John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I yield the Senator such time as he may use on behalf of Senator Bayh.

Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, in addition to Senator Lugar and Senator Levin, I believe Senator Webb is also an original cosponsor of this amendment. I believe this amendment is a responsible alternative to the amendment offered by Senator Brownback. This amendment appropriately takes note of and condemns North Korea's recent behavior as a threat to the northeast Asian region and to international peace and security. But in contrast to the Brownback amendment, which expresses the sense of the Senate that North Korea should immediately be relisted as a state sponsor of terrorism, the Kerry-Lugar-Levin-Webb amendment requires something to happen, not just a sense of the Senate that there might be a relisting. It mandates a report, a formal report, to be completed within 30 days, examining North Korea's conduct since it was removed from the terrorism list last June, including the evaluation of any evidence that North Korea has engaged in acts of terrorism or provided support for acts of terrorism or terrorist organizations. One of the reasons for requiring that is that in the Brownback amendment on page 3, section 9, line 21, it says: There have been recent credible reports that North Korea has provided support to the terrorist group Hezbollah, including providing ballistic missile components and personnel to train members of Hezbollah . . . Let me state unequivocally to my colleagues in the Senate: The most recent intelligence assessments of our intelligence community simply do not sustain this charge. In fact, President Bush specifically refuted that charge because it was an old one, and he refuted it last year. It would be the height of irresponsibility for the Senate to pass an amendment based on a finding that is false. It is important to have a report to the Senate that requires us to evaluate, that would have the administration submit to us precisely what the situation is. The report will also assess the effectiveness of relisting North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism for achieving our national security objectives; namely, completely eliminating North Korea's nuclear weapons programs, preventing North Korean proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and encouraging North Korea to abide by international norms with respect to human rights. Our amendment then expresses the sense of the Senate that if the United States finds that North Korea has, in fact--that we would know this within these 30 days--provided support for terrorism, then the Secretary of State should immediately relist North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism. It also expresses the sense of the Senate that the United States should vigorously enforce all existing unilateral and multilateral sanctions and consider the imposition of additional sanctions if necessary to achieve the policy goals with respect to North Korea. I believe it is an important, realistic amendment. I think it is tougher because it mandates some things specific, and it rightly condemns North Korea, as we have. Let me emphasize, the United States, this administration, has fully and rightly condemned North Korea's launch of ballistic missiles and its test of a nuclear weapon on May 25, 2009. We have led a strong international response to those provocations, and we succeeded in winning unanimous support from the United Nations for U.N. Security Council Resolution 1874, imposing sweeping new sanctions against North Korea. The sanctions mandated under the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1874 include not only a comprehensive arms embargo but also robust new financial sanctions on North Korean trading companies, and visa restrictions on North Korean officials engaged in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These sanctions have teeth. They are multilateral. And they are having an impact. A North Korean cargo ship suspected of carrying arms to Burma turned around after it was denied bunkering services in Singapore. The Government of Burma joined with us, and the government itself warned that the ship would have to be inspected on arrival in order to ensure that it did not have munitions onboard. The sanctions have had a bite. They are working. As strong as those measures have been, additional measures may be necessary, and this report will help us to evaluate that. But additional steps, including the relisting of North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism, ought to be based on a careful examination of the facts--that is how we ought to do things in the Senate--and an assessment of whether those sanctions are going to advance our interests. That is precisely what the Kerry-Lugar-Levin-Webb amendment mandates, and that is why it is actually a better sanctions policy than the alternative Brownback amendment. Let me add one last word. We are currently deeply concerned about the fate of two American journalists currently under detention in North Korea. The administration is engaged right now in sensitive discussions with the North Korean Government attempting to secure the immediate release of these two American citizens. For the Senate to suggest--on something we already know is factually incorrect but out of emotion and otherwise--that North Korea ought to be returned to the list of state sponsors of terrorism without regard to whether they have, in fact, engaged in acts of terrorism or provided support to terrorist organizations would be irresponsible with respect to those particular efforts and otherwise at this time. We ought to proceed according to facts. We ought to proceed in ways that best advance the interests of our country. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I will use, and I will be very brief. The Senator from Kansas just cited the Congressional Research Service report in his statement about Hezbollah. I am reading from a memorandum from the President of the United States. This is the Presidential report, certification, when he lifted the designation of North Korea. And he wrote--this is from the President-- Our review of intelligence community assessments indicates there is no credible or sustained reporting at this time that supports allegations (including as cited in recent reports by the Congressional Research Service) that the DPRK has provided direct or witting support for Hezbollah, Tamil Tigers, or the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Should we obtain credible evidence of current DPRK support for international terrorism at any time in the future, the Secretary could again designate the DPRK a state sponsor of terrorism. We have not received that evidence. We specifically request it. And contrary to what the Senator just said, this does not delay the report. It says: not later than 30 days after the passage. The report can come next week. The report can come in answer to the Senator's request. We would ask for that. Let's be accurate in this designation. The President of the United States said there is no credible evidence. And there is none to this date. Our report asks for whether any currently exists. That is the way the Senate ought to behave with respect to serious matters such as this. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of the time to the distinguished chairman of the committee.

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

Mr. KERRY. Is the Senator suggesting that the President of the United States in his letter of certification misinformed the American people and the Senate?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, if the Senator will further yield, does the Senator from Kansas believe this language: Our review of intelligence community assessments indicates there is no credible or sustained reporting at this time that supports allegations they have provided direct support-- Et cetera-- and should we have credible evidence of international terrorism at any time in the future-- The President clearly----

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on amendment No. 1761.

Mr. KERRY. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1597

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it would be both inconsistent and inappropriate to vote aye on both amendments for a couple of reasons. First of all, the amendment we just passed with 66 votes mandates that no later than 30 days after this is passed--it could happen next week, in 3 weeks--we are mandating the report from the administration with respect to whether there is evidence at this time of North Korea actually aiding or abetting or being a terrorist state. The most recent finding of the intelligence community says no. The President of the United States, George Bush, certified to us when he decertified them as a terrorist state that they were not engaged in any activities of aiding and abetting terrorism at that time in the world. There is no evidence within the intelligence community at this moment in time that says so. The Brownback amendment states that there is. So it is wrong, and it would be inappropriate for the Senate to base designating North Korea as a terrorist state on findings that do not exist, as well as doing so at a time when we are negotiating to get the release of two young journalists. This would be a completely inappropriate measure by the Senate at this time.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, obviously North Korea's actions in recent weeks--months, really; testing a nuclear device on May 25 and launching ballistic missiles on July 4--received the appropriate objection in many different ways of China, Japan, South Korea, the United States, and many other countries. Clearly, those actions threaten to undermine the peace and security of northeast Asia, and the U.S. response to those actions ought to be and, I believe, is already resolute. China responded very clearly. The sanctions have been toughened--individual sanctions for the first time. A number of steps were taken by both the United Nations and China. China, incidentally, has been unprecedented in the personalization of some of the sanctions that it has put into place. I know the Senator from Kansas cares, obviously, enormously about the underlying issue here. But I have to say this amendment, while well intended, simply does not do what it is supposed to do. It has no impact other than the sense of the Senate: sending a message which at this particular moment, frankly, works counterproductively to other efforts that are underway. Right now, the Secretary of State is meeting at ASEAN. Right now, the various countries involved in this delicate process are working to determine how to proceed forward with respect to getting back to talks and defusing these tensions. For the Senate just to pop on an amendment like this at this moment in time not only sends a signal that complicates that process, but I think it also, frankly, will make it more difficult to secure the return of two American journalists, Laura Ling and Euna Lee. It simply is an inappropriate interference without a foundation, I might add--without a foundation--in the law. Let me be very specific. When President Bush lifted the designation of terrorism--in fact, nothing that the Senator from Kansas has laid out here actually is supported either by the intelligence or by the facts. I could go through his amendment with specificity. Let me give an example. This is from the findings in his amendment: On March 17, 2009, American journalists . . . were seized near the Chinese-North Korean border by agents. . . . He is citing that as a rationale for putting them back on the list. Well, the fact is, the families themselves, as well as the two journalists--but the families--have acknowledged that they, in fact, were arrested for illegally crossing the border. So that is inappropriate. But not only is it inappropriate to cite a fact that is not a fact, but it is not a cause for putting somebody on the terrorism list. Nowhere do any of the actions cited here fit into the statutes that apply to whether somebody is designated as appropriately being on the terrorism list. Let me be more specific about that. When President Bush took them off the list, here is what they said. This is the President's certification: The current intelligence assessment satisfies the second statutory requirement for rescission. Following a review of all available information, we see no credible evidence at this time of ongoing support by the DPRK for international terrorism, and we assess that the current intelligence assessment, including the most recent assessment published May 21, 2008, provides a sufficient basis for certification by the President to Congress that North Korea has not provided any support for international terrorism during the preceding 6-month period. There is no intelligence showing to the contrary, as we come to the floor here today, and it is inappropriate for the Senate simply to step in and assert to the contrary. Moreover, the President said: Our review of intelligence community assessments indicates there is no credible or sustained reporting at this time that supports allegations (including as cited in recent reports by the Congressional Research Service) that the DPRK has provided direct or witting support for Hezbollah, Tamil Tigers, or the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Should we obtain credible evidence of current DPRK support for international terrorism at any time in the future, the Secretary could again designate DPRK a state sponsor of terrorism. Well, we have not. It simply does not fit under the requirements. We need to use the right tools. This amendment is flawed and I am convinced could actually undermine what I know is going on right now in terms of efforts by a number of different parties to try to move this process forward. This is not the way a responsible Senate ought to go about trying to deal with an issue with this kind of diplomatic consequence. The relisting, incidentally, has no practical effect in terms of anything it would do with respect to our current policy other than raise the issue with respect to the Senate at this moment but, as I say, inappropriately with respect to the statutes it concerns. President Bush actually preserved all the existing financial sanctions on North Korea at the time he lifted the terror designation, and he kept them all in place by using other provisions of law. The fact is, this administration has, in fact, responded in order to put real costs on North Korea for its actions. We led the international effort at the United Nations Security Council, and we did enact sweeping new sanctions on North Korea, and by all accounts they are biting. The U.N. Security Council resolution 1874, passed unanimously, imposed the first ever comprehensive international arms embargo on North Korea. Those sanctions are now beginning to take effect. A North Korean ship suspected of carrying arms to Burma turned around after it was denied bunkering services in Singapore, and the Government of Burma itself warned that the ship would be inspected on arrival to ensure that it complied with the U.N. arms embargo. So that is real. That is happening. Significantly, China has agreed to impose sanctions both on North Korean companies and individuals involved in nuclear and ballistic missile proliferation. So the sanctions that were recently imposed by the Obama administration, in concert with the international community, are having a real impact. So I think we ought to give them time to work. I do not think we ought to come in here and change the dynamics that, as I say, I know are currently being worked on by the Secretary of State. As we are here in the Senate today, those meetings are taking place. It is better for the United States and the international community to focus our efforts on concrete steps rather than resort to a toothless and symbolic gesture. This will have no impact ultimately because we are still going to go down our course, but it can ripple the process which the administration has chosen to pursue. I might also point out, the President and Secretary of State have been closely communicating with allies and with partners in the region. They are currently involved in discussions with China, Russia, South Korea, and Japan on this issue. Even as we debate the issue here, the effort at the ASEAN Forum is specifically geared to try to coordinate our approach with our treaty allies and with others. We ought to give the administration the opportunity to succeed. Third, obviously all of us reject the recent actions taken by North Korea. There is no doubt about that. But it was not so long ago that we were actually making some progress on the denuclearization effort. And observers of the region--those who are expert and who follow it closely--are all in agreement as to the rationale which has driven North Korea to take some of the actions it has taken. I was in China about a month and a half ago. I spent some time with Chinese leaders on this issue because one of the tests took place while I was there and I saw the Chinese reaction up close and personal. I saw the degree to which they were truly upset by it, disturbed by it, and took actions to deal with it. The fact is that they explained it, as have others, as a reaction by North Korea to perhaps three things: No. 1, the succession issues in North Korea itself; No. 2, the policies of the South Korean Government over the course of the last year or so; and No. 3, the fact that while they had nuclear weapons and had been engaged in a denuclearization discussion with the United States, most of the focus appeared to have shifted to Iran, and there was some sense that the focus should have remained where those nuclear weapons currently exist. So I believe we need to preserve diplomatic flexibility in the weeks and months ahead. There is an appropriate time for the administration to come to us. There is an appropriate way for us to deal with this issue, to sit down with the administration, to make it clear to them that we think we ought to do this, to talk with them about it, to engage in what the rationale might be under the law. But as I say, none of the reasons that are legitimate under the law for, in fact, a designated country as going on the terrorist list is appropriate or fit here. I think that is the most critical reason of all. I yield the floor.

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.

Mr. KERRY

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

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I further ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, earlier today, during the Democratic policy committee luncheon, we were privileged to hear from the CEOs of three of America's largest companies: DuPont, Siemens, and Duke Energy. It seems we are reaching that point in Washington where folks are starting to line up to argue ideological and nonfactual points of view with respect to one of the major issues facing our country. This is not unusual. Every great debate in history--certainly since I have been in the Senate and well before that--has always been subject to one interest group's or another interest group's interests. Those are often conditioned by phony studies, by one particular industry's funded study, almost inevitably always not peer-reviewed. So it is that we are beginning to see this kind of a lineup now as a response to the action taken by the House of Representatives, which passed climate change legislation, and a response to the schedule that the majority leader has put us on in the Senate with respect to this legislation. So I wanted to take just a couple of minutes and come to the Senate floor, and I intend to do this on a periodic basis over the course of the next weeks and months as we begin to think about our own approach in the Senate to this critical issue. Let me say to the Chair and to my colleagues that I hope we can all keep open minds so we will look at this in the context that it ought to be looked at, which is the national security interests, the security interests of our Nation; i.e, energy independence, the fact that we send hundreds of billions of dollars every year to parts of the world that doesn't wind up being invested in American jobs, in America's direct future and, in many cases, money which winds up in the hands of jihadists in one country or another and works against American competitiveness. That is one reason to think about this issue seriously. Another is that China, India, and other countries are taking this issue very seriously. Again, today we heard from the CEO of one of America's largest corporations. I think DuPont is one of the largest chemical companies in the world. The CEO said very directly to us that he is concerned about China's commitment as opposed to our commitment, and the fact that out of the top 30 solar, wind, and battery companies in the world, only 5 are in the United States of America. We are the country that invented many of these technologies, but because ideology trumped fact and reason in the course of the 1980s, the guts were pulled from the energy laboratory out in Colorado, and the United States lost its lead in photovoltaics, alternatives, renewables, to Japan, to Germany, and other countries. Ironically, as the Cold War ended and we had invested so heavily in that victory in the beginning of the 1990s, we saw the countries that had been locked in by the Communist bloc--the now Czech Republic, then Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, other countries that sought to undo the devastation of the command control policies that had spread ash within 50 miles of a powerplant so there was no living plant, and you couldn't grow anything and the rivers were polluted and the lakes and so forth, and they sought to undo that--where did they go for the technology? They went to Germany and Japan. We lost hundreds of thousands of jobs, economists currently estimate, by the blinders we put on that precluded us from buying into the future, from investing in that future. So I hope colleagues will look carefully at the economic realities that are staring at us right now. China is investing $12 million-plus per hour in a green economy. They are investing six times the amount of money of the United States of America. The Pew Foundation has found that from 1996, approximately, until 2007, the greatest job growth in our country came from the alternative renewable energy sector, from new technologies--about 9.1 percent, as opposed to the growth of about 3.7 percent or so that we saw in the normal job sector. In a State such as North Dakota, for instance, I think they have had about 30 percent growth in the alternative renewable energy sector, and they rank today 24th in the Nation in terms of wind power production. But the Wind Institute tells us they could be No. 1 because they have the best wind in the world--in the United States, at any rate--and they could produce 10,000 times the entire electricity needs of the State of North Dakota just from wind power alone. That is a huge amount of jobs to be created and a huge amount of money to be gained, a lowering of cost for their consumers, and we could go to other States around the country and find similar patterns, where there are very significant increases in the economic base of the alternative renewable energy sector to the exclusion of a very flat level--if not no growth--with respect to normal sectors of our economy. What is critical is that China--I just spent a week there about a month ago, purposefully going there to meet with Chinese leaders about global climate change. Obviously, I am as committed as any colleague in the Senate to creating an agreement with other nations that holds everybody accountable. Obviously, if the United States does this all by itself, it is not going to work. But China is sitting there saying the same thing: If we do this and the United States doesn't do it, it is not going to work. The problem is that the U.S. bona fides on this aren't very good. The fact is, we have been deniers of the existence of the problem, while other countries are proceeding to try to deal with it. The fact is, we were, until last year, the world's major emitter of global greenhouse gases. It is very difficult to go to other countries and say, you have to do this and that, and they look at us and say, what have you done about it? For countries in Africa and in the less developed world--Indonesia, parts of South Asia, and other places--they look at us and say: Listen, for the last 50 years, you guys have been creating this problem. We have not been able to develop, we are not a developed nation, and you are sitting there telling us we have to make up for the problem you have created, and now we have to spend a lot of money for it. The fact is, they are willing to be part of it, they are willing to be part of the solution, but the United States has to step up and show leadership and take action. The bottom line is this: If the United States doesn't step up and take action and show leadership, we are not going to get an agreement in Copenhagen and things will get worse. Some people will say: So what; maybe we will do it down the road. I have news for you--and this is absolutely substantiated in science, as well as in technology and economic modeling--if we don't do it now, every year we delay, it gets harder and more expensive and it gets more dangerous. If you really want to look out for the citizens in your States, do it now because it will be less expensive to do it now than it will be in the future. The real taxpayer protection effort here is to do climate change now. That is why, as I said, CEOs of major corporations in our country are saying: Give us certainty in the marketplace and give it to us now so that we know what our investments will be as we go forward and we can put together a business plan that is intelligent, thoughtful, and based on the realities of where the economy is going to go. Huge fluctuation in natural gas prices or in the price of coal or what is going to happen with respect to sequestration--all those things create enormous uncertainty. If you are a coal State, a coal interest-- and we have plenty of them here--you ought to step back and look at what is happening in the marketplace. Coal is under pressure now. We had Jim Rogers of Duke Energy tell us today that they have had a whole bunch of coal plants canceled. They have had them canceled on them by States that are refusing to proceed forward using coal. The fact is, a lot of States are turning away from coal. They are doing that because of the price issues but also because of the pollution issues. If you are a coal State and you want a future for coal, the way to protect that future is not to wait until the EPA regulates on its own, without coming to the table with help for the transition costs; the way to protect it is to recognize that you have to develop a clean coal capacity. The only way to develop a clean coal capacity is to get the allowances that come through a cap-and-trade system to be able to provide for a transitional support system that allows those companies to transition for the future. The fact is, in the bill that passed in the House--I don't know what the level in the Senate will be--there is a billion dollars a year for 10 years for clean coal efforts. So the best way to protect coal and protect America, ultimately-- because we have a lot of coal, and it would be wonderful if we were able to burn it but do it cleanly--is to commit now to a system where we are able to provide the support necessary to develop clean coal. The truth is that we know what happens if you don't make this a mandatory structure. In 1992, President George Herbert Walker Bush committed us to a voluntary protocol in Rio, at what was called the Earth Summit. I went there, together with other Senators, including Max Baucus, Frank Lautenberg, Larry Pressler, John Chafee, Tim Wirth, and Al Gore. We went as a delegation. The President came and gave a speech there, and we committed to a voluntary framework to deal with global climate change in 1992. Here we are, years later, and it hasn't worked. During the last 8 years, America's emissions of global greenhouse gases went up four times faster than during the 1990s. We have gone backward. While we are going backward, the science is coming back more and more compelling by the day. The Siberian Shelf Study, just released a few months ago, shows columns of methane rising from the ocean floor because the permafrost lid of the floor is melting, as it is on dry land in Alaska, where they voted recently to move the Nutak Village 9 miles inland. There are dozens of villages in Alaska that are now moving as a consequence of what is happening to the ice shelf and the rising sea levels. As the permafrost lid melts, methane is being released in Russia, the Arctic, and other places where it is exposed. Methane is 20 times more damaging than carbon dioxide. On the ocean floor, you have the columns of methane visibly rising through the ocean, and when they burst out into open air, if you lit a match, it would ignite. That is how potent it is. That is an uncontrollably dangerous potential threat to everybody unless we tap into it or learn how to do that or commit to some other methods of controlling this. The fact is, a 25-mile ice bridge that has existed for thousands upon thousands of years, which connected the Wilkins Ice Shelf to Antarctica, shattered, fell apart a number of months ago as a consequence of what is happening. A number of Senators have been up to Greenland and have seen the level of icemelt taking place on the Greenland ice sheet. That Wilkins ice sheet is floating in the ocean, and the Greenland ice sheet is on the rock. Many scientists worry that the river melt that is occurring underneath the ice sheet might, in fact, create a slide effect for massive amounts of ice that might break off and fall into the ocean. If the West Antarctic ice sheet melts and the Greenland ice sheet melts, that represents a 16- to 23-foot sea level increase. That is beyond comprehension in terms of what the impact of that would be. Just a meter of an increase, which is currently predicted for this century--and we are on track to actually meet or exceed that--just a meter means the disappearance of Diego Garcia, the island we use to deploy important supplies to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and to deal with other issues. That will disappear. Countries such as Bangladesh and many islands will disappear, including the coast of Florida. The threat is enormous. The piers in Norfolk, VA, are all cemented to the ocean floor. If that rises a meter, that will be a cost. You can run down the list of things that will begin to happen. The Arctic ice sheet had previously, a few years ago, been estimated to disappear by 2030 or so. Scientists are now telling us that we will have the first ice-free Arctic summer by the year 2013--4 years from now. That means a lot of different things. It can mean the change of ocean currents and clearly a change in the ecosystem. It means simple things like as more ice is melted and the ocean is opened up--the ocean is dark, the ocean absorbs sunlight. As the sunlight comes down directly onto the Earth, that is absorbed into the ocean rather than reflecting back up, as it used to, off the ice and snow. The result is that the ocean warms even faster, which accelerates what is happening in the Arctic and what is happening in Greenland. So there is a boomerang effect to all of this. It is ultimately what scientists call the ``tipping point.'' That brings us to the issue of urgency here. Why is this urgent? It is urgent because for years scientists have been telling us that you have to hold down the level of greenhouse gases to--originally, they said 550 parts per million. Then they revised that as new science came in and people realized things were happening faster than we thought. They revised it to 450 parts per million. Now scientists are revising again, and they are revising again because the rate at which the science is coming back tells us this is happening a lot faster than we thought and to a greater degree. Now they are revising it from 450 parts per million to 350 parts per million. Not everybody has accepted that, but that is going on. Why is that alarming? It is alarming because we are at 385 parts per million today. With the current rate of coal-fired powerplants coming online, the rate of increased emissions through new buildings and the lack of adequate standards on automobiles, and other things, we are pouring emissions into the atmosphere willy-nilly as if there is no tomorrow. Well, that could happen, the way we are going. The fact is, what is up there already--this is scientific fact. There is nothing that any opponent of global climate change has ever said or done or produced to indicate that this is not fact: Greenhouse gases live in the atmosphere for 100 to 1,000 years. As they live in the atmosphere, they continue to do the warming. So the warming we have done already has warmed the Earth by .8 degrees centigrade. So we can absolutely anticipate a compounding of that warming because the same amount or more is up there, and it is going to continue to do the damage. We don't know how to take it out of the atmosphere. So we are looking at a certainty of another .8 degrees. That takes you up to 1.6. And scientists are telling us the tipping point is at 2 degrees centigrade. I ask my colleagues to go look at the modeling that has been done by countless different groups around the world. This is not an American conspiracy somehow. This is not a Democratic or Republican thing. It doesn't have that kind of label on it. There are thousands of scientists who, for 25 years or more, have been drawing conclusions based on scientific analyses, and scientists--if you are a good scientist, you are also conservative, because all of the proclamations or findings you make are subject to peer review if you are a good scientist, if you are a legitimate study. The fact is, there are thousands of legitimate peer-reviewed studies that document what is happening in terms of the impact of global climate change. There are zero--not one--peer-reviewed studies that deny those thousands--not one. For all the industry studies you hear, all the scary tactics, like Chicken Little, saying the sky is falling, and the numbers that are put out, no peer-reviewed study supports an analysis that what the scientists say is not happening. We are looking at the potential here of catastrophic implications, which is why the United States needs to move. The science is one thing; you can put it over here. But what is happening is that other countries have committed to this. Their presidents, their prime ministers, their environment ministers, their finance ministers--all of these people have come together and made a commitment for those countries. They are moving. They accept the science. They also accept the dynamics of the marketplace. They want to be leaders in solar, leaders in wind, leaders in alternatives, renewable, biofuels--you name it. The fact is, unless the United States seizes this economic opportunity, we are going to lose the chance to be leaders in one of the greatest markets in history. The market that led us to great wealth during the course of the 1990s in the United States was the Internet and data management systems. That market was about a trillion-dollar market and about a billion users at the time during the 1990s, at least when we saw great wealth created. The energy market is a $6 trillion market with about 4.5 billion users, many of whom are potential users in places such as India, where solar could light a small village and run electricity pumps where they have no water today and no pumps and no development. There are countless things that could happen as a consequence of this that would have profound consequences on elimination of poverty, which has profound implications on eliminating jihadism in places all around the world. This is an opportunity to change the paradigm, if you will, into which we have been locked. The United States needs to lead. I want those batteries made in Detroit and countless other cities across this country. I named Detroit because we have the skilled workforce. The automobile industry is hurting. We should be building the cars for America's high-speed rail system there. We should be building the batteries there, not in China. We should be developing these technologies. These are ongoing jobs that repeat for the future, and they cannot be exported. What can be exported is the technology itself, which we have an ability to go out and sell to other countries, which is good for the American marketplace. As these weeks go on, we need to talk about this. I want to come back to one particular component. I want to underscore the national security implications. In 2007, 11 former admirals and high-ranking generals issued a report from the Center for Naval Analysis saying that climate change is a threat multiplier with a potential to create ``sustained natural and humanitarian disasters on a scale far beyond those that we see today.'' In 2008, a national intelligence assessment echoed those warnings from inside our own government. GEN Anthony Zinni, former commander of our forces in the Middle East, was characteristically blunt in addressing this threat. He says that without action ``we will pay the price later in military terms, and that will involve human lives. There will be a human toll.'' The estimates of the intelligence community and those looking at the national security implications are that we could have in a few years as many as 200 million climate refugees. We have an internally displaced issue today in Pakistan. We have it in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other countries. We can have environmentally displaced people who are forced to move because they cannot produce food because they lose water. The problem of failed states will only be compounded as the instability that comes with those moving populations and the challenges of providing for those people grows. Believe me, American ingenuity, American military capacity, American lift, American medical capacity, American food aid--all of these things will be called on. And unless we act now, they will be called on to a greater degree than is necessary. So climate change, in fact, injects a major new source of chaos, of tension, of human insecurity into an already volatile world. It threatens to bring more famine. I invite my colleagues to talk with the developmental people in so many of these countries about the problems they are having today growing crops, about the change in rainfall, about the lack of water, about the desertification that is taking place in places such as Darfur. Time magazine had a headline a couple years ago: Do you want to prevent the next Darfur? Get serious about climate change. There are linkages here, and it is essential for us to understand the costs. None of the modeling that has been done to date tries to estimate the cost to the consumer, and that is a concern. In fact, there is an enormous amount of money being put on the table through the allowances to cushion this impact so that American citizens are not paying more for electricity and not paying more as a consequence of these changes. I believe there is a minimal cost. But the truth is that cost has not even yet been properly represented because no model to this date shows the impact of energy efficiencies in America that will reduce the cost for families. No study properly shows the cost of technology advances that will reduce the cost for communities and families. And no study shows the cost to the American consumer of doing nothing. If the United States does not do this, believe me, that is a tax on Americans, and it is a lot bigger than the costs that are going to come affiliated with the transition to a new economy which is sustainable for the long term for our Nation. As we go forward, I want to say to colleagues a couple of concerns people have expressed about cap and trade and other issues. The marketplace: Will the marketplace abuse this? Can we trust the marketplace to function? The answer is, all of us have learned some very tough and bitter lessons as a result of lack of regulatory oversight of the 1990s and the last 8 years. So we are going to have in our legislation in the Senate, which is not in the House, some mechanism by which--I am not going to go into all the details now because we are not going to lay out all the details of what we are going to do. But we are going to address this concern of market regulation in order to adequately guarantee transparency and accountability as we go forward. There are other concerns people have expressed. As the next days go on, we are going to show day for day exactly what the real costs are, what the real opportunities are, and how we can proceed. I close by saying that here is the choice, really, for us as Americans and as human beings. Let's say that the people who have no peer-reviewed studies at all, that people who want to be in the flat Earth caucus, or whatever, and argue this is not happening, let's say they are right and we are wrong and we do the things we are going to do because we think they are the right things to do. What is the downside? The downside is that America would have led the world in terms of technology because every other country is already doing this. Anybody who sits there today and says: What about China, what about China, ought to go to China and see what China is doing. China is determined to be the world's No. 1 producer of electric vehicles, and they are on the way to doing it. China has tripled its wind power goals and targets. China is putting in place right now a 20-percent reduction in energy intensity, and they are ahead of the curve in almost every sector but one and meeting and exceeding that goal. We are not doing that. They are doing that. China is the leader in wind and solar technology. China has a stronger commitment on automobile levels of emissions than we do, and it is going into effect before ours. I have talked with a number of well-respected observers, both in business and in journalism, who have been to China recently, and they have come back shaking their heads and saying: If we don't get our act in gear, China is going to clean our clock, and we are going to be chasing China in 3 or 4 years. If you are concerned about holding China accountable to a system, we better put something in place because that is the only way we are going to get a mechanism in Copenhagen that is going to help hold everybody in place. Here is the bottom line. If we don't get that mechanism, the President is not going to send anything up here, and we are not going to pass it at that point. We are not going to accept some global system that does not address this globally. We have been through that with Kyoto. The fact is the United States has to do what it has to do in order to make Copenhagen happen, in order to lead the globe in this effort. I hope our colleagues will recognize that. What else will happen if we are wrong and they are right? We will have cleaned up the air. We will have better health quality in America because we will have better air quality because we will have reduced particulates in the air by reducing global emissions. The largest single cost of children's health care in the course of the summer in the United States of America is children being committed to hospitals because of air quality, asthma attacks, in the course of the summer, and it is rising as a problem in our country. It will have reduced hospital costs, better quality of air, better health. What else is a downside of doing this correctly? We will have created millions of new jobs. We see that happening right now. Think of what happens when we set a global target and when the United States sets its own national target and businesses say: Hey, there is money to be made there. We have better transmission lines so we can send electricity produced from solar in Nevada or in Oklahoma or Texas, or somewhere, and you can sell it to the rest of the country because it can actually be transported there. The minute we do that, the private sector is going to say: Wow, that is worth investing in because we can make a return on our investment. Look at the size of the market. Today we cannot do that because we cannot send it around the country because we don't have a transmission system that allows us to do that. The worst that would happen is we move down the road to have cheaper electricity because we can move it from alternatives, renewables all around the country, have a smarter grid, and have the ability to reduce costs for Americans. What is another downside? Another downside is we might actually reduce poverty around the world because of technology advances. We might reduce the instability of countries and improve our own security, and we will reduce energy dependence because we will be able to produce our own energy at home and not depend on sending hundreds of billions of dollars to other countries in the Middle East and elsewhere. That is a downside. What is the downside if they are wrong? Catastrophe, absolute catastrophe because we go beyond the tipping point. I cannot stand here and tell you everything that is going to happen. But I read enough and have seen enough of what the scientists say are the potential impacts, and I have seen enough of those impacts already coming true. Just by evidence and common sense, you say to yourself: I don't want to put this to the test because there is no way to come back from it. There is no way to go over that tipping point and turn the clock backwards. That is the choice for all of us. I hope in the course of this debate we are going to have the kind of debate on the facts, on real studies, peer-reviewed studies, on analyses that make sense so we can make the kinds of judgments that the Senate deserves and that the American people deserve. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KERRY. Will these votes be 10-minute votes?

Mr. KERRY. I thank the leader.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, in order to reduce a 400,000 case backlog in disability claims, I am introducing legislation to make it easier for our veterans to enroll in Department of Veteran Affairs', VA, disability programs. Specifically, the Compensation Owed for Mental Health Based on Activities in Theater Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Act or COMBAT PTSD Act will change the definition of ``combat with the enemy'' so veterans can more easily be enrolled in PTSD programs. It has become apparent that the nature of modern warfare is vastly different than it was in previous generations. In the past veterans were confronted with an identifiable enemy, on a battlefield that was much more easily discernible. This is no longer the case forcing our military to adapt to the changes of the battlefield. They have done so admirably--their ability to shift from a force designed to deliver quick decisive blows to a full spectrum force has been extremely impressive. Every American can agree that the men and women in uniform today deserve nothing but the best resources available to them. Unfortunately, when our veterans return home they too often find a wait of approximately six months for their claims to the VA to be filed. This is unacceptable. It most certainly does not reflect the level of sacrifice and commitment that they have given to this nation. I know we can do better. During previous conflicts the definition of ``combat with the enemy'' was simply determined by an individual's appearance on the front lines. However, today's battlefields may not include a front line as they have in past conflicts. We are using a 20th century model to diagnose and treat individuals returning from a 21st century conflict. My legislation reflects these changes in conflict to ensure that our men and women in the military gain access to VA programs as soon as possible. It changes the VA's definition of ``combat with the enemy'' to include those that have served in a theater of operations, or in combat against a hostile force during a period of hostilities. This will more accurately reflect the current face of conflict. President Obama's recent increase in the number of VA claim processors is certainly a good start, but those of us in Congress need to do our part to support this effort. With nearly 400,000 claims unprocessed it is time that we expedite this process. The men and women who have served honorably in our Nation's military who need our help cannot return to a bureaucratic maze. I ask all my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, in order to reduce a 400,000 case backlog in disability claims, I am introducing legislation to make it easier for our veterans to enroll in Department of Veteran Affairs', VA, disability programs. Specifically, the Compensation Owed for Mental Health Based on Activities in Theater Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Act or COMBAT PTSD Act will change the definition of ``combat with the enemy'' so veterans can more easily be enrolled in PTSD programs. It has become apparent that the nature of modern warfare is vastly different than it was in previous generations. In the past veterans were confronted with an identifiable enemy, on a battlefield that was much more easily discernible. This is no longer the case forcing our military to adapt to the changes of the battlefield. They have done so admirably--their ability to shift from a force designed to deliver quick decisive blows to a full spectrum force has been extremely impressive. Every American can agree that the men and women in uniform today deserve nothing but the best resources available to them. Unfortunately, when our veterans return home they too often find a wait of approximately six months for their claims to the VA to be filed. This is unacceptable. It most certainly does not reflect the level of sacrifice and commitment that they have given to this nation. I know we can do better. During previous conflicts the definition of ``combat with the enemy'' was simply determined by an individual's appearance on the front lines. However, today's battlefields may not include a front line as they have in past conflicts. We are using a 20th century model to diagnose and treat individuals returning from a 21st century conflict. My legislation reflects these changes in conflict to ensure that our men and women in the military gain access to VA programs as soon as possible. It changes the VA's definition of ``combat with the enemy'' to include those that have served in a theater of operations, or in combat against a hostile force during a period of hostilities. This will more accurately reflect the current face of conflict. President Obama's recent increase in the number of VA claim processors is certainly a good start, but those of us in Congress need to do our part to support this effort. With nearly 400,000 claims unprocessed it is time that we expedite this process. The men and women who have served honorably in our Nation's military who need our help cannot return to a bureaucratic maze. I ask all my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today Senator Lugar and I introduce, by request, a joint resolution of approval of the proposed agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation between the United States and the United Arab Emirates, which the President transmitted to Congress on May 21, 2009, pursuant to section 123b. and 123d. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Pursuant to Section 130i.(2) of that Act, the majority and minority leaders have designated Senator Lugar and me to introduce this joint resolution.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, one of the best ways that the U.S. can gain understanding and appreciation of other cultures is through the arts. Exposing children and adults alike to the creativity of other countries enriches our own artistic talents and helps bridge the gap between nations. It is for those reasons my colleague Senator Hatch and I have introduced the Arts Require Timely Service, ARTS, Act. This legislation helps streamline the visa process and waive fees so that foreign artists and musicians can share their talents in the U.S. Currently, the visa process for visiting artists is slow and costly, often times prohibiting artists from coming to the U.S. to share their talents. Breaking down these barriers is important and we shouldn't let the politics of immigration interfere with expanding our cultural horizons. I am proud to stand with Senator Hatch and the Performing Arts Visa Task Force to try and help artists visit our country and inspire our communities. I hope our colleagues will join us and pass this sensible reform to expedite cultural exchanges and artistic expression.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, one of the best ways that the U.S. can gain understanding and appreciation of other cultures is through the arts. Exposing children and adults alike to the creativity of other countries enriches our own artistic talents and helps bridge the gap between nations. It is for those reasons my colleague Senator Hatch and I have introduced the Arts Require Timely Service, ARTS, Act. This legislation helps streamline the visa process and waive fees so that foreign artists and musicians can share their talents in the U.S. Currently, the visa process for visiting artists is slow and costly, often times prohibiting artists from coming to the U.S. to share their talents. Breaking down these barriers is important and we shouldn't let the politics of immigration interfere with expanding our cultural horizons. I am proud to stand with Senator Hatch and the Performing Arts Visa Task Force to try and help artists visit our country and inspire our communities. I hope our colleagues will join us and pass this sensible reform to expedite cultural exchanges and artistic expression.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will designate Quincy Homestead, a local and national treasure, within the boundary of the Adams National Historic Park. The Quincy Homestead, located in Quincy, MA, was constructed in 1686 by Edmund Quincy II and was called home by five generations of Quincys and is an important historical site for Massachusetts and the nation. It housed great Americans such as President John Quincy Adams, Oliver Wendell Holmes, and Dorothy Quincy Hancock, the first First Lady of Massachusetts. In the years leading up to the American Revolution, it also served as a meeting place for renowned American patriots including President John Adams, Josiah Quincy, and John Hancock. In addition to its historical significance the Homestead is also a pristine example of American architecture and represents its evolution over three hundred years. The Quincy Homestead was designated a National Historic Landmark in 2005. While a lot of passion and hard work has gone into the preservation and operation of this property, there is more to be done to enhance these efforts and to realize the full potential of this property. Adding Quincy Homestead to the Adams National Park will advance opportunities for educational and recreational activities at the Homestead and allow greater public access to its rich historic and architectural traditions. I believe this piece of legislation will help the citizens of Massachusetts and the American people to take much fuller advantage of this stunning, national landmark. I ask all my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will designate Quincy Homestead, a local and national treasure, within the boundary of the Adams National Historic Park. The Quincy Homestead, located in Quincy, MA, was constructed in 1686 by Edmund Quincy II and was called home by five generations of Quincys and is an important historical site for Massachusetts and the nation. It housed great Americans such as President John Quincy Adams, Oliver Wendell Holmes, and Dorothy Quincy Hancock, the first First Lady of Massachusetts. In the years leading up to the American Revolution, it also served as a meeting place for renowned American patriots including President John Adams, Josiah Quincy, and John Hancock. In addition to its historical significance the Homestead is also a pristine example of American architecture and represents its evolution over three hundred years. The Quincy Homestead was designated a National Historic Landmark in 2005. While a lot of passion and hard work has gone into the preservation and operation of this property, there is more to be done to enhance these efforts and to realize the full potential of this property. Adding Quincy Homestead to the Adams National Park will advance opportunities for educational and recreational activities at the Homestead and allow greater public access to its rich historic and architectural traditions. I believe this piece of legislation will help the citizens of Massachusetts and the American people to take much fuller advantage of this stunning, national landmark. I ask all my colleagues to support this legislation.