John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair. So developing countries are going to face similar costs. According to a major international initiative on ``The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity'', developing countries will spend an estimated $70 to $100 billion a year from 2010 to 2050 just to adapt to a two degrees Celsius change in global temperatures, with the majority spent on protecting infrastructure and coastal zones, managing the water supply, and protecting against the effects of floods. The ``grow now, clean later'' approach is no longer viable--if it ever was. Before you know it, one quarter of the world's land surface will bear the marks of soil erosion, salinization, nutrient depletion and desertification. Imagine what this will do to agricultural productivity and water supplies. Another way of looking at this is to consider not the cost, but the economic benefits of keeping our ecosystems intact. Back in 2005 the World Bank estimated the total value of the world's natural assets to be $44 trillion. The countries that manage their forests, agricultural lands, energy, minerals, and other natural assets are going to be the economic leaders in the 21st century, and they will be able to reap the benefits of the ecosystem services like coral reefs, which provide food, water purification, tourism and genetic diversity--services valued at $172 billion annually. And they'll be able to invest more in the ``intangible'' drivers of growth like human skills, education, and innovation. Mr. President, the message from all of this could not be more clear. Over 40 years ago, 20 million Americans--fully one-tenth of our country's population at the time--came together on one single day to demand environmental accountability. It was called Earth Day. And they didn't stop there. They elected a Congress that passed the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Toxic Substances Control Act. They created EPA. America didn't have an EPA until the 1970s when people said: We don't want to live next to wells that give us cancer. We don't want to live next to rivers that actually light on fire. So we made a huge transformation. We need Congress now to do what the science tells us we have to do, to do what our economists tell us we have to do, to do what common sense demands that we do: It's time for Congress to stand up and do its part on climate change. I don't know how many have read David Orr's terrific book, ``Down to the Wire: Confronting Climate Collapse,'' but it is important for everyone to understand his argument. Nowhere is the challenge of our moment more clearly expressed. He says: The real fault line in American politics is not between liberals and conservatives . . . it is, rather, in how we orient ourselves to the generations to come who will bear the consequences, for better and for worse, of our actions. As Orr reminds us, we are at a tipping point--and it is going to take leadership to respond to it. Unfortunately, we have been witnessing just the opposite. In a talking point memo to his fellow Republicans last summer, House majority leader Eric Cantor of Virginia took aim at environmental safeguards. Job killers, he called them, listing the ``top 10 job-destroying regulations,'' seven of which dealt with reducing air pollution from industrial incinerators, boilers and aging coal-fired power plants. Job killers? The facts just don't support that. The Labor Department, however, keeps close tabs on extended mass layoffs, and in 2010 the Department found that of the 1,256,606 mass layoffs, employers attributed just 2,971 to government regulation. That is only about two-tenths of 1 percent of all layoffs. In fact, decreasing carbon pollution actually presents a huge economic opportunity in terms of new jobs and innovation. For every $1 we spend, we get $30 in benefits. The U.S. environmental technology industry in 2008 generated approximately $300 billion in revenues and supported almost 1.7 billion in jobs. The air pollution sector alone produced $18 billion in revenue. If we're going to remake the world before 2050, and this is one area where I agree with my Republican friends, we're going to have to harness the power of the good old American market economy. And one way to do that is to put a price tag on carbon and other global warming pollutants. With a price tag, we more accurately reflect the consequences of these pollutants, not just for the environment but also for the quality of our lives and the health of our families. If we understand the consequences of our choices, especially in economic terms, we'll make better choices. One way to do this is to levy a pollution fee that reflects the true environmental cost of coal and oil. But there's no chance the current Congress will enact any tax, especially one on smokestack industries. Over the course of 2011, the Republican-controlled House held nearly 200 votes to weaken our environmental safeguards, including the bedrock legislation spawned by the very first Earth Day--the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, even the agency created to enforce those laws, the Environmental Protection Agency. If we don't use the market, the other option is, inevitably, direct regulation of carbon emissions by the EPA under the Clean Air Act. The conservative-dominated Supreme Court has already given the green light to the EPA to do this. But this invites even more bitterness and political partisanship. Besides, pricing pollution has already shown itself to be effective. During the 1980s, instead of imposting regulations, we used a cap-and- trade system to reduce the sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants that caused plant- and soil-destroying acid rain. The system included cash incentives to over comply: polluters received allowances for every ton of sulfur oxide under the limits, and they could trade, sell or bank the allowances. The system worked so well that regulated plants reduced emissions 40 percent more than required. There is every reason to believe some variation of that system would work just as well to curb carbon emissions. But anything related to or resembling ``Cap And Trade'' isn't the best rallying cry these days thanks to the concerted, cynical re-branding of the concept. But whatever rallying cry is used, the point is the time for action is now. We need a ``Million Man-Million Woman-Million Child'' March on Washington and the voting booths of America. We need people marching up the steps of the Capitol, pounding on the doors of Congress, demanding a solution to our climate crisis. We also know we need deadlines to instill a sense of urgency. There is a deadline coming up this week in Rio where they are now having Rio Plus 20, the 20-year anniversary of that meeting I referred to at the beginning. Much has changed since the first Earth Day summit back in 1992--and much of it for the worse. True, we're seeing innovation and entrepreneurship flourish in countries that were once considered among the poorest. We should celebrate that. But I'll tell you: Twenty years after Rio and 15 years after Kyoto, we are still further behind than ever. The science is screaming at us, and the planet is sending us an SOS. We obviously failed to be held accountable or to implement the commitments we put in place 20 years ago. Earlier this month, the United Nations Environmental Program issued the official summit report, which noted ``significant progress'' in only 4 of 90 environmental goals over the past five years. We can--and we must--do better. I spoke earlier of the need to take advantage of the green energy economy. Our best economists say to ward off catastrophic climate change, the green revolution has to happen three times faster than the industrial revolution did. I believe that is why America and the rest of the world are facing this moment of truth. Will we step up and put in place the policies that galvanize our green entrepreneurs, that drive development of new clean technologies, reenergize the economy, and tackle climate change all at the same time? We are the country that invented solar and wind technology, but the Germans, the Japanese, and the Chinese are the ones who are developing it. It is a tragedy. Today, of the top thirty companies in the world in solar, wind and advanced batteries, only six are based in the United States. If we do this right, I truly believe that the next four or five Googles will emerge in the energy sector. The question is not whether the twenty-first century economy will be a green economy--it has to become one, and it will. The question is whether it happens in time to avert catastrophe, and whether America will continue to lead. Accelerating the transition to a new energy paradigm is the most important single step the world can take in order to reduce the threat of climate change. And Rio is as good a place as any to make that happen. At the Summit, nations are expected to announce commitments to the Sustainable Energy for All initiative. Tackling the challenges of energy access, energy efficiency and renewable energy in an integrated way is absolutely essential. That's why a wide variety of stakeholders--from governments to businesses to civil society leaders-- have indicated that they will be coming to Rio with national action plans in hand that can be monitored over time as part of a new mission of the United Nations and its partners. I am convinced countries that take advantage of the opportunities are going to be the leaders of the 21st century. I have already seen that success in Massachusetts. Massachusetts was recently ranked first in the Nation in energy efficiency and clean energy leadership, edging out California for the first time ever. I think my State is an example of the speed in which we can turn things around. Our unemployment level just went down to the 6-percent level, and it is because we do have that diversity and we are moving in that direction. Now, obviously, the government alone can't solve this. Government can help create a structure. Private sector is the key. But we need to put in place the policies that send a message to the marketplace that we are serious about doing this. The bottom line is we need to face up to this challenge once and for all--not just as individuals or as separate interests but as a nation, with a national purpose. The Pew poll recently showed a 46-point gap between Republicans and Democrats on the need to protect the environment. And I'll give you one guess which party fell by 39 points in its support for protecting the environment since 1992. So I understand if there is a 46-point gap and we have had all this discounting and disinformation, this is going to be hard still. But David Orr is right on the mark: Our challenge is fundamentally political. It is not about budgets. It is not about regulations. It is about leaders in the country who are unwilling to deal with the truth about climate change and who have cowed the silent majority into submission with their contrived and concerted attacks without facts. I've spoken before about this country's crisis of governance and the dangers of being held hostage to one party's remarkably cynical and selfish drive for power that comes at the expense of all common sense. Today, we need a transformative moment in our politics. David Orr spoke to that in the book I already cited. He said: Our situation calls for the transformation of governance and politics in ways that are somewhat comparable to that in U.S. history between the years of 1776 and 1800. In that time Americans forged the case for independence, fought a revolutionary war, crafted a distinctive political philosophy, established an enduring Constitution, created a nation, organized the first modern democratic government, and invented political parties to make the machinery of governance and democracy work tolerably well. Colleagues, we have made transformative changes before, and there are other kinds of examples. We once burned wood for our fuel. Then we transitioned to relying on oil and coal, and now other things. We can make the leap to a mix of renewable energy sources--hydro, wind, solar, and others--but we need to set our sights on that next transformation. As the old saying goes from the Arab oil minister in the 1970s: The Stone Age didn't end because we ran out of stones, and the oil age is not going to end because we run out of oil. Truer words could not be spoken. In the end, the question is not whether we are going to pay for climate change; we are already paying for it--in warmer temperatures, rising sea levels, melting glaciers, floods, droughts, wildfires, decimation of animal and plant life, loss of crops, insurance on homes, increased storms. We are paying for it. The real question is whether we are going to walk a path that now addresses it in a responsible way and helps us break humanity's addiction to the easy way--to oil--and turn away from the other alternatives that face us that clean up our environment and create jobs. The question is whether we are going to suffer the consequences later on a massive, unpredictable scale in the form of environmental devastation, war, human misery, famine, poverty, and reduced economic growth for decades to come. I close by saying that the fork in the road points in two directions. The task for us is to take the one less traveled. At the height of the American revolution Thomas Paine wrote about the ``summertime soldiers and the sunshine patriots'' who abandoned the cause. The science has shown us, and continues to show us, that we cannot afford to be summertime soldiers. So in this time of challenge and opportunity, I hope and pray colleagues will take stock of this science, will take stock of the choices in front of us, will understand the economic opportunities staring us in the face. I hope we will confront the conspiracy of silence about climate change head on and allow complacence to yield to common sense and narrow interests to bend to the common good. Future generations are counting on us. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 19, 2012, at 10 a.m.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 19, 2012, at 10 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Forty Years and Counting: The Triumphs of Title IX'' on June 19, 2012, at 10 a.m., in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 19, 2012, at 10 a.m., in room SD 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Confronting the Looming Fiscal Crisis.''

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 19, 2012, at 2:15 p.m.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 19, 2012, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety of the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 19, 2012, at 10 a.m. in Dirksen 406 to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Review of Recent Environmental Protection Agency's Air Standards for Hydraulically Fractured Natural Gas Wells and Oil and Natural Gas Storage.''

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on June 19, 2012, at 10 a.m., in room SD 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Reassessing Solitary Confinement: The Human Rights, Fiscal and Public Safety Consequences.''

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I call up Senator McCain's and my amendment No. 2199.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading be dispensed with.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, Senator McCain and I, along with a strong bipartisan group of our colleagues, are offering this amendment to repeal the 2008 farm bill's catfish language. Our amendment would repeal this language because it is unfair to importers, it is costly to taxpayers, and it provides no food safety benefit. It is duplicative of the other programs, and it never received consideration or debate in the House or Senate and should never have passed in the first place. It doesn't make sense to have a catfish category for the regulation of fish, and then all other fish are in a completely separate category. The GAO concluded in its recent report: To enhance the effectiveness of the food safety system for catfish and avoid duplication of effort and cost, Congress should consider repealing provisions of the Farm Bill that assigned USDA responsibility for examining catfish and for creating a catfish inspection program. Five years later, they are still debating what a catfish is. This is entirely duplicative, a waste of time, and hurts consumers and processors. I hope colleagues will support us in this effort.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2309

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2187.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this is an amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Murkowski, Senator Brown, and others. In these very difficult economic times, we have also had a problem for the fishermen of the Northeast and in other parts of the country where the fishing stocks have been greatly reduced for a lot of different reasons, and a lot of fishermen are sitting there with their boats, where they are trying to get through the season in order to be able to fish in the future, with greatly restricted fishing capacity and availability. This is not unlike farmers who wind up with crops being affected by floods and other disasters, things that take place. All we are seeking is the ability to do away with an inequity in the law that denies fishermen access to a loan under Federal emergency loan standards for when an emergency arises and they need to have some ability to stay over. The Congressional Budget Office determined that this amendment has no score. There is no score. We believe commercial fishermen deserve access to the same type of assistance commercial farmers and other people in this country get. We hope colleagues will do away with this anomaly that denies them the ability to simply apply, through normal standards, for a loan.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President. Abraham Lincoln once spoke of our Nation as the last best hope on earth. On this World Refugee Day--the 11th of its kind and the 61st anniversary of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees--it is fitting that we give careful pause to remember that the responsibility attached to Lincoln's words does not end at our shores. Across the world, refugees need our assistance and our support. They look to America's voice and leadership to champion their plight--from the dusty plains of northern Kenya to the mountainous confines of Burma, Nepal and Southwest Asia. As we look around the world, there are, sadly, numerous refugee crises. In many cases, refugees exchange one set of dangerous conditions for overcrowded, unsanitary and even violent camps. Instability in Somalia is swelling the ranks of the world's largest refugee complex in Dadaab, Kenya, home to nearly 500,000 people. In the Sahel, more than 150,000 Malians have fled the conflict to neighboring countries, joining host communities that are already suffering from drought and hunger. To them, daily survival is a gamble. We also know that refugees and displaced populations can be the spark for large-scale violence, and today we face that very threat from the millions displaced from homes across the Middle East. Unspeakable violence in Syria has uprooted an estimated 500,000 people inside the country and driven tens of thousands more to Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq. Human security in Iraq continues to be a pressing concern, as our partners support hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries and over one million internally displaced persons. Of course, there are glimmers of hope. As Burma slowly and steadily opens its political system, we will look to the government to provide space for humanitarian action to assist those displaced by years of conflict. Have a thought for the Burmese refugee in limbo along the border with Thailand or the young ethnic Rohingya who is denied even the basic identity papers that connote official personhood. They, too, deserve our attention, compassion and support. In South Asia, more than 5.7 million Afghan refugees have returned home in the past decade, one of the UN's most successful voluntary repatriation operations. We must celebrate this achievement, even as we renew efforts to find durable solutions for the nearly 3 million Afghan refugees scattered across the region. In Colombia, where conflict has displaced an estimated 4 million people, our partners are helping the government to provide reparations and land restitution to affected individuals and families. We also continue to support the UN Relief and Works Agency in its efforts to provide assistance to millions of Palestinian refugees in the Palestinian territories and throughout the region. Above all, we must remember that these aren't just statistics. The plight of the world's refugee and displaced populations is a challenge to the humanity of every single one of us. Children who need proper nutrients and access to education, women who are at great risk of falling victim to gender-based violence, individuals with psycho-social needs after witnessing devastation--these realities prick our conscience from half a world away. Mr. President: Lincoln used to say that he ``tried to pluck a thistle and plant a flower wherever the flower would grow . . . `` Despite our trying times, we should remember all those who have planted the seeds of hope and opportunity where thistles would otherwise grow, from the State Department's Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration and its partners in the UN to international, faith-based and non-governmental organizations in the field. Let us also recognize the efforts of the organizations that provide guidance and services to give refugees resettled in the United States the opportunity to rebuild their lives here--and thank the communities across the country, including in my State of Massachusetts, who welcome them to their adoptive homes. Their legacy is ours, too. And the next chapter is waiting to be written.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Record 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, I am grateful we finally have been able to get the nomination of Mari Aponte confirmed. I thank Senator Menendez for managing for me. I thank our colleagues in the Senate for finally getting our nominee in place and confirming her to be the Ambassador to El Salvador. I think it is long overdue. She will do a terrific job, and I am grateful to colleagues that we finally have, in fact, confirmed this nomination. Mr. President, I understand I can proceed as in morning business.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I will do so, but I wish to speak with respect to an amendment on the farm bill for when we get back to that. I wish to call to the attention of my colleagues the fact that in 2008, the farm bill's conferees inserted a provision that transfers authority of the regulation of catfish, but only catfish--it was the only particular item singled out to be transferred--from the Food and Drug Administration to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The provision was not debated in either body. It is one of those things that, as we all know, people have increasingly gotten incensed about in the public as well as around here, in the Congress itself. Because it was transferred over to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the USDA subsequently published a proposal in order to carry out the new mandate it had been given to regulate catfish. But that proposal has remained, and properly so, stalled in the regulatory process. I say ``properly so'' because it serves no public interest, it is costly for taxpayers, and it is duplicative and confrontational with other entities that are engaged in that kind of oversight. As a result, it will invite trade retaliation abroad and put us on a train wreck, if you will, of sort of excessive regulatory conflict. Senator McCain and I have joined together, along with a bipartisan group of our colleagues, to offer an amendment, amendment No. 2199, to repeal the 2008 catfish language. If we don't repeal it, the USDA is going to try to continue to proceed forward in this regulatory train wreck. Let me give a little background. In February of 2011, the GAO cited the proposed catfish regulatory program--cited it as part of its report on those programs that were at high risk for waste, fraud, and abuse. Then, in March of 2011, the GAO again called this program duplicative as part of a totally separate report. Then, just last month, the GAO produced an extensive and detailed analysis of why this program is not only costly and duplicative but why it would have no food safety benefit. If it is not going to have any food safety benefit, it is costly, it is duplicative, the obvious question for all of us is: Why? What is going on here? All of us care about jobs in our communities. Every State is always vying to find a way to try to guarantee that the jobs it has are protected and that it is creating more jobs. We all understand that. So I don't have any animus against any particular Senator fighting to do that. In this case, a number of catfish producers in the South managed to get protection that takes care of them but hurts a lot of other folks in a lot of other parts of the country. So it may be good for catfish producers in a few places in the South, but it is bad for consumers in the United States generally because it raises costs, and it is very bad for seafood processors and for communities, in my State among others, but in other States in the country on the west coast and east coast. There are employers in my State that would like to process and distribute products that come from various other places, including abroad, and they ought to be able to do so in a free market, in an open market that is not protected and chopped up and diced and sliced in order to protect people inappropriately. Playing protectionist games with the rules and regulations and agencies is bad public policy. It is bad economic policy, particularly, and it is an invitation to our trading partners to do the same thing. And when they do it, we complain about it, and rightfully. As Senator Baucus, the chairman of the Finance Committee, has pointed out: U.S. agricultural products, including safe, high-quality Montana beef, face unscientific trade restrictions in many important markets. If we expect other countries to follow the rules and drop these restrictions, it is critical that we play by the rules and do not block imports for arbitrary and unscientific reasons. That is exactly what we are trying to undo with the amendment Senator McCain and I are bringing to the farm bill. The only reason this bad idea that was codified in 2008 has not yet become an active program is that--get this, Mr. President--the bill did not define the word ``catfish.'' So as a result, for the last 4 years, lawyers, lobbyists, public relations firms, foreign governments, legislators, and multiple Cabinet officials have engaged in a definitional debate over what qualifies a fish to be called a catfish and, subsequently, fall into this new regime. Well, it turns out that whether a fish is or is not a catfish is something that experts can actually debate for hours, believe it or not. It also turns out it does not matter because, according to the GAO, the FDA ought to retain jurisdiction over all fish, catfish and noncatfish alike, and that is the simplest solution. As I mentioned, apparently, you can debate forever about what kind of fish it is, and that is exactly what has been going on, as to whether it constitutes being a catfish. But this is very simple. The GAO put out a report in May of this year, and in the report the GAO could not have been more clear. They made it about as simple as they could in their statement, saying: Responsibility for Inspecting Catfish Should Not Be Assigned to USDA. A simple sentence. GAO, as we all know, gives nonpolitical assessments, is a watchdog, if you will, for the actions here in the Congress. In that report, they state: The proposed program essentially mirrors the catfish oversight efforts already underway by FDA and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Furthermore, since FDA introduced new requirements for seafood processing facilities, including catfish facilities, in 1997, no outbreaks of illnesses caused by Salmonella contamination of catfish have been reported. . . . Consequently, if implemented, the catfish inspection program would likely not enhance the safety of catfish but would duplicate FDA and NMFS [National Marine Fisheries Service] inspections at a cost to taxpayers. So I think that is pretty clear-cut. We need to repeal the 2008 farm bill language related to catfish. We need to let the American consumer decide from all of the safe food options that exist, let them decide what they want to consume. And, obviously, we have nothing specifically against catfish per se in any part of the country, and particularly the jobs. We all want the jobs. But they should not come at the expense of another part of the country, setting up a duplicative, completely wasteful, taxpayer-expenditure-duplicated program. Mr. President, in addition to that, I want to say a quick word about another amendment Senator Murkowski and I are sponsoring--my colleague, Senator Brown, is also a sponsor of it--and that is to resolve an important inequity that exists in the current law. We need to help provide desperately needed disaster assistance to fishermen in Massachusetts and around the Nation. It is not just for Massachusetts. I hope the managers of this legislation will let the bipartisan amendment receive a vote during the Senate consideration of this legislation. Everybody knows that in certain parts of New England and in places such as the State of Washington--I was out in Washington last weekend, in Seattle, they have a huge fishing industry--California, San Diego, various parts of the country, Louisiana, we have a lot of fishing. But, increasingly, those fishery resources are under pressure, and increasingly there is regulation in order to try to preserve the stocks. So fishermen who have fished for a livelihood for a lifetime are being restricted in the numbers of days they can go to sea, restricted in the amount they can catch. People have lost homes. They have lost boats. Whole lives have been turned topsy-turvy because of conditions beyond their control. Whether it is the ecosystem, Mother Nature, nobody knows, but it is no different from a drought in the Iowa cornfields or in other parts of the country. It is no different from a disaster that takes place when crops are wiped out. These folks are being wiped out. They are the farmers of the sea, the farmers of the ocean, and they farm sustainably. But they need help. Gloucester and New Bedford in Massachusetts are two of the largest fishing ports in our Nation, and the commercial fishing industry supports about 83,000 jobs in the State and $4.4 billion in revenue. But it is becoming harder and harder for these fishing families and for the smaller boats to survive. These small boat fishermen, particularly, are part of the culture of our State and of our region, and we want to try to preserve that. Last fall, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration announced a reversal in the most recent Gulf of Maine Cod Assessment. Within 3 years of each other, two radically different stock assessments have been issued--one saying the stocks are replenishing, another saying they are disappearing. And fishermen are whipsawed between these stock assessments and are told different things. In one, they think they can invest in their boats and in the future; in the next, they are being told: Sorry, folks, you are out of luck. Well, it should not be that arbitrary, and it certainly should not just whack them and abandon them. NOAA is now undertaking a new survey for next year because of the conflict of the surveys. So how are we going to help these people survive until next year? How are we going to help them get through those hard times and keep those boats, so if the word comes back that they can go back out to the ocean and continue their livelihoods, they are actually able to do that? My amendment simply expands the eligibility for the Emergency Disaster Loan Program--underscore loan; it is not a grant; it is a loan program--to include commercial fishermen and shellfish fishermen. That is all we are asking. It would allow fishermen to be eligible for a low-interest emergency disaster loan, available through the Department of Agriculture's Farm Service Agency. It is my understanding this amendment would have no score. Fishermen, as we know--many people saw ``The Perfect Storm.'' They risked their lives to go out and put protein, food on the tables of America. All you have to do is watch one of the shows--``Deadliest Catch''--to get a sense of what is at stake. I believe they are agricultural producers, like other kinds of farmers, and they ought to be treated with the same respect. We have put billions upon billions of dollars, often in grants, in emergency assistance, for one reason or another, to farmers across the States of the Midwest, Far West, and some in the Northeast, where we do have some farming, but usually it is in other parts of the country, and we have consistently voted to do that, to help people. We are asking our colleagues to treat our farmers of the sea with the same respect that others are treated in this country. We simply end an inequity in the law that does not provide a legal mechanism for people to be able to do what they would like to do, which is being able to legally help our fishermen with these low-interest loans. With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, as we approach Father's Day, I would like to take the opportunity to discuss an important men's health issue that has personally affected my family and the families of many of my colleagues in the Chamber. Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men. Every year, more than 200,000 men are diagnosed with prostate cancer, and more than 25,000 men die from it. When caught early, five-year survival rates are near 100 percent. But when this cancer is caught in later stages, the survival rate drops significantly to only 28 percent. African-American men are one and a half times more likely to get prostate cancer and two and a half times more likely to be killed by it than any other racial or ethnic group in the United States. As we move forward with better screening and treatment options, we must also close disparity gaps so all men have improved outcomes. This is why Senators Chambliss, Cardin, Akaka, Wyden and I are submitting a resolution to recognize the disproportionate occurrence of prostate cancer in African-American men. This resolution acknowledges the importance of health care coverage for prostate cancer screenings and the need for informed decision making between men and their doctors, taking into consideration the known risks and potential benefits of screening and treatment options. It also encourages Federal agencies to place a greater emphasis on education, awareness, and research focused on improved screening tools such as more effective biomarkers and advanced imaging. I would like to recognize the Prostate Health Education Network, PHEN, AdMeTech Foundation, and ZERO--The Project to End Prostate Cancer for their work on the development of this resolution and their ongoing advocacy to support innovative research that holds real promise in turning the tide against cancer. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to pass this important resolution.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, each year nearly 3 million youth receive mental health services to address a range of issues including depression, severe mental illness, and suicide prevention. When youth with mental health needs are treated early, with the most appropriate care for their situation, they are more likely to have positive outcomes during both their childhood and their adult life. I have worked with my colleague Senator Grassley on a bipartisan bill that will expand the Medicaid 1915(c) waiver to provide an option to serve children and adolescents with intensive home or community-based treatment services in lieu of being treated as inpatients in a psychiatric residential treatment facility. There are currently nine States participating in a 1915(c) waiver demonstration focused on children and adolescents, which expires in September of this year. Data has shown that the youth served through this demonstration waiver have had positive outcomes, have been able to stabilize, and have had significant improvement in mental and behavioral health. The waiver gives States more flexibility to offer the most appropriate mental health services for children on Medicaid. Without access to intensive home or community-based services, these children could otherwise be institutionalized. The waiver expansion will allow more States the opportunity to provide cost-effective care that best meets their children's mental health needs. In addition, this bill officially removes the outdated term ``mentally retarded'' from the Social Security Act and replaces it with the phrase ``intellectually disabled''. In 2010, the President enacted the bipartisan Rosa's Law which removed the words ``mentally retarded'' from federal health, education and labor laws. This bill takes the necessary step of removing this obsolete term from a significant portion of the U.S. Code. I would like to recognize Youth Villages, which has been integral to the development of this legislation. More than 30 organizations are supportive of this bill, including the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Association of People with Disabilities, American Psychiatric Association, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Child Welfare League of America, First Focus Campaign for Children, National Alliance on Mental Illness, National Council on Independent Living, and the Arc of the United States. I look forward to continued progress in improving mental health treatment options for our youth and ask all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, each year nearly 3 million youth receive mental health services to address a range of issues including depression, severe mental illness, and suicide prevention. When youth with mental health needs are treated early, with the most appropriate care for their situation, they are more likely to have positive outcomes during both their childhood and their adult life. I have worked with my colleague Senator Grassley on a bipartisan bill that will expand the Medicaid 1915(c) waiver to provide an option to serve children and adolescents with intensive home or community-based treatment services in lieu of being treated as inpatients in a psychiatric residential treatment facility. There are currently nine States participating in a 1915(c) waiver demonstration focused on children and adolescents, which expires in September of this year. Data has shown that the youth served through this demonstration waiver have had positive outcomes, have been able to stabilize, and have had significant improvement in mental and behavioral health. The waiver gives States more flexibility to offer the most appropriate mental health services for children on Medicaid. Without access to intensive home or community-based services, these children could otherwise be institutionalized. The waiver expansion will allow more States the opportunity to provide cost-effective care that best meets their children's mental health needs. In addition, this bill officially removes the outdated term ``mentally retarded'' from the Social Security Act and replaces it with the phrase ``intellectually disabled''. In 2010, the President enacted the bipartisan Rosa's Law which removed the words ``mentally retarded'' from federal health, education and labor laws. This bill takes the necessary step of removing this obsolete term from a significant portion of the U.S. Code. I would like to recognize Youth Villages, which has been integral to the development of this legislation. More than 30 organizations are supportive of this bill, including the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Association of People with Disabilities, American Psychiatric Association, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Child Welfare League of America, First Focus Campaign for Children, National Alliance on Mental Illness, National Council on Independent Living, and the Arc of the United States. I look forward to continued progress in improving mental health treatment options for our youth and ask all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to take a moment of the Senate's time to extend a 60th birthday greeting to a friend of mine, and a friend of the Senate as an institution, a voice in the private sector who has been a terrific public citizen, and a visionary in the business community who has always kept his eye on the future of his industry even when the present is extraordinarily challenging: Honeywell International CEO Dave Cote. On July 19, Dave will reach a milestone--he will be 60 years old. Zero to 60--and anyone who knows him can attest that as he enters his sixties, Dave is just getting started. Mr. President, Dave Cote exemplifies the best of what can be accomplished in corporate America--a one-man innovative force pushing us ahead in the global economy and, along the way and at the same time, proof positive that improving the health of our planet can be a job creator and a generator of economic activity. Under Dave's leadership, Honeywell has become a world leader in developing and producing technologies and products that save energy and strengthen the environment. From pioneering green jet fuels to reengineering wind turbines, from advanced energy metering to home solar panels, Honeywell is leading the way to the clean energy economy--an economy that could generate 4.5 million jobs over the course of a decade and save us tens of billions of dollars in energy costs. Long before many other corporate leaders recognized that profit and environmental protection can go hand-in-hand, Dave was pushing for alternatives to hydrofluorocarbons--HFCs--potent greenhouse gases. Now, the rest of the world is catching up. Just recently, Secretary Clinton announced she was making HFC reduction a priority through the Climate and Clean Energy Air Coalition to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants, and Honeywell is there, ready to race ahead with the alternatives we need. For Dave Cote, that is typical--because Dave is always one step ahead. I say this having had the chance to work unbelievably closely with him over the last couple of years. The sheer number of emails and phone calls we've exchanged, not to mention his regular presence in the Foreign Relations Committee's room in the Capitol, reflect his energy and his interest in trying to get Washington to deal in facts and respond to reality. They also exemplify why I love working with him--he is a roll-up-your-sleeves, no drama, get-it-done kind of guy. It also doesn't hurt that he is also a big Red Sox fan--he has Boston jerseys adorning his office at Honeywell--and he loves riding motorcycles--you can find him tooling around the Jersey suburbs on his Harley most weekends. In 2009 and 2010, Dave, Joe Lieberman, Lindsey Graham, and I spent long hours working together on an effort around a comprehensive climate change bill. And when we needed someone to help convey to some of our more skeptical colleagues the importance of acting quickly on this issue, we knew that Dave was one of the best, if not the best, in the business community to do exactly that. When we convened a group of CEOs to meet with other Senators in June of 2010, as part of the lead-up to designing the climate change bill, Dave stepped forward as a leading business voice in the discussion. And when we finally introduced the American Power Act, Dave was right by our side. I turned to Dave again last fall when I was serving on the Select Committee on Deficit Reduction. He was proud of his own service as one of the Republican members of the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles Commission, which had put together a bold blueprint of its own to wrestle with the tough choices of the deficit and our national debt. I agreed completely with Dave's view that we needed to act rather than put off doing something about our deficit. He said--and I quote--``The faster we act, the less painful it will be for everyone.'' But more than any specific policy, what I admired most was Dave's sincerity about the issue--his frequent, encouraging text messages and emails during the long hard slog of the so-called Super Committee, always exhorting me and the Democratic and Republican members of the Committee to go the extra mile, put ideology aside, and do what was right for our country. Rather than a ``moment of politics'' for the Congress, Dave urged us to act responsibly and reach a ``moment of truth.'' Mr. President, 60 is an age where many feel it's appropriate to start slowing down. But anybody who has ever met Dave knows that is not going to happen--he is anything but predictable or conventional, and he is not about to slow down, and that is good news for our country when it comes to this always thoughtful, always earnest public citizen. My hope--and my belief--is that Dave Cote will spend his sixties the same way he has spent his last decades: proving every day that doing the right thing can also be good business and good for our country. I wish Dave a very happy birthday, and I look forward to working with him for many years to come.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, approximately one in five Medicare beneficiaries--or 9 million people--purchase a Medigap supplemental insurance policy to protect against high out-of-pocket costs and to make health care costs more predictable. Current law includes a `guaranteed issue right' to Medigap for beneficiaries age 65 or older, which means they cannot be denied Medigap coverage or charged a higher Medigap premium because of their medical condition. Unfortunately, current law discriminates against Medicare beneficiaries with disabilities who are under age 65, as well as beneficiaries with kidney failure, End Stage Renal Disease or ``ESRD'' by denying them the same right that seniors have to guaranteed issuance of Medigap policies. This exposes individuals with disabilities and kidney failure to substantial out-of-pocket costs and poses a significant barrier to health care services. In the absence of equal opportunity and access to Medigap policies at the Federal level, 29 States have enacted guaranteed issue rights to disabled and ESRD beneficiaries. Individuals with kidney failure are subject to an additional discriminatory provision in federal law that prohibits Medicare ESRD beneficiaries from joining Medicare Advantage plans. They are the only group of Medicare beneficiaries currently denied the same Medicare choices as other Medicare beneficiaries. Today I am introducing the Equal Access to Medicare Options Act, a bill that improves coverage options to Medicare beneficiaries. My legislation would eliminate discriminatory treatment in the supplemental insurance market, bring more financial stability to Medicare beneficiaries with disabilities and ESRD with high out-of- pocket health care costs, and reduce reliance on Medicaid as the payer of last resort. Specifically, it would extend guaranteed issue of Medigap policies to all Medicare beneficiaries, including beneficiaries with disabilities and ESRD. It would ensure equal access to supplemental insurance for all Medicare beneficiaries, regardless of age, disability or ESRD status. Additionally, my legislation recognizes that Medicare beneficiaries need flexibility to adjust their coverage as changes to their plans are made. It would give guaranteed issue rights to Medicare Advantage enrollees if they decide to switch to traditional Medicare during an enrollment period. Today, if a Medicare Advantage enrollee learns of premium increases or benefit reduction in their plan, they have the option of returning to traditional Medicare but they have no assurance they can buy Medigap coverage if they do so. The Equal Access to Medicare Options Act would provide guaranteed issue to dual-eligibles who lose their Medicaid coverage and find themselves in traditional Medicare without the cost protections of Medicaid and without supplemental coverage options. Finally, this legislation would--for the first time--give beneficiaries with end- stage renal disease the option of enrolling in Medicare Advantage plans. I would like to thank the nearly 50 organizations who have been integral to the development of the Equal Access to Medicare Options Act and who have endorsed it today, including the California Health Advocates, Center for Medicare Advocacy, Dialysis Patient Citizens, Fresenius Medical Care, Medicare Rights Center, and the National Kidney Foundation. The Affordable Care Act prohibits discrimination based on health status in the private health insurance market, beginning in 2014. It is inconsistent and unconscionable for federal law to allow insurers to discriminate based on health status in the Medigap market. All individuals, regardless of their health status, deserve the same access to comprehensive and affordable coverage options. The reforms included in this legislation would finally end discriminatory Medicare policies in Federal law and would ensure that all Medicare beneficiaries regardless of their disability or age have equal opportunity and access to affordable Medicare options. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to achieve these goals in the context of health care reform.