takes a tremendous step toward energy independence by reducing our oil consumption by 1.8 billion barrels. By removing EPA's authority to jointly implement these regulations with the Department of Transportation, this resolution comes at the very steep cost of 450 million barrels, almost one quarter of these oil savings. And, that is just the minimum amount by which this dangerous resolution will increase our oil dependence. In light of President Obama's recent announcement that the administration plans to extend the vehicles standards beyond 2016, the prohibition on EPA action will eliminate significant additional opportunities in the future to reduce our Nation's oil consumption, increase our energy security, and draw a bright line between ourselves and those nations that would do us harm. So why are we being asked to affirmatively reject a scientific finding based on ``overwhelming evidence'' and potentially billions of barrels of oil savings? Congress, we are told, needs more time to develop energy and climate legislation and the Federal Government must be stopped from making any progress in the interim. As someone has been meeting with my colleagues now for over a year, sitting down with all the stakeholders, I am struck by the irony that many of the proponents of this argument are the very same people who at every opportunity have avoided engaging in a serious legislative effort to tackle these issues. On the one hand, they say it is a job for Congress not the EPA, then they stand in the way of Congress doing the job in the first place. And they stand in the way even at a time when we have brought together an unprecedented coalition of industry and environmental support for action in this Congress. If you do not want the EPA to act, but you will not let Congress lead, when are we going to solve this challenge? Here is how Ron Brownstein, one of the keenest observers of Washington, summed it up: ``It's reasonable to argue that Congress, not EPA, should decide how to regulate carbon. But most of those Senators who endorsed Murkowski's resolution also oppose the most plausible remaining vehicle for legislating carbon limits: The comprehensive energy plan that Senators John Kerry, D-Mass., and Joe Lieberman, ID- Conn., recently released. Together, those twin positions effectively amount to a vote for the energy status quo.'' Let's not kid ourselves. The Senate has never solved a problem by delaying. And on the issue of climate change, we have delayed action too long, for two decades we have stood still. We have stood still while other countries race ahead, while we lose market share in a global market, and while China and India create jobs and profits racing ahead with technology that Americans invented. Mike Splinter, the CEO of Applied Materials, crystallized our choice in his May 25 op-ed. He said, ``Our failure to act has consequences. Ten years ago, the U.S. accounted for 40 percent of worldwide solar manufacturing. Today that figure is less than 10 percent. Meanwhile, China has gone from producing five percent of the world's solar panels in 2007 to nearly half last year . . . Over the next five years, China, India and Japan will out-invest the US in energy technology by at least three-to-one.'' And still here we are debating the science itself, still distracted by campaigns to foster the idea that climate change was ``theory rather than fact.'' That is the same campaign the tobacco industry waged for decades, arguing that the link between cigarettes and lung cancer was ``theory rather than fact.'' Well, you can delay the inevitable only so long. If you put science on trial, as they did in the famous Scopes Monkey trial in 1925, the truth will win out. And I will tell you the science on climate change is more definitive than ever and more troubling than ever. Globally, temperatures are at an all-time high, with the first decade of this century conclusively establishing as the hottest decade on record. Man-made pollution is acidifying our oceans at a rate at least 10 times faster than previously thought, creating inhospitable physical conditions for shell-building animals that serve as the basis of our ocean food chain. Sea level rise is threatening cities like Boston, where city officials are actively planning for how to manage 100-year floods that are now becoming 20-year floods, in the face of global sea level rise of three to six feet by 2100. Worsening drought conditions will create persistent drought in the Southwest and sharply increase Western wildfire burn area. And the National Academy of Sciences has confirmed that these damages may be irreversible for 1,000 years. Those who say we are not ready, we need more time, miss the fact that we know what we have to do and we know how to do it in a way that makes economic sense. We have debated bipartisan energy and climate legislation in the Senate for years, beginning in earnest with the McCain-Lieberman bill of 2005. The House of Representatives passed a comprehensive energy and climate bill nearly 1 year ago, and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee reported out a similar bill last fall. Over the last several months, Senator Lieberman and I, with the help of Senator Graham, built on these efforts to develop the American Power Act. Our legislation adopts the formula originally developed by Republicans and implemented by President George H.W. Bush, that environmental goals should be achieved at the lowest possible cost to American consumers and businesses. In fact, the nonpartisan Peterson Institute for International Economics just completed the first independent analysis of the American Power Act, and found that the bill would generate a decade of multimillion-dollar investments, creating 200,000 new jobs a year and reducing foreign oil imports by 40 percent. The study also says that because of the strong consumer protection provisions in the bill, American families will see a $35 net decrease in energy costs annually through 2030. The Senate can and must take action this year, and the American Power Act provides the foundation for getting the job done. I urge my colleagues who recognize the threats caused by our oil dependence to close the gap between words and action and join us in passing a bill this year. We have collectively kicked the can down the road long enough, and the Nation is less secure as a result. It is time to stand with 75 percent of the American people and pass energy and climate legislation that makes a meaningful and lasting difference. Before I yield the floor, I would like to make one final point. While many members have come to the floor today to eviscerate the EPA and create a caricature, the reality is that the Agency is taking a thoughtful, measured, step-wise approach to regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Administrator Jackson has logically committed to addressing the largest sources first: new power plants or factories that emit over 100,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions, or existing plants that undergo significant expansions representing over 75,000 tons, and they won't go into effect until over a year from now. Contrary to the wild claims you have heard today, these regulations will not impact small businesses or family farmers, and will remain focused on only the largest polluters for at least the next 6 years. Mr. President, protecting our environment does not have to be a partisan issue. On the first Earth Day in 1970, more than 20 million Americans, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, all turned out to protest the pollution of our environment. And later that year, President Nixon signed the EPA law because Republicans recognized as much as Democrats that we had to put an end to rivers catching on fire, Great Lakes dying, and air pollution so great that on some days here in Washington you could barely see the Capitol from Arlington Cemetery. It has been 40 years since we put the EPA in charge of cleaning up our water and air, and its track record is indisputable. Russell Train, the EPA Administrator during the Nixon and Ford administrations, emphasized in a recent letter opposing the Murkowski resolution that the economic benefits of the Clean Air Act have exceeded its costs 10 to 100-fold. But the resolution under consideration today would stop the EPA in its tracks, without any sort of alternative plan for addressing the greatest environmental threat of our time. Let's stop the demonizing and get to work. Today we should be debating how to craft comprehensive energy and climate legislation, not how to reverse the important progress that is underway. This amendment is a distraction. It is an excuse. It is time for the Senate to do what this institution was meant to do, and provide leadership on an issue that is crying out for it. I have been listening carefully to a whole bunch of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle come to the floor and talk about what this is not about. Every single one of them has laid out a rationale for doing away with something as if it were a regulation. They come to the floor and, frankly, there have been very few facts here, because I keep hearing about the tailoring rule of the EPA, that does not take effect until 2016, which lays out a whole process by which we normally do things. But we keep hearing our folks on the other side of the aisle say this is not something that Congress intended, or this is not something we should leave to the bureaucracy. Neither could be further from the truth. We created the law on which this is based. The Congress passed the Clean Air Act, and the Supreme Court of the United States, not a bureaucracy, made a fundamental health finding decision that, in fact, global climate change is happening, and that the pollutants of greenhouse gases are, in fact, included in what the Clean Air Act envisioned. The Supreme Court has dictated this policy, and they dictated it as a matter of health, not as a matter of some bureaucratic rule. We do not have a rule in front of us right now. We have a process by which the EPA is going to go through, determine what they may or may not do. I heard my colleague from South Dakota come to the floor and say: Well, all we are trying to do is delay this so Congress can act. This is going to be the great hypocrisy test resolution. We are going to see how many of those folks who are here on the floor saying: We need to leave it to Congress, how many of them are actually going to show up and vote to do what we need to do in order to change things. How many of them are going to be on the front lines trying to, in fact, make the things happen that have to happen in order to restrain greenhouse gases? We heard him say: We are just delaying this. No, they are not just delaying it. That is not true. Because under the Administrative rule act, when you reject a resolution, have a resolution of rejection, as this is, you are specifically not allowed to come back with the rule or anything like it. Let me read specifically from there. It says: A rule shall not take effect if the Congress enacts a joint resolution of disapproval. That is what this is. (2) A rule that does not take effect under paragraph 1 may not be reissued in substantially the same form, and the new rule that is substantially the same as such rule may not be issued. There it is, plain and simple, folks. That is what is happening here. This is an effort to permanently prevent the EPA from ever taking up the question of greenhouse gases and their right to restrain them. Let me read exactly what the Supreme Court said. This is the Supreme Court. And let me put a little politics history behind this. In 1999, under the Bush administration, the first Bush administration, they did not want to do this, for all of the same reasons people do not want to do it now. So people went to court to get them to do what they are supposed to do in the public interest. But it was challenged. It went all the way to the Supreme Court, and here is what the Supreme Court of the United States said. Greenhouse gases ``fit well within the Clean Air Act's capacious definition of air pollutant.'' So the Supreme Court of the United States, not a bureaucracy, found that the intent of Congress was properly being fulfilled in the effort to restrain greenhouse gases. What Senator Murkowski and colleagues are trying to do here is undermine the health finding. This, in fact, is represented by the Supreme Court. The Court found that climate science has already indicated that rising levels of greenhouse gases were warming and harming the Earth. They go through that reasoning. The Court then said they reviewed the history of the Clean Air Act and found that in 1970, Congress added a broad definition of ``welfare,'' including ``effects on climate.'' Finally, the Court found that the Clean Air Act's sweeping definition of ``air pollutant'' unambiguously includes greenhouse gases. That is why we are here today. What our colleagues are trying to do is prevent this from happening. They are repealing an entire health finding. It is kind of interesting. Look at the people who represent health in the United States: the American Academy of Pediatrics, Children's Environmental Health Network, American Nurses Association, American Lung Association, American Public Health Association, National Association of County and City Health Officials, Trust for America's Health, Physicians for Social Responsibility, National Environment Health Association, American College of Preventative Medicine, and on it goes. All of them are opposed to what Senator Murkowski is doing because it does not represent the health interests of the country. We have heard a lot of arguments, but for all the discussion and rhetoric, the choice before us is stark and simple. This is not a simple delay. This is brought to us by some of the same people who have resisted doing anything about many of these things for ages. Why is it that the United States is more dependent today on foreign oil than we were before September 11? It is because we haven't done anything to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We have an opportunity to do it now. This is about that. The same people have resisted changes through the years--resisted CAFE standards, resisted changing where and how we produce oil, a long list of things that have been prevented from happening. The American people today are paying $100 million a day to Ahmadinejad and Iran in order to buy oil because we haven't reduced it. The option is whether we are going to get serious about those other things. This is a vote between whether we recognize the greatest environmental risk of our time or whether we legitimize deniers of that. It is a choice between protecting the health of our families and the air we breathe or whether we continue a pattern of pollution that threatens our children and communities. That is what the EPA was set up to protect. It has protected that through the years. This is a question of whether we are going to get serious about policies that will put America on a path to energy independence or increase our Nation's oil dependence by another 450 million barrels. The stakes for our country are enormous. If Members have any doubt about that, every day on television everybody is seeing what is happening in the gulf, the result of one single accident, one single offshore oil well. In April of 2007, the Supreme Court, for the first time, issued a ruling on the issue of climate change. Some people don't like it. The Roberts Court was asked to consider the Bush administration's refusal to issue greenhouse gas standards for cars and trucks. The case hinged on just two things: Does the Clean Air Act authorize the regulation of greenhouse gases, and, if so, should the EPA set emission standards for motor vehicles? The decision by the majority was conclusive on both fronts. In light of that, the Justices directed the EPA to fulfill its obligation under the Clean Air Act to determine--I emphasize--based on scientific evidence whether greenhouse gas emissions for cars and trucks pose a threat to human health. On May 19, the National Research Council, which is our Nation's leading scientific body, declared in its most comprehensive study to date that the evidence of climate change is overwhelming. They urged early, aggressive, and concerted actions to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The resolution we are debating today would achieve absolutely the opposite goal. We are being asked to vote down the science, to squander billions of barrels of oil savings, and shirk our responsibility to address the greatest national security and environmental challenge of our time. Some may say, no; they are just trying to restrict the bureaucrats from doing this. Everybody understands what this battle is all about. By invalidating the fundamental scientific finding that greenhouse gases, in fact, pose a threat to human health and welfare, this resolution would remove the legal basis, the legal foundation for the agreement that was reached last year to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, this agreement, the agreement to which I am referring, is on track to save American consumers a total of $34 billion and to create 263,000 American jobs in 2020. The agreement also takes a huge step forward toward energy independence by reducing our oil consumption by 1.8 billion barrels. If we remove the EPA's authority to jointly implement those regulations with the Department of Transportation, then we lose the foundation for proceeding forward with that benefit. That is the minimum amount by which this resolution would increase our oil dependence. In light of President Obama's recent announcement that the administration plans to extend the vehicle standards beyond 2016, the prohibition on the EPA action would eliminate significant additional opportunities in the future to reduce our Nation's oil consumption, increase our energy security, and draw a bright line between ourselves and those nations that want to do us harm. Why are we being asked to affirmatively reject a scientific finding that has been based on overwhelming evidence, and why would we be asked to reject potentially billions of barrels of oil savings? We are told Congress needs more time to develop energy and climate legislation. The Federal Government has to be stopped from making progress in the interim. I have been meeting with my colleagues now for over a year at least, over 20 years that I have been working on this issue. The distinguished chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, similarly, and others, have been at this for a long time. I am struck by the irony that many of the proponents of this argument are the very same people who, at every opportunity, have avoided engaging in a serious legislative effort to try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or deal with climate change. On the one hand they say it is the job of Congress, not the EPA. Then they stand in the way of Congress doing its job in the first place. They stand in the way even at a time when we have built an unprecedented coalition of industry--the faith-based community, the national security community, businesses small and large, environmentalists, all of whom believe we now have a method by which we can grow jobs in our country, increase energy independence, and reduce pollution all at the same time. Let me share with colleagues what Ron Brownstein, one of the keenest observers of Washington, summed up in writing the following: It's reasonable to argue that Congress, not EPA, should decide how to regulate carbon. But most of those Senators who endorsed Murkowski's resolution also opposed the most plausible remaining vehicle for legislating carbon limits. I want to make sure we understand something as we do this. A lot of people have come to the Senate floor to eviscerate the EPA and create a caricature of that Agency, when that Agency, frankly, is taking a thoughtful, measured, stepwise approach to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Administrator Jackson has said she is committed to addressing the largest sources first, new powerplants or factories emitting more than 100,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions, and then going to those over 75,000 tons. None of that will even go into effect until a year from now through the normal administrative public process that we have set up for our agencies to represent us. It is astonishing to me that this has become a partisan issue. In 1970, 20 million Americans came out of their homes to march in the streets because they saw the Cuyahoga River in Ohio light on fire. They wanted to stop the pollution. We passed the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, marine mammal protection, coastal zone management. The history of the implementation of those acts has been to clean up rivers, clean up lakes, and see fish swim again where they didn't, to be caught again by kids who go fishing with their parents. We brought that back. Now we are trying to undermine the ability to continue that job, to make the health and welfare of our citizens better, and to lead the world with respect to these technologies. The United States is not leading in one of these technologies today. It is time for us to understand, we need to get our act together.

Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce legislation to designate the United States Postal Service in Sharon, Massachusetts, as the Michael C. Rothberg Post Office. Michael Craig Rothberg was born and raised in Sharon. Upon graduation from Sharon High School, Michael earned both undergraduate and master's degree in math and computer science from McGill University in Montreal. Unfortunately, Michael Rothberg's life was tragically cut short on the morning of September 11, 2001, at age 39, while working in his Cantor Fitzgerald office on the 104th floor of the World Trade Center. During his lifetime, Michael Rothberg created much more than a successful professional life. He used his resources generously contributing not only financial support, but also his time and energy for causes he believed in. He worked hard for causes such as the Dana Farber Cancer Institute's Jimmy Fund, the Multiple Sclerosis Foundation, and Mutual Funds against Cancer. His spirit is remembered through many contributions to the Town of Sharon through the Michael C. Rothberg Memorial Scholarship and other notable charitable contributions to students, athletes and the community of Sharon, Massachusetts. The people of Sharon, Massachusetts are very proud of Michael and the example he set. It is fitting then that when people go to or pass by the post office in Sharon, they will be reminded of a local man who understood how important it is to give back to causes that touch your heart.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce legislation to designate the United States Postal Service in Sharon, Massachusetts, as the Michael C. Rothberg Post Office. Michael Craig Rothberg was born and raised in Sharon. Upon graduation from Sharon High School, Michael earned both undergraduate and master's degree in math and computer science from McGill University in Montreal. Unfortunately, Michael Rothberg's life was tragically cut short on the morning of September 11, 2001, at age 39, while working in his Cantor Fitzgerald office on the 104th floor of the World Trade Center. During his lifetime, Michael Rothberg created much more than a successful professional life. He used his resources generously contributing not only financial support, but also his time and energy for causes he believed in. He worked hard for causes such as the Dana Farber Cancer Institute's Jimmy Fund, the Multiple Sclerosis Foundation, and Mutual Funds against Cancer. His spirit is remembered through many contributions to the Town of Sharon through the Michael C. Rothberg Memorial Scholarship and other notable charitable contributions to students, athletes and the community of Sharon, Massachusetts. The people of Sharon, Massachusetts are very proud of Michael and the example he set. It is fitting then that when people go to or pass by the post office in Sharon, they will be reminded of a local man who understood how important it is to give back to causes that touch your heart.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I wish today to mention the outstanding work of an ambassador who is leaving Washington after 4 years of distinguished achievement--Ambassador Oleh Shamshur of Ukraine. There is little doubt that he has made a major contribution to strengthening bilateral relations between our countries. Ambassador Shamshur was one of the senior negotiators of the United States-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership signed on December 19, 2008, which elevated relations between the United States and Ukraine to a new level. The charter is a living document and continues to guide cooperation between the two countries. On April 12, 2010, President Obama and President Yanukovych reaffirmed their commitment to the charter and expressed their intention to realize its full potential. Ambassador Shamshur also played an important role in the establishment of the United States-Ukrainian Strategic Partnership Commission and participated in its first inaugural session in December 2009. The commission has reinvigorated relations between the United States and Ukraine with an ongoing dialog and program of cooperation on issues of democracy, economic freedom and prosperity, security and territorial integrity, energy security, defense-related cooperation, the rule of law, and people-to-people contacts. During Ambassador Shamshur's tenure in Washington, Ukraine once more demonstrated its important leadership on the question of nonproliferation and arms control issues. Cooperation on these issues between Washington and Kyiv has been significantly enhanced. These efforts were conspicuous in the positive outcome of the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington. While in Washington, Ambassador Shamshur's accomplishments were not limited to issues of international security or geopolitics. Early on in his service here, the United States reinstated tariff preferences for Ukraine under the Generalized System of Preferences and granted Ukraine market economy status. The Ambassador was instrumental in the efforts that led to Ukraine's graduation from the Jackson-Vanick Amendment on 23 March 2006. The United States and Ukraine were also able to sign a bilateral agreement on market access issues, which became a key step in Ukraine's eventual joining the World Trade Organization. The establishment of the United States-Ukraine Council on Trade and Investment in March 2008 was also a result of Ambassador Shamshur's tireless efforts. This year, Ambassador Shamshur can also claim credit for the resolution of difficulties surrounding the operation of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation in Ukraine and its return to the Ukrainian market. Many of us on Capitol Hill and in the administration share an appreciation for Ambassador Oleh Shamshur's achievements. He leaves relations between Ukraine and the United States immeasurably stronger for having served here these 4 years. We wish him and the Ukrainian people well on the occasion of his departure.

Mr. KERRY

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

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I wish to send an amendment to the desk for the purpose of filing at a later time, if it is appropriate. Can they simply hold it at the desk?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the amendment I have sent to the desk is an amendment that is very important. It is important to us in Massachusetts, but it is also important to a certain number of companies in this country that may find themselves in a similar situation. I wish to express my strong support on the Senate floor tonight for the inclusion of this amendment in the upcoming House tax extenders bill. The purpose of this amendment is to fix a complete anomaly in the patent law that is vital to our State. Let me explain. The House provision that is being contemplated will allow for a patent application to be filed up to 30 days late, with a penalty to be paid by the filer to the Patent and Trademark Office. This provision has been drafted so that it can be included in the tax extenders bill. Let me explain why this is important and what it does. The Medicines Company, which is a New Jersey startup company, licensed Angiomax. That is the name of the product. It is a synthetic blood thinner. That company invested $200 million in R&D, and it gained FDA approval for this product. In 2001, the Angiomax's patent term restoration application was unintentionally filed after the close of business on the day of the filing deadline. It was filed electronically. Because it was filed electronically on the day of the deadline beyond the close of business in the office, in terms of daytime presence, it was deemed to be filed 1 day late. It was ruled as being filed 1 day late by the Patent and Trademark Office subsequently. I remember when I was in law school, people taught me often that sometimes the law can have a rigidity that has no common sense and no application to day-to-day life. We had a more pejorative term for what we called the law under those circumstances. The fact is, as a result, the Medicines Company lost almost 5 years of earned patent protection with a value of roughly $1 billion. As former Surgeon General Dr. Louis Sullivan said: The fate of this corrective provision could be a matter of life and death for tens of thousands of patients. The reality is that stark. As drug innovators develop pioneering medicines, the benefits available to patients are increasing. These medical innovators' ability to conduct lifesaving research should not be thwarted by a confusing filing deadline. That was the Surgeon General of the United States speaking. The provision I submitted in an amendment will simply allow for a patent application to be filed up to 30 days late, not just for this company but for any company in a similar situation, with a penalty to be paid by them to the Patent and Trademark Office. Is this something out of the ordinary? No, it is not. Existing patent law provides grace periods in up to 30 similar situations. But it provides no grace period for a late patent term restoration application, just one aberration within the framework of patent filings. This provision is consistent with the Hatch-Waxman patent restoration filing process and over 30 other provisions of patent law which provide for deadline adjustments in order to avoid precisely the kind of drastic and disproportionate result we see in this situation. The provision provides a modest 3-day grace period if the filing delay is unintentional. It also requires successful applicants to pay the U.S. Treasury a late filing fee to offset any cost to the Federal Government. Twice during the 110th Congress, the House passed legislation unanimously to correct this anomaly. The Senate Judiciary Committee reported a similar provision offered by Senator Kennedy on a bipartisan vote of 14 to 2. Unfortunately, these provisions were not enacted into law during the 110th Congress. During this Congress, despite the efforts of Senate Judiciary Chairman Leahy, the Senate has not found the moment to consider this critically needed patent reform legislation. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the provision will produce approximately $30 million in new revenues to our government over the next 10 years. Two recent independent economic studies confirm that the provision will save up to $1.3 billion in costs for the private hospital system over the course of the next 10 years. Nearly 50 of the Nation's leading doctors have written to Congress urging the enactment of this provision because it will allow lifesaving medical research in the treatment and prevention of heart disease and stroke--the first and third leading causes of death and disability in the United States--to move forward. Without this critical legislation, many thousands of patients will be consigned to continued medical treatment with antiquated drugs rather than safer, modern synthetic innovations. Unless the provision is enacted promptly, up to 3,500 jobs in 6 States may be lost, including up to 2,500 in the State of Massachusetts. These jobs include irreplaceable high-skilled jobs developed by small business medical innovators. At this moment in our economy, the last thing we want to do is strip ourselves of revenues, strip ourselves of income, strip ourselves of jobs, and leave our patients in a less cared for and potentially lifesaving environment than they would be with this. Mr. President, we can't afford to allow that to happen, and I don't think Congress should allow a bureaucratic misinterpretation of the law to hurt our Nation's public health and to cause severe job losses. The provision's enactment will prevent these job losses, and it will create new highly skilled jobs. The amendment provides a 3-day grace period for the filing of Hatch- Waxman patent term restoration applications. This provision of a grace period, as I said, is consistent with more than 30 other provisions of patent law. The bill corrects a harmful and confusing procedural anomaly that has caused 78 percent of medical innovators--78 percent--to miscalculate the deadline to regain the patent life they earned during the costly and rigorous FDA review process. So I reiterate: The current filing period is so confusing that only 22 out of 100 medical innovators have been able to calculate the law's 60-day filing period accurately. The current filing period is a trap for the unaware, and penalties are vastly out of proportion to the impact of having accidentally missed by a few hours, when you actually file correctly on the same day, the application that is due. Mr. President, I hope this amendment will be in the tax extenders bill, and I intend to fight to see that it is. I think it is an appropriate public policy decision in the best interests of our country and of the American citizens. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Veto Wasteful Spending and Protect Taxpayers Act of 2010 which establishes a constitutional line-item veto by creating an expedited rescissions process. Yesterday, the Obama administration unveiled the Reduce Unnecessary Spending Act of 2010. This legislation is very similar to my proposal which I first introduced in 2006. They both provide for an expedited rescission process. The line-item veto is not a panacea for record level deficits, but it will provide the President with the necessary tool to reduce wasteful spending. Both bills will give the President the ability to target projects that have been added in spending bills that benefit special interests or are not necessary. I applaud President Obama for addressing this issue. I have been a long-time advocate of the line-item veto. It has been a successful tool at the state level and I think it can effectively reduce spending on the Federal level. We have made progress with earmark reform and I think expedited rescission would result in further spending reductions. The major difference between my legislation and the Administration's proposal is that the Veto Wasteful Spending and Protect Taxpayers Act of 2010 would allow the President to suspend and propose cancellation for discretionary spending, new direct spending, and limited tax benefits. The Reduce Unnecessary Spending Act of 2010 focuses on discretionary spending. If we really want to tackle wasteful spending, I think we need to look at new entitlement spending and limited tax benefits, not just discretionary spending. In 1996, the Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law the Line Item Veto Act, P.L. 104-130. Two years later, however, in Clinton v. City of New York the Supreme Court concluded that the method used to give the President line-item veto authority was unconstitutional. The Court noted that presidents may only sign or veto entire acts of Congress. The Constitution does not authorize presidents to enact, to amend or to repeal statutes. We can restore the line item veto and be consistent with the Constitution. The key difference between what I am proposing and what the Supreme Court struck down is the legal effect of the President's actions. The Line Item Veto Act allowed the President to cancel provisions in their entirety, but the Supreme Court rejected this arrangement. My legislation will empower the President to suspend provisions until the Congress decides to approve or disapprove the suspension of that provision with an up or down vote. The provisions are not cancelled out of the legislation. I believe this change addresses the Supreme Court's concerns. My legislation also does not include a mechanism which allows a provision to be suspended for a lengthy time period. Under the Veto Wasteful Spending and Protect Taxpayers Act of 2010, the President has 10 calendar days to submit to Congress a special message. The President may transmit two messages per bill, but a provision may only be proposed for suspension or cancellation one time. The House and Senate would consider the special message under a special process which does not allow for amendments or motions to strike. I believe that the line-item veto is a valuable tool that should be made available to any President regardless of political party. For this reason, the Veto Wasteful Spending and Protect Taxpayers Act of 2010 is permanent, rather than sunsetting after a few years. It is time to reinstate the line-item veto. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to return to the President the authority to rein in wasteful spending.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations I report favorably the following nomination list which was printed in the Record on the date indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that this nomination lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.