To require the consideration of certain factors relating to global climate change.

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2007--Continued

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Maryland, Mr. Cardin, is recognized.

Amendment No. 1071 to Amendment No. 1065

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the previous
order be modified to provide that the amendment I intend to call up is
amendment No. 1071.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CARDIN. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set
aside, and I call up amendment No. 1071.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Maryland [Mr. Cardin], for himself, and
Ms. Mikulski, proposes an amendment numbered 1071 to
amendment No. 1065.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for the siting, construction, expansion, and
operation of liquefied natural gas terminals)

At the appropriate place in title V, insert the following:

SEC. 5___. SITING, CONSTRUCTION, EXPANSION, AND OPERATION OF
LNG TERMINALS.

Section 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403), is
amended--
(1) by striking the section heading and designation and all
that follows through ``creation'' and inserting the
following:

``SEC. 10. OBSTRUCTION OF NAVIGABLE WATERS; WHARVES AND
PIERS; EXCAVATIONS AND FILLING IN.

``(a) In General.--The creation''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Siting, Construction, Expansion, and Operation of LNG
Terminals.--The Secretary shall not approve or disapprove an
application for the siting, construction, expansion, or
operation of a liquefied natural gas terminal pursuant to
this section without the express concurrence of each State
affected by the application.''.

Mr. CARDIN. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Lieberman and Dodd
be added as cosponsors of amendment No. 1071.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, this amendment would restore the authority
of State and local governments to protect the environment and public
safety of the sitings of liquefied natural gas, LNG, terminals within
their own State. The amendment is drafted to be an amendment to the
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, which gives the Army Corps authority on
section 10 permits. The current law on the siting of LNG plants
basically allows the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to site
without the consultation or approval of State or local governments.
This amendment is an effort to restore federalism to the process of
siting LNG plants.
There are now dozens of proposals to site new LNG plants in the
United States. Some are being suggested to be sited near population
centers, which raises serious concern about public safety.
Let me point out that LNG plants and the tankers that bring in the
natural gas are very much targets of terrorism. Richard Clarke, a
former Bush administration counterterrorism official, said LNG plants
and tankers are ``especially attractive targets'' to terrorists. The
risks are great. We know LNG plants can spark pool fires, which are
high-intensity fires, extremely difficult to extinguish. CRS has
reported in the last six decades there have been 13 serious accidents
involving LNG plants, including one in the State of Maryland in 1979
that had a fatality associated with it.
Maryland has one of the six LNG plants in our country, and there is a
proposal to add another LNG plant in Maryland. AES Sparrows Point LNG
and Mid-Atlantic Express intend to site a new LNG plant at Sparrows
Point in the Baltimore metropolitan area. This is right in the middle
of a population center. It is opposed by the congressional delegation.
It is opposed by the Governor. It is opposed by the county executive in
the jurisdiction in which the LNG plant is to be sited. It is
unacceptable public safety, an economic and environmental risk. Yet
there has been no consideration given by the individuals who want to
site this plant to

[[Page S6093]]

the concerns of local government. It is totally up to FERC to make the
decision, and that is wrong. State and local governments should have a
meaningful opportunity to participate in decisions of siting LNG
terminals. That is exactly what this amendment would do.
I see the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public Works
Committee on the Senate floor. I respect her judgment as to the
importance of moving forward on this bill. This amendment, because it
hasn't been cleared, could add some difficulty to that process. It is
within the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee
on which I serve, and I hope our committee would hold hearings on this
issue and consider another vehicle which may be more appropriate than
the bill currently before us to deal with the appropriate input of
State and local governments on the siting of LNG plants. We have a
responsibility to do that. We have a responsibility to our communities.
We have a responsibility for public safety. We have a responsibility to
make sure it is done right. Allowing FERC to do that without the input
of State and local government is wrong.
I hope there will be another opportunity that I will be able to
either have a public hearing or an opportunity to discuss this
amendment further.
I am pleased several of my colleagues have expressed interest in the
amendment. This certainly will not be the last time I will have an
opportunity to talk about it.

Amendment No. 1071 Withdrawn

With that, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1089 to Amendment No. 1065

Under the previous order, there will now be 2 minutes of debate
equally divided on amendment No. 1089 offered by the Senator from
Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, the amendment is very simple. There are
three visitor centers now within 77 miles of the proposed site of this
visitors center. Thousands of people, tens of thousands of people in
Louisiana still live in trailers. We are going to add a fourth visitors
center, and that duplicates exactly the same thing in the area.
It may be a good idea. I am not against it. But how dare we spend
money and authorize a project when we haven't taken care of the folks
of Louisiana. All this says is, we set priorities. We make sure the
people of Louisiana are out of their temporary housing and into
permanent housing before we go about spending millions of dollars on a
visitor center. It has been stated that there would be no cost, as the
center has already been built.
I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an e-mail I received
today from the Corps of Engineers saying this center has not been built
and will, in fact, expend a great deal of Federal taxpayer money when
it is.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

From: Greer, Jennifer A HQ02
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 12:05 PM
To: Treat, Brian (Coburn)
Subject: Info
Brian, wanted to check in. I know people are working this,
but I am out of town and have a bit of trouble coordinating.
Just wanted to let you know we didn't forget. I will send an
update on status asap. Jennifer

From: Treat, Brian
To: Greer, Jennifer A HQ02
Sent: Mon May 07 21:41:09 2007
Subject: RE: Info
Thanks Jennifer. Any word on when we'll receive the
information?
I will be updating my boss in the morning and just wanted
to make sure.
Thanks again for your help.
Brian

From: Greer, Jennifer A
To: Treat, Brian (Coburn)
Sent: Mon May 07 21:51:59 2007
Subject: Re: Info
I think tommorrow. will stay in touch.

From: Treat, Brian
To: Greer, Jennifer A HQ02
Sent: Mon May 0722:44:24 2007
Subject: Re: Info
One other question. In WRDA, the bill is authorizing an
upgrade to the Morgan City, LA visitor center. Do you know if
the original type B center was ever built or if this is
merely changing the 86 authorization? Thanks.

From: Greer, Jennifer A
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 9:16 AM
To: Treat, Brian (Coburn)
Subject: Re: Info
Brian, the center was never built. Jennifer
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I hope we will do what we did on the last
amendment, which is to say no to it because, as we learned from the
Senators from Louisiana, this particular amendment is directed at the
local people who are willing to pay 100 percent for this center. The
fact is, Louisiana is never going to get on its feet if it does not
revive tourism. Let's face it. It isn't that we can say: Let's just
build the flood protection and worry about the visitor centers later.
There is a certain amount of linear thinking going on behind this
amendment and the one before.
This is the United States. We have to do everything; we can't just do
one thing. We have to build the flood protection, and we have to revive
Louisiana's economy. This is a rather mean-spirited amendment in the
sense that not even a penny of Federal money is involved in the
building of this particular center. I urge a ``no'' vote.
I yield back all time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mr. COBURN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1089. The clerk will
call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the
Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
Johnson), and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are
necessarily absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
DeMint), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), the Senator from
South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and
the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. Dole).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
DeMint) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. Dole) would have
voted ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 11, nays 79, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 164 Leg.]

YEAS--11

Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Craig
Crapo
Ensign
Hutchison
Kyl
Smith
Sununu

NAYS--79

Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Dodd
Dorgan
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Tester
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--10

Brown
Brownback
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Durbin
Graham
Johnson
McCain
Rockefeller
The amendment (No. 1089) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 5
minutes of debate equally divided on amendment No. 1086 offered by the
Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold.
The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, last week I spoke at length on my
prioritization amendment. I urge all my colleagues to support the
Feingold-McCain-Coburn-Carper-Gregg-Sununu- DeMint amendment.
This important amendment would help jump-start a process for ensuring

[[Page S6094]]

that limited taxpayer dollars go to the most worthy water resources
projects.
Right now, Congress does not have any information about the relative
priority of the nearly $60 billion authorized but unbuilt corps
projects. What we do have is individual Members arguing for projects in
their States or districts, but no information about which projects are
most important to the country's economic development or transportation
systems, or our ability to protect citizens and property from natural
disasters.
This amendment would create a temporary group of water resources
experts to do two things: (1) make recommendations on a process for
prioritizing corps projects; and (2) analyze projects authorized in the
last 10 years or that are under construction, and put similar types of
projects into tiers that reflect their importance. This would be done
with clear direction to seek balance between the needs of all States.
This information will be provided to Congress and the public in a
nobinding report. That is--Congress and the public get information to
help them make decisions involving millions, even billions, of dollars.
We need to get ideas on the table, and I think my colleagues will agree
that a report with recommendations to Congress is a good, commonsense
first step.
The New Orleans Times Picayune certainly does. Just yesterday, the
paper editorialized in favor of my amendment and stated:

Using objective criteria rather than political clout to
decide what should be done is a smart, reform-minded step.

This amendment also has the support of a number of taxpayer and
conservation groups.
I thank the chairman and ranking member for their efforts to retain
key reforms in the underlying bill; however, this is a critical reform
component and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield the floor.
<bullet> Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator
Feingold, along with Senators Coburn, Carper, Gregg, Sununu, and
DeMint, in offering this important amendment. It is designed to help
Congress make informed decisions on which Army Corps projects should be
funded based on our national priorities.
In August 2005, our Nation witnessed a devastating natural disaster.
When Hurricane Katrina hit the shores of the gulf coast, it brought
destruction and tragedy beyond compare; more so than we have seen in
decades. Almost 2 years later, the gulf coast is still trying to
rebuild and our Nation continues to dedicate significant resources to
the reconstruction effort. One of the many lessons we learned from
Katrina is that we must ensure that our Army Corps resources are being
used in the most productive and efficient manner possible. It is time
that this Congress took a hard look at how we are spending our scarce
Army Corps dollars and whether or not they are actually reaching our
most critical projects.
Our current system for funding Corps projects is not working. Under
today's practice, Members of Congress commonly submit requests for pet
projects important to their constituency, and those requests are
essentially horse-traded by committee and party leaders. Too often a
Member's seniority and party position dictates which projects will be
funded. Instead of relying on political muscle, we should fund projects
based on national priority. But under the current regime, requests are
made and filled without having a clear picture of how a project affects
the overall infrastructure of our Nation's waterways or where it fits
within our national waterway priorities. That shouldn't be acceptable
to anyone in this Chamber, and it isn't acceptable to the American
public.
Now, many of my colleagues are thinking, ``there he goes again,
railing against earmarks.'' But earmarks aren't the full story here.
There is a $58 billion backlog of Corp projects today, and the bill
before us proposes to add another $15 billion, according to the Office
of Management and Budget. Unfortunately, the Corps receives $2 billion
annually on average, so there is no way to fund most of these projects.
What is more troubling is that there is no way to know which projects
warrant these limited resources because the Corps refuses to tell
Congress what it views as national priorities. In fact, every time
Congress specifically requests a list of the Corps' top priorities, the
Corps claims it's unable to provide an answer. This is clearly
unacceptable and cannot result in the best interests of public safety.
The sponsors of this amendment are not the only ones who are
concerned. Let me quote Representative Hobson, former chairman of the
House Energy and Water Appropriations Committee, from his statement on
the floor on May 24, 2006:

Last fall, we asked the Corps to provide Congress with a
``top 10'' list of the flood control and navigation
infrastructure needs in the country. The Corps was
surprisingly unable or not allowed to respond to this simple
request, and that tells me the Corps has lost sight of its
national mission and has no clear vision for projects it
ought to be doing in the future . . . frankly, what is still
lacking is a long-term vision of what the Nation's water
resources infrastructure should look like in the future.
``More of the same'' is not a thoughtful answer, nor is it a
responsible answer in times of constrained budgets.

In February of this year, the National Academy of Public
Administration, NAPA, issued its report, ``Prioritizing America's Water
Resources Investments, Budget Reform for Civil Works Construction
Projects at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.'' The Report included the
following findings:

The present project-by-project approach, with lagging
project completions, on-again-off-again construction
schedules, and disappointed cost-share sponsors that do not
know what they can count on, is not the best path to
continued national prosperity.
The prioritization process is not transparent. At several
points, within both the executive and legislative branches,
the decision process is not sufficiently open or documented
so that the public can readily understand the reasons for
funding or not funding projects.
Larger questions emerged that bear on the future
sustainability of the nation's water resources . . . The
answer to these questions should begin with a fundamental
reassessment of national water resources needs, goals, and
strategies. It should end with a substantially reshaped
planning and budgeting process . . .

Our amendment is designed to address these problems and shed light on
the funding process. It would allow both Congress and the American
people to have a clearer understanding of where our funding should be
directed to meet the most pressing water infrastructure needs of the
country.
Last year, we proposed a related amendment during debate on the Water
Resources Development Act. While that amendment was intended to help
Congress make clear and educated decisions on which Army Corps projects
should be funded based on our nation's priorities, concerns were raised
about specific provisions of the amendment and it eventually was
rejected. Therefore, we have revised our amendment to address the
concerns we heard on the floor last July.
For example, there was concern that our previous amendment gave too
much power to the administration by placing the power of prioritization
in the hands of a multi-agency committee. The amendment before us
responds to those concerns by establishing an independent commission
that would review Corps projects that are currently under construction
or have been authorized during the last 10 years. These projects would
be evaluated by several commonsense, transparent criteria. They would
also be divided and judged within their own project category such as
navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, and environmental
restoration. Each project category would be broken into broad, roughly
equal-sized tiers with the highest tiers including the highest priority
projects and on down the line. The commission would prepare an advisory
report detailing its findings that would be sent to Congress and be
made available to the public. Similar to our prior proposal, the
prioritization report required under our amendment is an effort to
inform Congress, but it does not dictate spending decisions.

To more fully understand the need for a prioritization system, let's
consider funding for Louisiana in the fiscal year 2006 budget. The
administration's budget request included 41 line items or projects
solely for Louisiana that totaled $268 million. That works out to $6.5
million per project on average. The House Energy and Water
Appropriations bill included for Louisiana 39 line items or projects
totaling $254 million--again in the neighborhood of $6.5

[[Page S6095]]

million per project. The Senate bill included 71 line items or projects
to the tune of $375 million--averaging out to $5.3 million per project.
So, while even more money was proposed for Louisiana under the Senate
version, individual projects would receive less money and, inevitably,
this would result in delays in completing larger projects. This all
comes down to the real-world consequences of earmarking. Communities
actually lose under the earmarking practice.
Can we really afford long, drawn out delays on flood control projects
that people's lives depend on simply because too many members are
fighting to earmark projects important to them, but without the benefit
of how such projects fit into the country's most pressing needs? We
lack the information we need to offer us guidance in funding Corps
projects. Without such guidance, we will only further the risks to
public safety and continue to delay the timely completion of critical
projects. Now, some may believe that under our amendment smaller
projects will lose out. However, the size of the project has no impact
on the prioritization system. In fact, this objective system will help
find the hidden gems in the Corps project list and highlight their
importance.
It is time that we end this process of blind spending, throwing money
at projects that may or may not benefit the larger good. It is time for
us to take a post-Katrina look at how we fund our water resources
projects. Shouldn't we be doing all that we can to reform the Corps and
ensure that most urgent projects are being funded and constructed? Or,
are we going to be content with business as usual? As stated in a
letter signed by the heads of Tax Payers for Common Sense Action, the
National Taxpayers Union, and the Council for Citizens Against
Government Waste in support of our amendment:

Enough is enough . . . we need a systematic method for
ensuring the most vital projects move to the front of the
line so limited taxpayer funds are spent more prudently.

I commend Senator Feingold for his efforts to build on and improve
upon the Corps reforms that we've worked to advance during the
reauthorization debate. Corps modernization has been a priority that
Senator Feingold and I have shared for years, but never before has
there been such an appropriate atmosphere and urgent need to move
forward on these overdue reforms.
This important prioritization amendment has been endorsed by many
outside groups, including Taxpayers for Common Sense Action, National
Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, American Rivers,
National Wildlife Federation, Earthjustice, Environmental Defense,
Republicans for Environmental Protection, Sierra Club, and Friends of
the Earth.
The Corps procedures for planning and approving projects, as well as
the Congressional system for funding projects, are broken, but they can
be fixed. This amendment is a step toward a more informed public and a
more informed Congress. We owe the American public accountability in
how their tax dollars are spent. Literally, lives depend on it.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.<bullet>
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute 20 seconds, and I
will yield the rest of the time to Senator Inhofe.
I thank Senator Feingold for being a leader on Corps reform. I don't
view this amendment as reform. My colleague says we have to take the
politics out of the decisionmaking process. Well, the fact is, his
commission is a political commission appointed by the President,
appointed by the Speaker, the minority leader, and so on. So he is
taking the decisions, in many ways, away from us. Therefore, I call
this the ``we have met the enemy, and it is we'' amendment--taking the
power away from us to decide what is important in priorities and adding
another layer of bureaucracy in political appointees, who are now going
to slow things down.
We do have problems. It has taken 7 years to get to this point with
WRDA. There are checks and balances every step of the way. We have very
tough criteria in this bill. I know the occupant of the chair knows
that because he is on the committee.
Senator Inhofe and I have said the locals have to pay their share.
The cost/benefit ratio has to be in place. Everything has to be thought
through. The Corps has to make their report. They come to the
committees, and they go through authorization and appropriation.
I hope we will vote no on this amendment.
I yield to my friend.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, I agree with what the
Senator just said. We have plowed this field before. The votes were 88
votes against last time. Nothing has changed. I know the intentions of
the Senator proposing this are right, but the amendment assumes there
is one, and only one, correct rank list of projects, and we need to
have somebody else write it down. We already have the Corps of
Engineers going through and determining, as Senator Boxer said, what
the criteria is and why these things should be considered, and normally
it would then come to us. I think that is what we are supposed to be
doing; it is why we are elected. So now we would have, if we pass this
amendment, one more bureaucracy between the Corps and us. If there is
anybody on the conservative side who thinks it inures to anyone's
benefit to have one more layer of bureaucracy, then this is your chance
to vote for it.
I ask that you oppose this amendment.
I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the
Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
Johnson), and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are
necessarily absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
DeMint), the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. Dole), the Senator New
Mexico (Mr. Domenici), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
DeMint) would have voted ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 22, nays 69, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 165 Leg.]

YEAS--22

Allard
Bingaman
Burr
Carper
Casey
Clinton
Coburn
Collins
Corker
Dodd
Ensign
Feingold
Gregg
Kohl
Landrieu
Lieberman
McCaskill
Nelson (FL)
Sanders
Sununu
Voinovich
Webb

NAYS--69

Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Boxer
Bunning
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Chambliss
Cochran
Coleman
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Dorgan
Enzi
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kyl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Salazar
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Tester
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Warner
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--9

Brown
Brownback
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Durbin
Johnson
McCain
Rockefeller
The amendment (No. 1086) was rejected.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 20
minutes equally divided between the Senator from Connecticut and the
Senator from Nebraska prior to the time of taking up consideration of
the Kerry amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I would say it would be Senator Hagel
first, followed by Senator Dodd.

[[Page S6096]]

Mr. INHOFE. No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.

Iraq

Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, I rise today to address the issue of
Iraq. The debate on Iraq over the last few weeks in our country and the
Congress has been centered on conditions for America's continued
involvement in Iraq. Unfortunately, it has been defined by many in the
context of political winners and losers. Either President Bush wins or
Congress wins. That is not responsible legislation. That is not a
responsible approach to a serious issue such as a war, when today we
have crossed over to 3,400 Americans killed in Iraq.
The troops will get their money. They need to get their money. We
will find a center of gravity that will accommodate the President and
the Congress with the appropriate language or conditions for America's
continued involvement in Iraq. The question we need to focus on now is:
Where is Iraq headed? The answer will require an honest and clear
analysis of the facts, as the facts are on the ground in Iraq today.
I returned 3 weeks ago from my fifth trip to Iraq, and there is not
much good news in Iraq. There is no point unraveling the last 4 or 5
years of mistakes and bad decisions or assigning blame. We are where we
are. We are where we are, and we must get beyond the immediacy of today
and the debate over the conditions of our continued involvement. We
need to ask the question: What happens next? What happens in September
and October? What comes after, hopefully, a reduction in violence?
Where are we going in Iraq? How do we get there? Do we need a new
strategy in Iraq, new thinking?
As Secretary of Defense Gates has said, America's continued support
is not open-ended, and the American people have registered that fact
very clearly. Iraq is caught in a vicious complicated cycle of
violence, despair, and no solutions. This cycle must be broken.
American military power alone will not be the solution in Iraq. General
Petraeus and all of our military leaders have stated this.
Iraq's political system and leaders seem incapable of finding a
political accommodation to move Iraq toward a political reconciliation.
Our civilian and military leaders all agree there is no military
resolution. That is only a temporary holding pattern for the Iraqis to
find that new consensus of governance, and only a political resolution
in Iraq will sustain that new center of gravity and that new consensus.
Some strategic new thinking must be found in Iraq for our policies,
not unlike what Ambassador Carlos Pasqual, Larry Diamond, and many
others, have been thinking and writing about and putting forward over
the last few weeks. First we must take the American face off of Iraq.
Get America out of the middle of the Iraqi political process. We are
exacerbating, we are complicating the problem; not because we are not
well-intentioned and have not made tremendous sacrifices but because
the people of Iraq and the people of the Middle East believe we are
still an occupying power after 4 years in Iraq.
We must engage, as the Baker-Hamilton report recommended, Iran and
Syria. The Bush administration deserves credit in beginning the
engagement; however, it needs to be done in a regional framework, not a
series of bilateral talks with unclear or disjointed purposes and
objectives. The time has come to consider an international mediator for
Iraq--probably under the auspices of the United Nations--to begin a new
process for achieving some form of political accommodation in Iraq. The
Iraqis are obviously incapable of bringing that consensus, that
accommodation together. Only a credible and trusted outside influence
can bring this political reconciliation about in Iraq. If it can be
done, it will be up to the Iraqis to support it and to sustain it.
America cannot do that for them.
There are significant political, cultural, historical, religious, and
regional differences between Iraq and other countries that have had UN
mediators, such as Afghanistan, Kosovo, East Timor, and Northern
Ireland. But they have been tailored to work, and they have worked.
We have to understand we have no options in Iraq today. There is
chaos today in Iraq. We must change direction, strategy, and policy.
America can continue to support this process and help ensure the
success of this mediation, but we can't, and we won't, continue to be
the occupying power in Iraq.
America has an important strategic, geopolitical, energy, and
economic interest in the Middle East. It would be irresponsible to
abandon Iraq and other interests in the region. But if we don't find a
new direction soon, and a responsible and workable policy to help the
Iraqis find some core stability, bringing some political consensus,
America will leave and the Middle East could then erupt into a very
dangerous regional conflagration. Reality and clear new strategic
thinking being incorporated in a new direction and policy in Iraq is
now required. These are the essential dynamics the Congress must now
engage in--the Congress, with the President--and we must put aside the
partisan dynamics, the partisan difficulties and differences. War
should never be held captive to partisanship. It should never be a
wedge issue for either political party. This is too serious. It is very
serious.
As we enter our fifth year, with the kind of money and casualties we
have invested in Iraq, we must ask ourselves: Where do we go next? How
do we get there? I think that will depend on some bold new strategic
thinking, incorporating a new UN mediator we can support and frame and
be a part of, and taking the American face off of the political process
in Iraq. These are the issues we must debate and find consensus on.
I would hope as we work our way through the differences on the $100
billion in additional spending for Iraq and Afghanistan that we will
move to that next series of significant consequences and seriously find
a new strategy and policy for Iraq and America's interests in Iraq and
the Middle East.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, before he leaves the floor, let me commend
my colleague from Nebraska. He and I have worked on a number of issues
over the years. In fact, in my remarks--and I had no knowledge when I
prepared these remarks that I would be following my colleague from
Nebraska--I quote some of the statements he has made about the
situation in Iraq.
I commend him for his candor and his directness. He brings a lot of
experience and knowledge to these issues, and is as deeply committed as
anyone here to the well-being of our men and women in uniform,
regardless of where they serve. He has clearly pointed out what is
necessary here, not only the resolution of our military presence in
Iraq but, just as importantly, what comes afterward: How do we then
move beyond the military question to the political, diplomatic, and
economic issues that offer some hope to the Iraqi people and ourselves
for reemerging in peace and stability in that part of the world. I
commend him for his comments.
I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the Feingold-Reid-Dodd
amendment, which will come up at some point on this water bill under
arrangements that the leader has provided, along with others. I would
have preferred a freestanding proposal by my colleague from Wisconsin,
whom I am pleased to join today, but under the circumstances, I
recognize this may be the best opportunity we will have to actually
debate his amendment, and I urge my colleagues to be supportive of his
proposal. I realize it is a proposal that has some critics, but I
believe it is the most honest, straightforward answer to the present
situation in Iraq, one that is deteriorating by the hour, I would point
out.
We need to reverse 4 years of a failed policy by safely redeploying
our troops out of harm's way, out of the middle of Iraq's civil war.
Despite our best wishes, and our military's best efforts, we are unable
to solve Iraq's problems and their civil war. That has become clear. We
cannot do that with military force. That was the conclusion of our
military leaders 4 years ago, and they have never wavered in that
conclusion. There is not a military solution to Iraq's civil war.
After invading over 4 years ago, we still lack a coherent strategy,
and our

[[Page S6097]]

military presence has not improved the security situation in Iraq. The
valor, the determination, the courage of our service men and women has
been remarkable, and all of us in this Chamber, I believe, share that
view. Yet the situation in Iraq grows worse, literally by the hour.
This is simply unacceptable.
The President of our country contends now, as he contended for the
last 4 years, and I quote him:

Absolutely we're winning. Things are getting better. We do
have a strategy, but it just needs more time.

Those statements are false, unfortunately. We have no strategy in
Iraq, in my view, just a surge tactic in search of a strategy. We had a
surge in late 2005, and the result was the worst year of violence in
Iraq since the war began. We also had two additional surges in
Operation Together Forward I and II, and both of those surges failed as
well.
My colleague, Senator Hagel from Nebraska, recently argued, and I
quote him here:

The President's strategy is taking America deeper and
deeper into quagmire, with no exit strategy. The strategy to
deepen America's military involvement in Iraq will not bring
about a resolution in Iraq.

I wholeheartedly agree with that conclusion. As the Baker-Hamilton
report rightly concluded, there will be no military victory in Iraq.
Iraq's civil war cannot be solved with military force alone. Only
Iraqis can solve the quagmire now facing their country. Only Iraqis can
chose to reconcile, to reach power-sharing agreements, to govern and
police collectively, and to share the country's oil wealth.

But despite our best hopes that is not happening, and our military is
unable to make that happen. This is why the surge tactic is
fundamentally flawed. We cannot implement a military solution to what
is fundamentally a political conflict in that country.
I believe we have a moral obligation to protect Iraqis and to help
them reach these compromises, but we are not succeeding in doing that.
In fact, for 4 years now we have not succeeded in doing that as well.
An objective look at key indicators since our invasion will demonstrate
that the situation has steadily deteriorated each year under the Bush
administration. Whether you examine the number of civilian deaths, the
number of internally displaced refugees, the number of Iraqis who fled
their country, now in excess of 2 million, or in the amount of power
and water flowing into Iraqi homes, all of these indicators demonstrate
the overall situation in Iraq has not improved. In fact, it has
deteriorated during the last 4 years. That is why I believe we must
begin redeploying our forces out of Iraq within the next 120 days and
complete the redeployment within the next year.
That is why I also believe that simultaneous to redeployment, and
after the redeployment has been completed, we must conduct targeted
counterterrorism activities to protect the Iraqi population from
terrorists, to expunge al-Qaida from Iraq, and help ensure Iraq does
not become a terrorist safe haven. I note that while I agree with
Senator Levin that military readiness is currently lacking, I am
concerned by the waiver provisions included in the amendment of my
colleague from Michigan. It is true that due to the administration's
defense policies many U.S. combat forces are not mission ready, are not
adequately trained, and have not been given appropriate resting periods
between deployments.
I recently visited some soldiers at Walter Reed Hospital who had been
injured in Iraq. I asked them how much cooperation they were getting
from the Iraqi people and what their observations were.
Without quoting them directly, let me paraphrase their comments. They
said while the Iraqi people seem to be pleasant people and many seem to
be interested in doing what they could to be helpful, in too many
instances they pointed out that the civilian population knew where
these IEDs were, these roadside devices. They knew where the ``ammo
dumps,'' or the ammunition stockpiles were. Yet they never ever shared
this information with our military in the communities where we were
trying to provide security.
One soldier pointed out that we would spend a month and a half
cleaning out an area with problems, and an hour and a half after they
had left, things were right back where they were a month and a half
before. Those are their words, not mine.
We know hear that these missions, despite the Herculean efforts of
our military, are not getting this job done because of the raging civil
war in that country. But providing a waiver to the President under the
Levin amendment is tantamount, in my view, to re-authorizing the war.
It doesn't hold the administration or the Iraqi Government accountable.
It doesn't force a change in mission, and it doesn't begin to redeploy
our forces. Instead it allows the administration to stay the course,
full speed ahead, to use the words of Vice President Richard Cheney.
The Feingold-Reid-Dodd amendment provides the best means, in my view,
for changing our mission in Iraq.
As much as I wish we were able to secure Iraq ourselves, that the
surge would work, or that our military presence in Iraq would bring
about the compromises necessary, I think the evidence is clear it is
not happening, and it will not happen. The American people know this,
our troops who have served and sacrificed in Iraq know it, and I
believe the Iraqi people know it as well. Only when Iraqis themselves
decide they will no longer tolerate violence and destruction, only when
their leaders come together will this violence be reduced. That is what
needs to happen across that plagued country. The United States should
help where it can, by training and equipping reliable and accountable
Iraqi security forces that will serve the greater Iraqi nation, not
their own tribe or their own sect.
According to a recent CBS poll, 70 percent of Shiites and nearly all
of the Sunnis think the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq is making
security worse. The vast majority of Iraqis, regardless of their sect,
believe American troop presence in Iraq is making Iraq less safe.
Madam President, 78 percent of Iraqis oppose the presence of U.S.
forces on their soil, and 51 percent of Iraqis support attacks on
coalition forces. Slightly more than half of the population we are
trying to protect approve of the attacks on U.S. soldiers. That is just
not acceptable.
But it is not just the Iraqi public who want American forces out of
their nation. The Iraqi Government does as well. A majority of the
Iraqi Parliament recently signed a petition for a timetable governing a
withdrawal of American forces, and in a recent high-level meeting, Iraq
and its neighbors signed what they called the Marmara Declaration,
reaffirming this sentiment. They declared in this declaration that ``a
timetable should be established for the Government of Iraq to take full
authority and responsibility, including for security throughout the
country.''
The declaration went on to say:

The United States should commit to a comprehensive strategy
for responsible withdrawal, consistent with Iraq's security
and stability based on milestones and a general time horizon.

It also says:

Iraq's Armed Forces need to be nationally representative,
Iraq's police should be credible to its citizens, and
representative to the communities they serve.

The Feingold-Reid-Dodd amendment does just that. It does what the
Iraqi people and the American people want, and it does it in a
responsible way. This legislation mandates that the redeployment of
U.S. forces should begin, as I mentioned, within a 120-day period and
be completed within a year. Simultaneous to this redeployment, the
legislation calls for continued counterterrorism operations, and the
training and equipping of reliable and accountable Iraqi security
forces to take over the responsibility of safeguarding the Iraqi
population.
It is up to us to change the President's failed course in Iraq and to
hold our President and the Iraqi Government accountable. It is up to us
to mandate a change in direction, to begin to responsibly bring our
troops home, to continue to help the Iraqis battle terrorists, and to
train and equip reliable Iraqi security forces ,so Iraqis can police
their own country and decide their own future.
We cannot afford another day of escalation, $2 billion a week, $8
billion a month, lives lost, lives completely ruined in many cases. But
also what is happening in Iraq itself, with the dislocation of the
Iraqi people, the 60,000

[[Page S6098]]

who have lost their lives--the situation is not improving. A true
change in direction is needed. The price our Nation is paying, the
price our men and women in uniform are paying, is too high for a failed
policy, a policy that has not succeeded because it cannot succeed.
I urge my colleagues at an appropriate time when Senator Feingold
will offer his amendment to support this amendment. None of us can
guarantee it is going to produce the desired result of convincing the
Iraqi people what they should have been doing all along, instead of
proposing a 2-month vacation, but rather sitting down and trying to
come up with the political reconciliation for their country.
Our hope is by beginning a clear redeployment and setting a
termination date--this must or this may convince the Iraqi people and
their leaders that they should come to terms with their own political
future. For those reasons I urge the adoption of the Feingold
amendment.
I urge, as well, consideration of what Senator Hagel has suggested:
talking about moving beyond the military issue, to utilize the tools
available to us, the political, economic, diplomatic tools that are the
means by which we should try to achieve reconciliation. But a
continuation of our military presence under its present structure is
not working. It should come to an end. This is the best effort to
achieve that goal.
Again, I urge the adoption of the Feingold amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. I think the Senator from Massachusetts has a unanimous
consent request. I ask he be recognized for that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2
hours of debate. I don't think this is correct, the way I have been
given it. I think we had a unanimous request that we have 2 hours of
debate, initially equally divided, with 10 minutes to begin--the
Senator from Oklahoma will speak in response to the Senator from
Connecticut on Iraq. That will count against the time for the debate on
my amendment. Then after those first 2 hours, we would again equally
divide----
Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object, it is my understanding we
started out at 45 and 45. We are down now to 2 hours where you are
increased from 45 minutes to an hour. That would be equally divided. I
probably will yield back some of my time.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I may also. But this is an important
subject, and I do not want to get squeezed on the time.
I had originally requested 1 hour, initially, and then 15 minutes at
the back end, a half hour equally divided. I would like to stay with
that.
What we are really talking about is the difference of 15 minutes,
which I may or may not use. But I say to my friend from Oklahoma, I
think it is not asking too much of the Senate to have that protection
of the extra 15 minutes. If we don't use it, we can both----
Mr. INHOFE. Let me ask for clarification. What you are saying is,
instead of 2 hours equally divided, it would be 2\1/2\ hours equally
divided? I have no objection, with the understanding that I can count
against my time and talk for up to 10 minutes on the subject of Iraq.
Mr. KERRY. I have no objection to that. I propound that request: 2
hours of debate initially equally divided and a subsequent half hour
equally divided, and with the first 10 minutes to be taken by the
Senator counted against him to speak on Iraq. Then I add, if I may,
that no second-degree amendment be in order prior to the vote and, upon
the use or yielding back of time but not before 5:35 p.m, the Senate
would then proceed to vote in relation to the amendment; that the
amendment by agreement must receive 60 affirmative votes to be agreed
to; if it does not it would be withdrawn without further intervening
action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? No objection.
Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, first, I thank the Senator from
Massachusetts for working out this unanimous consent agreement. These
things are sometimes complicated. I know he has just as strong beliefs
about his amendment as I do in opposition. I think this will
accommodate it. Let me go ahead, if I might, and take a few minutes.
It would be disrespectful for me to walk in here and ask the last two
Senators who were talking what they have been smoking recently. I do
not understand how someone can say they came back a few weeks ago from
Iraq and then have a report like this. It is just incredible.
I have to say, I know I have been in the Iraqi AOR more than any
other Member of the House, any other Member of the Senate, anybody
else. I take this very seriously. I am on the Senate Armed Services
Committee. I spend time studying this issue, the most critical issue
facing Americans today, and that is this war on terrorism. It is one
that we are winning and we can win.
I have to tell you, I spent this last weekend with--it was my 14th
trip there. I was there. I was walking around, rolling around in the
sand in Anbar Province. I was shocked at what I saw. Maybe someone,
giving them the benefit of the doubt, if they have been there and it
has been a few weeks--maybe this really hasn't worked. But lets keep in
mind the surge policy came in in February. So we need to look and see
what it is that has happened since February that is working.
I have to say this also: General Petraeus is the guy in charge. Here
we are sitting down talking about micromanaging a war with 435 Members
of the House and 100 Members of the Senate, when we have a President
who is doing the job that the Constitution tells him to do. Yet we are
trying to interfere with that process.
Going back to some of the previous trips, I watched as time went by
over the last 5 years, each time I go back, a greater level of
cooperation that we are finding from the Iraqis. This last time--I
think I have to give credit to some of the people who are talking
about--the-cut-and-run crowd. The surrender crowd, has got the Iraqi's
attention. I see that they are, in fact, becoming a lot more aggressive
in what they are doing right now. But I am going to share with you--
this is new stuff, this just happened 2 days ago. This isn't something
that might have happened 5 years ago or longer than that.
I remember a couple of weeks ago when General Petraeus came to
Congress. He gave a report. It was a classified briefing on the fourth
floor and then he had some news conferences. He gave some positive
comments. I carry those around with me.
He said:

Anbar has gone from being assessed as being lost to a
situation that is now quite heartening.

He said:

We have, in Ramadi, reclaimed that city.

He said:

We are ahead with respect to reduction of sectarian
violence and murders in Baghdad by about a third, about 33
percent.

These are the things that were happening at that time. I thought, you
know, a lot of the people who really just do not think we need a
military to start with and aren't concerned about what is happening to
us over there might say General Petraeus was overly optimistic; he was
not being conservative; and he is telling us things that flat aren't
true. So I thought I would go over and find out.
I went over. I was there this weekend. I spent most of my time, not
in Baghdad, not in places where people go, but in Anbar Province. I
spent my time in Taqaddum--an area nobody else goes to, to my
knowledge, nobody has been to--and Ramadi and Fallujah. That is what we
are talking about when we talk about Anbar Province.
The reason that is important is that is where most of the violence
has taken place. That is where we have watched, as time went by--where
we lost the most lives. We remember so well hearing the stories about
our marines in Fallujah going door to door, very similar to what was
happening in World War II. And that is a fact, they were.
And that is a fact. They were. But then along came the surge and
along came General Petraeus. I have to tell you, General Petraeus was
being very conservative when he was here 10 days ago or 2 weeks ago,
whatever it was.
I am going to tell you exactly what is happening there now. And these
people

[[Page S6099]]

who are the prophets of doom, I hope they are listening.
First of all, let's just take Ramadi. That is the area which was
supposed to be the toughest area. You might remember a year ago al-
Qaida controlled that city. They held a parade a year ago, and they
declared--after that parade, they said now Ramadi is their capital, the
capital of terrorism, the capital of al-Qaida.
Well, that is what happened a year ago. A year ago, we had a total of
2,000 Iraqi security forces. You know the whole idea here is to get
Iraqi security forces trained, equipped, and let them take care of
their own problems and their own terrorism that is coming in. Keep in
mind that these terrorists are not after Americans; they are after
Iraqis. They do not want freedom in that country. Back then, at that
time, when they bragged, when al-Qaida bragged that Ramadi was their
capital, we only had 2,000 Iraqi security forces. That is all. Do you
know how many we have now? We have 12,200 trained and equipped Iraqi
security forces in Ramadi.
Things are happening there. They had 1,200 people volunteer from
Ramadi for the Iraqi security forces, more than they could train and
handle--in 1 day, 1 day. Well, they have things that are going on,
showing them support for the Iraqi people.
We all know that in our own hometowns, we have this thing called
Neighborhood Watch Programs where we are going to try to stop crime.
They have one there too; it is called the neighborhood security watch.
This is where civilians--not military, not armed--these people put on
little orange jackets and go out, and they try to find where IEDs are
hidden, where explosive devices are hidden. They have spray paint,
orange spray paint, and they will put a circle around where they are.
Then our troops will go in there and detonate them, and then everyone
is fine. Before that, we were losing American lives by walking into
these situations. That is not happening now. This is because of the
neighborhoods. These are the Iraqi people.
The troops have reclaimed Ramadi, very clearly. If you just look at
Ramadi--one city--since February, overall attacks are down 74 percent.
That is since February. That is when the surge was announced. The IED
attacks are down 81 percent--not 10 percent, not 15 percent, 81
percent. It is a huge success story.
In Fallujah, you know, I can remember going to Fallujah years ago--
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that if I go over my 10
minutes, I have a few extra minutes and it will be deducted from my
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, in Fallujah right now, one Iraqi brigade
owns the battlespace. This is the term which we use in the Armed
Services Committee, ``owns the battlespace.'' It means they are
providing their own security. Now, this was not true a few years ago
when I first went there. No one could get anywhere near anything in
town. You would not take the risk of going in.
I was there during both of the elections, and I saw the Iraqi
security forces go to vote the day before the public would vote. When
they did this, they found themselves in a situation that was very
dangerous. They voted the day before so they could provide the security
for the populous of Fallujah. Well, several of them were killed, as you
recall. But I talked to them each night after they went to vote, and
they were overjoyed in doing it. They said: The day is coming when we
are going to be able to take care of the security in Fallujah.
All right, that was 4 years ago and 3 years ago and 5 years ago on
different trips I made there. This weekend, just 2 days ago, we have
now officially turned over the security of Fallujah to the Iraqis. They
are providing the security.
If you look in the whole province of Anbar, you see another thing
that is happening. A lot of people think--we hear a lot from the Prime
Minister, Maliki; we hear about the Minister of Defense, Jasim; we
heard about Dr. Rubaie--all of these people who were appointed or
elected to be the leadership of Iraq. They are not the ones who are
really making the decisions as far as the people are concerned. It is a
different culture. It is the clerics and the imams in the mosques.
Now, we measure what goes on in the mosques. It is just like we would
hear a sermon in the United States in a church--we go there and find
out what they are talking about. Prior to February, 80 percent of the
mosques had messages that were delivered by the clerics there or the
imams there that were anti-American, getting everyone stirred up
every Saturday or whenever they get together. In April, it was zero.
There wasn't one mosque, of the hundreds of mosques, that had an anti-
American message. For that reason, you have all of the populous coming
in and saying: We want in on this thing. We are going to actually get
something done here. We are tired.

They are the ones who have been the targets for the terrorists. They
know that. Certainly the clerics know that. That is why we are getting
this surge of cooperation.
In March of 2006, there were only 4,000 what they call Iraqi security
forces. Today, there are 27,500 trained and equipped Iraqi security
forces. The Sunni tribal coalition is fighting al-Qaida. That is
something new. That wasn't happening 3 weeks ago. It certainly was not
happening in February.
I did stop in Baghdad. I spent most of the time in Anbar Province.
But in Baghdad, I was heartened to see something new--and I did not
know how it worked--is being put in place. It is called a joint
security station. Now, in Baghdad, there are 27 of them. So the night
before last, late at night, I went out there and I saw how they worked.
Instead of our troops going out on raids during the day and then coming
back to the Green Zone where they will be safe, our troops are now
staying out there in those areas in these joint security stations. They
are there with the Iraqis. They are sleeping there with them, they are
eating with them, and they are developing close relationships. That is
the key to this thing. This all came from General Petraeus, that we
have relationships in these areas. If you talk to our troops--you don't
talk to the guys on the Senate floor here; talk to the troops, find
people who are coming back. You ask them what their relationship is now
with the Iraqi security forces.
I have to say this also--even though we heard this before, we did
verify it is actually more than this--the sectarian murders in Baghdad
are down by 30 percent. Now, that is not quite as good as it is in
Anbar Province. One of the reasons is Anbar Province is where all of
the problems were, and we are concentrating more and the Iraqis are
concentrating more there. I went to the marketplace there. I did not
have any helicopters over the top. I went through, I took an
interpreter, I stopped and talked to people on the street, and they are
so appreciative of what we are doing there, and it is no wonder that
they are.
I just have to say that these relationships have formed. The term
they are using is the ``brotherhood of the close fight.'' I give
General Petraeus credit for engineering a lot of these things.
Lastly, I would say--you may not believe me because you know I have a
strong feeling about defending America, and you might say I am
prejudiced. Yes, I was on the House Armed Services Committee for years
and then on the Senate Armed Services Committee for the last 12 years,
and so I watch and see what is happening. I recognize we need to
rebuild America's military now to be able to meet future challenges
like this.
I would only say this: Everything that I have now said, if you don't
believe it--and I thought I would never recommend to my conservative
friends that they ever watch CNN, but I am going ask them to go ahead
and watch CNN this time, and there is someone named Nick Robertson who
asked to go along to some of these stations I went to two nights ago,
the joint security stations. They are giving a report, and you will be
shocked to find out that even CNN, which has been no friend of our
President and no friend of our efforts in Iraq, is now coming out with
reports that are saying exactly what I am saying right here.
So have your good time. Stand up and take your bows and criticize the
President and criticize the effort in Iraq and criticize our soldiers.
Let me tell you, they are doing a good job, we are winning there, and
this information I share with you is just 1 day old.

[[Page S6100]]

With that, I yield the floor.
Let me ask how much time I used off of my amendment time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 13\1/2\ minutes.
The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.

Amendment No. 1094 to Amendment No. 1065

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I thank the Republican manager, the
Senator from Oklahoma.
I call up amendment No. 1094.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], Mr. Feingold,
Ms. Collins, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Carper, Mr. Reed, Mr. Biden,
Mr. Whitehouse, and Ms. Cantwell proposes an amendment
numbered 1094 to amendment No. 1065.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require the consideration of certain factors relating to
global climate change)

At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:

SEC. 2___. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE.

(a) Planning Considerations.--To account for the potential
long- and short-term effects of global climate change, the
Secretary shall ensure that each feasibility study or general
reevaluation report prepared by the Corps of Engineers--
(1) takes into consideration, and accounts for, the impacts
of global climate change on flood, storm, and drought risks
in the United States;
(2) takes into consideration, and accounts for, potential
future impacts of global climate change-related weather
events, such as increased hurricane activity, intensity,
storm surge, sea level rise, and associated flooding;
(3) uses the best-available climate science in assessing
flood and storm risks;
(4) employs, to the maximum extent practicable,
nonstructural approaches and design modifications to avoid or
prevent impacts to streams, wetlands, and floodplains that
provide natural flood and storm buffers, improve water
quality, serve as recharge areas for aquifers, reduce floods
and erosion, and provide valuable plant, fish, and wildlife
habitat;
(5) in projecting the benefits and costs of any water
resources project that requires a benefit-cost analysis,
quantifies and, to the maximum extent practicable, accounts
for--
(A) the costs associated with damage or loss to wetlands,
floodplains, and other natural systems (including the
habitat, water quality, flood protection, and recreational
values associated with the systems); and
(B) the benefits associated with protection of those
systems; and
(6) takes into consideration, as applicable, the impacts of
global climate change on emergency preparedness projects for
ports.
(b) Additional Considerations for Flood Damage Reduction
Projects.--For purposes of planning and implementing flood
damage reduction projects in accordance with this section and
section 73 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (33
U.S.C. 701b-11), the term ``nonstructural approaches and
design modifications'' includes measures to manage flooding
through--
(1) wetland, stream, and river restoration;
(2) avoiding development or increased development in
frequently-flooded areas;
(3) adopting flood-tolerant land uses in frequently-flooded
areas; or
(4) acquiring from willing sellers floodplain land for use
for--
(A) flood protection uses;
(B) recreational uses;
(C) fish and wildlife uses; or
(D) other public benefits.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that this be
considered as an amendment to the Boxer substitute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, this amendment is a bipartisan amendment
introduced with Senator Collins, Senator Feingold, Senator Carper,
Senator Reed of Rhode Island, Senator Biden, Senator Whitehouse, and
Senator Cantwell.
This is an amendment regarding the impact of global climate change
and the need for the Congress, as we consider spending money and
requiring the Corps of Engineers to undertake certain projects across
the country--it just seems logical as a matter of protecting the
taxpayers' dollars as well as thinking about the future that we ask the
Corps to include in their analysis of these projects judgments about
the potential impact or the real impact of global climate change on
that particular project.
Now, I am going to speak more about the common sense of doing that,
why it is important, but I will just say very quickly, if you look at
New Orleans where we had a breach of the levees as a consequence of the
hurricanes and the rise of the seas, it is clear that much of the
infrastructure of America is designed without reference at all to what
is now happening to climates, to water bodies, to the various
challenges we face with respect to global climate change. So you need
to sort of lay out the parameters within which we ought to be making a
judgment about this particular issue. That begins by sort of setting
forth the facts. We ought to deal with facts with respect to the
situation on global climate change.
This will be the first time Senators in the 110th Congress have been
asked to vote on the floor in some way with respect to this issue of
climate change. But it is an important opportunity for Senators to
stand up and be counted with respect to this issue.
All this amendment seeks to do, as a matter of common sense, is to
ask the Army Corps of Engineers to factor climate change into their
future plans. By doing that, we are taking a small corrective measure
to a process that is currently flawed because it does not do that.
Secondly, we are making a statement here in the Senate about the need
to finally, once and for all, recognize the reality of what is
happening with respect to climate change.
The guiding principle behind this amendment is obvious: It is that
climate change is real and it must be factored into our public policy
in almost everything we do. If we are going to build buildings, those
buildings have to be designed to a whole new set of specifications in
terms of carbon emissions, in terms of energy use, because all
downstream energy use will have an impact on how much coal and how much
oil, alternative fuels, and other resources we need to consume.
The fact is that other countries are moving much more rapidly than we
are as a Federal Government. In fact, the States in the United States
and cities in the United States are already moving with greater
authority and determination than the Federal Government. So this is a
chance finally for Senators to put themselves on record.
Now, you can disagree on what--for instance, former Speaker Newt
Gingrich and I held a debate a couple of weeks ago in which the former
Speaker changed his position and agreed that climate change is taking
place and that human beings are having an impact on that climate
change. He agreed that we need to act, and urgently. Where we differed
is in what actions to take, how those actions might be implemented, but
there was no disagreement about the need to factor this into the
policies in our country.
As we contemplate these steps we need to take, we really need to
understand that everything we do here is to inform our decisions as we
go down the road. That is really the message this amendment ought to
send, that when it comes to public policy, we understand the warnings
of our scientists, the warnings of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, and we are going to respond effectively at the national
level.
The fact is, for too long this has been the subject of paid-for
studies by industries that wanted to resist, but we know that in
America, many of those industries have changed.
USCAP is a partnership of some of the major corporations in America
that have come together responsibly to take action with respect to
climate change. Companies such as General Electric and Florida Power &
Light, American Electric Power, DuPont, Wal-Mart, many others are now
responding to the needs of this issue. It would be stunning indeed if
the Senate somehow stood apart from what the private sector and these
States and local communities are now engaged in.
Let me summarize quickly some of the findings of the IPCC, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The most recent report was
written by about 600 scientists. It was reviewed by 600 experts. It was
edited by officials from 154 governments. So you have Prime Ministers,
Foreign Ministers, Economic Ministers, Trade Ministers, Environment
Ministers, Presidents of countries all across the globe, who are
engaged in moving forward. Only the United States has remained
significantly on the sidelines.

[[Page S6101]]

The basic facts are these: At both poles and in nearly all points in
between, the temperature of the Earth's surface is heating up. It is
heating up at a frightening and potentially catastrophic rate. The
temperature we know has already increased about .8 degrees centigrade,
1.4 or so degrees Fahrenheit, and the warnings of the scientists I
alluded to are that because of the carbon dioxide already in the
atmosphere, about which we have the ability to do nothing, there will
be an additional warming as a consequence of the damage that that does.
So we are locked in, whether we like it, to a warming of somewhere
between 1.4 and 1.6 degrees centigrade. These same scientists have
reported to us through some 928 or so peer-reviewed studies. A lot of
people are not sure what a peer-reviewed study is. After scientists
have done their study and they have put it out to the public, that
study is reviewed anonymously by another group of scientists with
similar backgrounds and discipline. They then anonymously make an
analysis of the methodology of those studies and of the conclusions
that were drawn. What is interesting is that all 928 studies have
determined that human beings, through our greenhouse gas emissions, are
causing some of the increase of this temperature, and they have
concluded similarly that there is a tipping point--nobody can predict
precisely where it is--at which we get a catastrophic series of
consequences which will then be too late to change.
Scientists are inherently conservative people. They are people who
make judgments based on facts, as they discern them, through their
analysis, research, and experiments. They don't make wild
pronouncements that can't be substantiated. Where there is doubt, they
have expressed doubt every step of the way. Where something is not
conclusive, they have said it is not conclusive.
But now in this most recent report, they have reported to the world
that there is a 90-percent likelihood that emissions of heat-trapping
gases from human activities have caused ``most of the observed increase
in global average temperature since the mid 20th century. Evidence that
human activities are the major cause of recent climate change is even
stronger than in prior assessments.''
In addition, they have said that the warming is unequivocal. The
report concludes that it is ``unequivocal that earth's climate is
warming as it is now evident from the observations of increases in
global averages of air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of
snows and ice, and rising global mean sea level.''
The report also confirms that the current atmospheric concentration
of carbon dioxide and methane, two important heat-trapping gases,
``exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years.'' Since
the dawn of the industrial era, concentrations of both gases have
increased at a rate that is ``very likely to have been unprecedented in
more than 10,000 years.''
These are some of the facts. I will relate more, if necessary, later.
The bottom-line point to be made is, the opponents, those who say that
it isn't happening, those who say that somehow we can't be certain that
this is a contributing activity, have yet to produce one peer review
study--not one--that conclusively shows why what is happening is
happening and what is causing it, if it isn't the human activity that
has been alluded to by these 154 countries and thousands of scientists.
They certainly have an obligation to do that.
Here is what is most alarming. I have been listening to and working
with these same scientists since then-Senator Al Gore and I and a few
others held the first hearings on global climate change in the Senate
in 1987. In 1990, we went to Rio to take part in the Earth summit which
George Herbert Walker Bush participated in as then President of the
United States and signed a voluntary agreement to deal with the
framework for global climate change. In the 17 years since we attended
that conference, I have attended other conferences in Buenos Aires, in
The Hague, and in Kyoto. I have watched while we have learned more and
more with greater certainty about the impact of this science.
Throughout that journey of 17 years, I have never heard the scientists
as alarmed as they are today. The reason they are alarmed today is that
what they have predicted for those 17 years is happening at a faster
rate and in a greater quantity than they had predicted.
What is our responsibility as public people? If the scientists, 928
studies strong, are saying to us, Senators, Presidents, Congressmen,
here is what is happening, and they say it with conclusive evidence of
exactly what is contributing to it, I believe we, as public people,
have a responsibility to listen on behalf of the citizens. It is
prudent to think about those things that we can do and ought to do in
order to respond to this evidence.
Here is what those scientists tell us. Jim Hansen is the leading
climatologist of our country at NASA. He started warning about this in
1988. Since 1988, those warnings have become more urgent. He now says
we have a 10-year window within which to get this right. If we want to
avoid the potential of a tipping point, we have 10 years to act. We
also know the scientists have revised their own estimates of what the
tolerable range is with respect to global warming. A year and a half, 2
years ago, they were telling us we could tolerate 550 parts per million
of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and that translated to a 3
degrees centigrade warming that could be allowed before you reached
this catastrophic potential tipping point. They have changed that now.
Those same scientists have now revised their estimate based on the
evidence they are getting as a consequence of what is already happening
all over the planet. All over the planet you can see the sea drying up.
You can see the southern portion of the Sahara Desert getting dryer.
You can see ocean currents shifting, species migrating. In South
Carolina, they wouldn't have any duck hunting today if they didn't have
farmed ducks because the patterns have changed. The same thing in
Arkansas, where it has significantly altered. Hunters across the Nation
are noticing changes in the migratory patterns of the prey they used to
hunt. We are seeing 20 percent of the ice sheet in the Arctic has
already melted and predictions are the entire ice sheet will disappear
within the next 30 years. The Greenland ice sheet, go up there and
visit, see the torrents of water rushing through the ice itself. The
danger of that is, this is on rock. This is not floating on sea ice,
where the displacement is already recognized in the ocean because it is
floating in the ocean. This is ice on rock. As it melts, if it melts
rapidly, it does spill into the ocean and it alters the levels.

In addition, the warming of the ocean itself alters the levels. The
warming expands the water, and as the water expands, the sea level
rises and we are already seeing a measured level of increase of sea
level according to all of our scientists. They don't doubt that. That
is a stated fact. Sea level is rising.
Are we going to have the Corps of Engineers go out and build a
project that has to do with rising sea level and not take into account
how much it may rise, over what period of time it may rise? What the
consequences might be of a storm that is more intense, coupled with an
increase of sea level? It is common sense that we ought to be taking
those kinds of things into account.
The scientists now tell us we can tolerate not 550 parts per million
but 450 parts per million, and we can tolerate not 3 degrees centigrade
increase but a 2 degrees centigrade increase. Why is that important?
That is important because we can trace from before the industrial
revolution the levels of carbon dioxide and temperatures of the Earth.
Preindustrial revolution, the levels of greenhouse gases were at about
270 parts per million. It was about 500 or so billion tons of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere. It is measured by taking ice cores which we
drill. You bore into the ice. You can go back tens of thousands of
years, bore the ice and measure the levels of carbon dioxide, which
also gives you an indicator of the temperature of the Earth. We see a
complete parallel between the rise of the Earth's temperature, the rise
of carbon dioxide and the industrial revolution itself over those 100
years.
We have now changed the level of greenhouse gases from 270 parts per
million to 380 parts per million. That is what we are living with
today. So if we are living with 380 parts per million

[[Page S6102]]

today and over 100 years plus we saw it go from 270 to 380, we only
have a cushion of up to 450. If we have already increased the Earth's
temperature .8 degrees and it is going to go up automatically another
.8 degrees, that is 1.6, we only have a cushion of .4 to .5 degrees
before we get to a tipping point.
I can't tell you with 100 percent certainty that is what is going to
happen. But the scientists, the best we have in this country, have told
us it is a 90-percent likelihood this is happening as a consequence of
the things we are doing.
If you went to the airport today and got on an airplane and the pilot
got on and said: Folks, we are about to leave and there is a 10-percent
chance we are going to get where we are going, are you going to stay on
the plane? This is a 90-percent certainty what scientists are telling
us.

We went to war in Iraq on a 1-percent doctrine. As Vice President
Cheney said, if there is a 1-percent chance that harm could be done to
our Nation, then we have to be willing to go to war and take the steps.
Well, here you have a 90-percent chance that harm could be done to our
Nation, and we are doing next to nothing at the Federal level. That is
the cushion.
So when the scientists say to us we need to have a response, when the
CEO of DuPont, the CEO of Wal-Mart, the CEO of 3M, the CEO of General
Electric, and a host of other companies across our country are already
taking steps because they recognize this has to happen, and we have to
respond, we ought to be listening and responding ourselves.
Let me comment that, obviously, in California we already see a State
taking action. California passed a landmark bill that establishes a
first-in-the-world comprehensive program of regulatory and market
mechanisms to achieve a reduction in greenhouse gases.
The mayor of New York is working on a congestion pricing scheme to
lower emissions and pollution. Today, as we stand in the Senate, he is
hosting a meeting of the mayors of the world's largest cities, from
Copenhagen to Calcutta, on how to achieve the same ends.
Recently, my home State of Massachusetts, under the leadership of
Governor Deval Patrick, has rejoined the Regional Greenhouse Gas
Initiative. Now you have eight States that have come together
specifically to try to reduce global warming pollution from
powerplants. Across the Nation, 500 mayors from 50 States have signed
on to the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, which is an
initiative to advance the goals of the Kyoto Protocol. Even President
Bush finally saw fit to mention in his State of the Union Address ``the
serious challenge of global climate change.''
We know specifically that climate change will challenge the way we
manage water resources in the United States. It threatens our coastal
communities and habitats with rising sea levels, more intense storms,
storm surges, and flooding, especially along the gulf and Atlantic
coasts. In many places, climate change is going to put added pressure
on our water resources, increasing competition among agricultural,
municipal, industrial, and ecological uses.
That is why this bill is an appropriate place for us to have an
amendment that merely asks for the Corps of Engineers--which is
federally chartered, and we spend Federal dollars on--to make certain
what they choose to do is thoughtful about what the impacts may be that
are predictable or ascertainable.
We know, obviously, what it looks like when we do not prepare for
emergencies. We had it seared into our memories with the horrifying
images of Hurricane Katrina. We saw the anguish of everybody who lived
there and people across America.
The fact is, we are especially vulnerable to changes of weather and
climate extremes because of severe storms, hurricanes, floods, and
droughts. Now we need to begin planning for those emergencies that
global climate change is likely to produce.
Over the last 100 years, we have seen an increase in heavy
precipitation that has strained the infrastructure we have in place to
deal with flooding. All across America, combined sewer overflows wind
up putting raw sewage out into our rivers and lakes, which wind up
poisoning and polluting those water bodies.
Thirty-nine percent of the rivers in the United States of America are
contaminated. Forty-five percent of the lakes in the United States are
contaminated. Forty-nine percent of the estuaries in America are
contaminated.
In 19 States in our country parents and children are warned: Don't
eat the fish because of the levels of toxins, chemicals that are in the
water--19 States. In 44 States there are warnings about specific
locations where you are not allowed to eat the fish.
So these are the kinds of consequences we see up and down the line.
The number of days each year now with more than 2 inches of
precipitation has risen by 20 percent. If we know the precipitation
levels have risen by 20 percent in the last 100 years, doesn't it make
sense, as we conjure up levees or other projects to prevent flooding,
to understand what the likelihood is of the size of that flooding, the
extent of it, and the intensity, as it grows?
The Southwestern United States is in the midst of a drought that is
projected to continue well into the 21st century and may cause the area
to transition to a more arid climate.
The Corps of Engineers stands on the front lines of all of these
threats to our water resources. They are our first responders in the
fight against global warming. Hurricane and flood protection for New
Orleans, levees along the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, levees in
Sacramento, CA, and port projects up and down our coasts, east and
west--these are just a few of the sites that are in danger. All of
these Corps projects and many hundreds more will feel the strain,
impact, and consequences of global climate change.
We also recognized, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the inadequacy
of some of the projects in New Orleans that simply did not stand up.
Just the other day, in the New York Times--Madam President, I ask
unanimous consent that the article of May 7, entitled ``Critic of Corps
of Engineers Says Levee Repairs for New Orleans Show Signs of Flaws''
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the New York Times, May 7, 2007]

Critic of corps of Engineers Says Levee Repairs for New Orleans Show
Signs of Flaws

(By John Schwartz)

Some of the most celebrated levee repairs by the Army Corps
of Engineers after Hurricane Katrina are already showing
signs of serious flaws, a leading critic of the corps says.
The critic, Robert G. Bea, a professor of engineering at
the University of California, Berkeley, said he encountered
several areas of concern on a tour in March.
The most troubling, Dr. Bea said, was erosion on a levee by
the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, a navigation canal that
helped channel water into New Orleans during the storm.
Breaches in that 13-mile levee devastated communities in
St. Bernard Parish, just east of New Orleans, and the rapid
reconstruction of the barrier was hailed as one of the corps'
most significant rebuilding achievements in the months after
the storm.
But Dr. Bea, an author of a blistering 2006 report on the
levee failures paid for by the National Science Foundation,
said erosion furrows, or rills, suggest that ``the risks are
still high.'' Heavy storms, he said, may cause ``tear-on-the-
dotted-line levees.''
Dr. Bea examined the hurricane protection system at the
request of National Geographic magazine, which is publishing
photographs of the levee and an article on his concerns about
the levee and other spots on its Web site at ngm.com/levees.
Corps officials argue that Dr. Bea is overstating the risk
and say that they will reinspect elements of the levee system
he has identified and fix problems they find. The
disagreement underscores the difficulty of evaluating risk in
hurricane protection here, where even dirt is a contentious
issue. And discussing safety in a region still struggling
with a 2005 disaster requires delicacy.
Hurricane season begins again next month.
The most revealing of the photographs, taken from a
helicopter, looks out from the levee across the navigation
canal and a skinny strip of land to the expanses of Lake
Borgne. From the grassy crown of the levee, small, wormy
patterns of rills carved by rain make their way down the
landward side, widening at the base into broad fissures that
extend beyond the border of the grass.
Dr. Bea, who was recently appointed to an expert committee
for plaintiffs' lawyers in federal suits against the
government and private contractors over Hurricane Katrina
losses, said that he could not be certain the situation was
dangerous without further inspection and that he wanted to
avoid what he called ``cry wolf syndrome.'' But, he

[[Page S6103]]

added, he does not want to ignore ``potentially important
early warning signs.''
He praised the corps for much of the work it had done since
the storm, but he added that the levee should be armored with
rock or concrete against overtopping, a move the corps has
rejected in the short term.
Another expert who has viewed the photographs, J. David
Rogers, called the images ``troubling.'' Dr. Rogers, who
holds the Karl F. Hasselmann chair in geological engineering
at the University of Missouri-Rolla, said it would take more
work, including an analysis of the levee soils, to determine
whether there was a possibility of catastrophic failure.
But he said his first thought upon viewing the images was,
``That won't survive another Katrina.'' Dr. Rogers worked on
the 2006 report on levee failures with Dr. Bea.
John M. Barry, a member of the Southeast Louisiana Flood
Protection Authority-East who has also seen the photographs,
also expressed worry. ``If Bea and Rogers are concerned, then
I'm concerned,'' he said.
Mr. Barry, the author of ``Rising Tide: The Great
Mississippi Flood of 1927 and How It Changed America,'' said
it was important to seek balance when discussing the levees
in the passionately charged environment of New Orleans since
the storm.
``I don't want anybody to have any false confidence'' in
the system, he said. ``On the other hand, if things are
improving, people need to know that, too. And things have
been improving.''
After being informed of the safety questions, Senator Mary
L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana, prepared a letter to send
today to the corps commander, Lt. Gen. Carl A. Strock, asking
whether the work by the corps was sufficient to protect the
levee system.
At the corps, Richard J. Varuso, the assistant chief of the
geotechnical branch of the district's engineering division,
said that some erosion could be expected after a levee was
constructed. ``If it rains, we get some rutting,'' Mr. Varuso
said, adding that as vegetation grows in, the levee ``heals
itself.''
Walter O. Baumy Jr., the chief of the engineering division
for the New Orleans district of the corps, said the new
levees were made with dense, clay-rich soil that would resist
erosion. Although the stretches of the St. Bernard levee that
were still standing after the storm are composed of more
porous soils dredged from the nearby canal, Mr. Baumy said a
reinforcing clay layer on top some 10 feet thick would keep
the fissures from reaching the weaker soils.
Still, he said that ``we will take a look at this'' and
that the corps would make repairs where necessary.
Dr. Bea, who wrangled with the corps last year about
construction standards on the same levee, countered that
recent work in the Netherlands suggested that clay-capped
levees with a porous core, which are common, were prone to
failure in high water.
Another official who viewed the photographs, Robert A.
Turner Jr., the executive director of the Lake Borgne basin
levee district, east of New Orleans, said he was concerned,
but not necessarily alarmed, about the rills toward the crown
of the St. Bernard levee, calling them a common sight on new
levees in the area.
Mr. Turner said he was more concerned by the images of
larger ruts toward the base of the levee, and said of the
corps, ``We're just going to keep on them.''

Mr. KERRY. There is evidence in some of those levees they are not
going to be able to withstand the intensity of the storms we now
project. The current guidelines for Corps project planning were written
in 1983, long before scientists were focusing on the existence as well
as the threat and impacts of climate change. So I believe it is
critical for the Corps to begin to account for that.
This amendment directs them to simply take climate change into
account when conducting project feasibility studies or general
evaluation reports. It ensures that Corps projects, particularly those
that provide the first line of defense against climate impacts, are
designed with global warming in mind.
This amendment is supported by dozens of groups that represent
coastal communities and resources, from the National Wildlife
Federation and American Rivers, to the Association of State Floodplain
Managers, regional groups that represent coastal interests, including
the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana, and the Great Lakes States
Coalition. They all strongly support this amendment. They support it
because it protects our wetlands. They support it because it advances
our policy response on a subject where the politics has often struggled
to keep pace with the science.
On a weekly basis, we see mounting evidence and mounting alarm bells
going off highlighting our need to act. This is our opportunity to do
so for the first time.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, for clarification on the time, it is my
understanding that we each started off with 30 minutes, and then we
each get 15 minutes after that time has expired, and that I used 13
minutes of my time on my Iraq discussion.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, it is my understanding we asked for 2\1/
2\ hours equally divided.
Mr. INHOFE. OK. So it would be an hour and 15 minutes for each side.
Mr. KERRY. An hour and 15 minutes, but we may well wind up yielding
much of that back.
Mr. INHOFE. OK. So in this period now, I would have an hour, less 13
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Correct. The Senator would have 1 hour minus
the approximately 13, 14 minutes the Senator has already used.
Mr. INHOFE. All right. That is fine. I do not think I will use all of
this time right now. But in the event I get close to it, if the Chair
would let me know when I have 3 minutes left, I would appreciate that.
I don't know where to start. I really don't. I don't have all my
stuff I normally would have in talking about this subject right now
because I did not know this was going to come up.
Certainly, everyone has a right to bring up amendments. This
amendment is totally out of place for this bill. There is no
justification for having it.
Let me make one comment about it. If the idea is--and apparently it
is--this amendment is going to instruct the Corps of Engineers to come
out with a report as to how anthropogenic gases would be affected by
each project that is constructed around the country, let me suggest we
have a $14 billion bill we are going to be voting on at about 5:30, 6
o'clock tonight. It is one that we desperately need. We have been
debating this issue.
But I can assure you, if for some reason the Kerry amendment was
adopted, it would kill the bill. There is no question about it. But it
is not going to be adopted. It is a good forum to stand out here and
talk about how everyone should be hysterical and should be worried.
It is interesting to me that the same people today who are saying the
world is coming to an end, we are all going to die, just back in the
middle 1970s were saying another ice age is coming and we are all going
to die. Which way do you want it?
On this one, he is asserting, I guess, that somehow the climate is
changing. Let me suggest, in 2006 the World Meteorological Organization
issued statements refuting claims about a consensus that global warming
is and will cause more frequent and intense storms, saying no such
consensus exists. Even Al Gore has now backed away from claiming that
global warming will cause more frequent storms.
I have a chart in the Chamber, a plot of the hurricanes going back to
1851. As you can see, this is constant. This has been going on for a
long period of time. Now, if a surge of anthropogenic gases--this
CO<inf>2</inf>, methane, or whatever it is--were causing a warming
period, then you would think right during the period around 1945 we
would have a warming period because in the middle 1940s, after the
Second World War, we had the greatest increase in greenhouse gases,
with an increase of about 85 percent during that time.
But what happened? It did not precipitate a warming period. It
precipitated a cooling period so bad that by the middle 1970s everyone
thought we were going to die from another ice age coming.
Now, as far as this bill is concerned--I will probably repeat this in
a little more detail in the final remarks, but I have to say this: We
have $14 billion of projects. These are Corps of Engineers projects
that are desperately needed. We have not had a Water Resources
Development Act reauthorization bill for 7 years. We finally have the
opportunity to have it.
Now, if this amendment should be adopted, it would delay all these
projects by at least a year because the Corps would have to go back and
restudy all these projects. So I think we should keep that in mind in
terms of how it affects the bill we have.
Now, the junior Senator from Massachusetts talked about this great
coalition called the U.S. Climate Action Group. Well, I can tell you
about this great coalition. I do not know how many there are. There are
about maybe

[[Page S6104]]

seven or eight companies, corporations that have joined this saying:
Yes, we want to have some kind of a cap and trade on CO<inf>2</inf>. We
want to do something, maybe have a tax on them because we are good
citizens. We are concerned about the environment.
Well, we had a hearing about that, only to find out every last one of
them that we could research would end up making not just millions but
in some cases billions of dollars if something like Kyoto would go
through. I will be specific. DuPont would make $500 million a year in
credits. DuPont, no wonder they are for it. If I were a member of the
board of directors of DuPont, I would also do the same thing they are
doing.
These are being paid for reductions in greenhouse gases as a result
of things they have already done, so they do not have to do anything
more. I am saying the $500 million a year--this came from an internal
study, so this is not someone making an accusation--is based on $10 a
ton. If it goes up to $20 a ton, then it is going to be $1 billion a
year. So DuPont is for that. GE and BP, they are doing the solar panels
and the wind tunnels. Well, sure, they would make a lot of money.
We can quantify all this. There is not time to go through all of
that.
The other assertion that was made by the distinguished junior Senator
from Massachusetts was that the sea level is going to come up. There
are so many people who have watched the Gore movie, and a lot of the
teachers have gotten into this, and it makes teaching real easy. There
is one school in Maryland, and a parent came by to see me after we had
our confrontation with Senator Gore about 3 weeks ago and said: Do you
realize in my child's elementary class, his teacher makes them watch
this movie once a month? They said the scary part is--for little kids
who do not know any better, they think it is true, when it is not true.
They said the scary part is the sea level rise.
This is what the Senator is saying: The sea level rises. I would
suggest the IPCC, that is behind all of this--that is where it all
started, like a lot of things in this country; it started with the
United Nations--they came out in 2007, this year, and they have
downgraded the sea level rise from 39 inches to 23 inches. They have
cut it in half. They said further, in a report this year, the release
of anthropogenic gases by livestock is greater than our entire
transportation segment.
So we watch these things. Jim Hansen--I am going to talk a little
about the scientists. I hear this thing, and the reason we are seeing
so many people now in a panic is they realize the science has been
changing on a regular basis for the last 3 years.
In fact, I have to tell you, when I became chairman of the
Environment and Public Works Committee in January, 4 years ago, I
assumed that manmade gases were causing climate change. That is all you
read in the media and all you heard about on radio and TV. I assumed it
was right, until they showed us how much this would cost to the average
American taxpayer. Then we said: Let's look at the science, only to
find out that the science has been reversed.
Scientists always talk about Jim Hansen. I have been on several
shows, and there is Jim Hansen. He has been more exposed on this than
any other scientist.
I remind you that Jim Hansen was given a grant from the Heinz
Foundation of $250,000. I cannot say there is no relationship between
that and his opinion. I think there is and I will tell you why. I am
going to talk about scientists.
Let's start off in Canada, which was one of the early signers of the
Kyoto Treaty. Canada was taking the advice of a famous group called the
60 scientists in Canada. These are the 60 scientists who, at that time,
recommended to the then-Prime Minister of Canada that they sign onto
and ratify the Kyoto Treaty. Well, since that time, the scientists--
that same group of people--have reevaluated the science. I will read
some of these things they come up with. The one I know by heart is the
most revealing. It says:

Observational evidence does not support today's computer
climate models, so there is little reason to trust model
predictions of the future.

Significant scientific advances have been made since the Kyoto
Protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from the concern
about increasing greenhouse gases. Listen to this. These are the 60
scientists in Canada who were the ones responsible for advising the
Prime Minister 15 years ago to sign the Kyoto Treaty. They say:

If back in the 1990s we knew what we know today about
climate, Kyoto most certainly would not exist, because we
would have concluded it wasn't necessary.

They are now petitioning Prime Minister Harper to change their
position on climate change. We have scientist after scientist. This is
a good one. I used this the other day. Of the three strongest
supporters of the alarmists--I am talking about the environmental
alarmists who want to scare people--representing countries in a
formidable fashion, one was Claude Allegre, a French Socialist, a
geophysicist, a member of both the French and American Academies of
Science. He was one who marched in the aisles with Al Gore 10 or 15
years ago, saying global warming is happening and it is caused by human
discharges. Now he is saying that it was wrong. He has completely gone
over to the other side. He says that the cause of climate change is
unknown. He has accused the proponents of manmade catastrophic global
warming of being motivated by money. I will talk about that in a
minute.
Let's go from France to Israel. Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv was one of
those real believers, an alarmist. He thought the world was coming to
an end and that we are going to be warming up and that we have to do
something about it. But he now points to growing peer-reviewed evidence
that--the Senator from Massachusetts said there is no peer review
evidence. Yes, there is. Shaviv refers to it here:

Peer reviewed evidence shows that the sun has actually been
driving the temperature change.

That is a shocker. You don't have to be a scientist to know that the
Sun can have something to do with climate change. He has now come to
the other side and is a skeptic. That was Nir Shaviv from Israel, who
was on the other side. They are all shifting.
David Bellamy from the United Kingdom was another environmental
campaigner at one time. He recently converted into a skeptic after
reviewing the new science. Keep in mind that he is a Brit. He now calls
global warming theories ``poppycock.''
These are actually, I would say, a few months old. Let me tell you
what is happening recently. This is all in the last few days and weeks,
and this is why all these people who want to scare people with global
warming are in such a panic. They see that the science is slipping
away. Think about this fact: Many people think their ticket to the
White House is to scare people with global warming. Talk to anybody
running for President. Watch it on the debates tonight. If they can
scare you good enough, you may vote for them because they say they are
going to do something about this.
Here is a brandnew one. Dr. Chris de Freitas of the University of
Auckland, New Zealand, said:

At first, I accepted that increases in human-caused
additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere
would trigger changes in water vapor, et cetera, and lead to
dangerous ``global warming''. But with time, and with the
results of research, I have formed the view that although it
makes for a good story, it is unlikely that manmade changes
are drivers of significant climate variation.

He wrote that in August of 2006. He was one who was on the other side
of this issue.
Here is another one. Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of the
University of Ottawa, converted from being a believer to a skeptic
after conducting scientific studies of climate history. He said:

I simply accepted the global warming theory as given.

He said that in April 2007. He said:

The final conversion [to a skeptic] came when I realized
that the solar/cosmic ray connection gave far more consistent
picture of climate, over many time scales, than it did the
CO<inf>2</inf> scenario.

Here is another recent one. This is a paleo climatologist, Ian D.
Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University
of Ottawa, who said:

I used to agree with these dramatic warnings of climate
disaster. However, a few

[[Page S6105]]

years ago, I decided to look more closely at the science and
it astonished me. In fact, there is no evidence of humans
being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of
natural causes, such as changes in the output of the sun.

Here is another new one, Bruno Wiskel, from the University of
Alberta. He once was a believer in manmade global warming. He set out
to build a ``Kyoto house'' in his own yard in honor of the U.N.-
sanctioned Kyoto Protocol. That is how much of a believer he was. This
was said about him:

After further examining the science behind Kyoto, Wiskel
reversed his scientific views completely and became such a
strong skeptic that he wrote a book entitled ``The Emperors
New Clay Markets,'' debunking the myth of global warming.

I could go on. I could spend 3 hours talking about scientists who
were on the other side of the issue. I don't know where these guys came
up with this idea. This is one that gets personal with Senator Gore.
Keep in mind the source of this. This is MIT, Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, and the Senator from Massachusetts is making these
statements. MIT climatologist Richard Lindzen, in June of 2006, said:

A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to
assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate
are dynamic. They are always changing, even without any
external forces. To treat all change as something to fear is
bad enough. To do so in order to exploit that fear is much
worse.

We can go on and on and on. I have found one thing to be probably
easier to discuss with people than the science. I think at least people
know that the science is not established, and there is no question that
the trend now is that those scientists who were alarmists are now
skeptics.
While you could debate the idea of how accurate the science is on
this thing, there are things that you cannot debate. This is from the
Wharton School of Economics. When I was chairman of the committee and I
was a believer that this was true, this caused me to start looking into
it. This is the Wharton Econometrics Forecasting Associates:

Implementing Kyoto would reduce the average annual
household income nearly $2,700, at a time when the cost of
all goods, particularly food and basic necessities, would
rise sharply.

That is bad enough, that it would be $2,700. I don't know, in this
particular amendment, what it would be. This amendment is clearly aimed
at causing us in this country to somehow get into this mode of having
either a tax on carbon or a cap on the trade program. Keep in mind,
this is old stuff here, which has been around a while. More recently,
we have had studies that were done by others.
Here is the MIT study that was released last month. This study
analyzed the economic impact of some of the carbon cap on trade
proposals. We have looked at this. The study found that the Boxer-
Sanders bill, which is the one to be taken up by Senator Boxer and
Senator Sanders, would impose a tax equivalent of $4,560 on every
American family of four. The Lieberman-McCain proposal, which is more
modest, would cost the same American family more than $3,500 in 2015
and almost $5,000 a year by the year 2050. This is huge.
I can remember, in 1993, the largest tax increase in modern history
was proposed and passed by the Clinton-Gore administration. It
increased the marginal rates on all Americans by huge amounts. I could
describe it, but it was a huge tax increase. It would cost $32 billion
a year. Now, while that would cost $32 billion a year, the Kyoto
elements that came out of the survey would cost over $300 billion a
year. In other words, what I am saying is that the cost of cap on trade
systems, or these reductions they are talking about, is far greater
than 10 times the largest tax increase of 1993 in modern history. You
can argue the science. One thing you cannot argue is the money. It will
cost that amount of money.
I am going to go and cover a couple of things that I think are of
interest. We will put up the EU chart. When Kyoto was passed, and prior
to being ratified by a number of different countries, of the 15 Western
European countries, only 13--all signed on, I say to the Chair, and
ratified the Kyoto Treaty--all 15 countries of Western Europe. Out of
those 15 countries, only 2 actually have met their emission
requirements. Everybody can pat themselves on the back and say I am
going to pass this thing, but only 2 out of 15 met the requirements.
These are the countries, and the United Kingdom and Sweden were the
only two out of all those countries that reduced the amount of
emissions and tried to reach a target. The rest of them had increases
in emissions. There it is right there on the chart.
So let me suggest to you something else that is significant. During
the Clinton-Gore administration, when they had the various meetings
with people trying to sign onto the Kyoto Treaty, we talked about how
much money this was going to cost. Thomas Wigley was the scientist
chosen by Al Gore during the Clinton-Gore administration. He was
charged with the responsibility. He said if all developed nations--not
some but all--signed on to the Kyoto treaty and lived by its emissions
requirements ratified by the treaty, how much would it reduce the
temperature in 50 years. I finished saying of the 15 western European
countries, only 2 have made the targets. It is not going to happen, but
if it did happen in never-never land, let's assume all the developed
nations, all of us sign on to it and live by the emissions
requirements, how much would it reduce the temperature in 50 years? The
result at the end of 50 years was seven one-hundredths of 1 degree
Celsius. It is not even measurable. So we have had the largest tax
increase for 50 years and yet nothing has come from it.

I am going to go over something we did a few weeks ago. A few weeks
ago the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public Works
Committee--the committee I used to chair--decided she would have a
hearing and have Al Gore come in and give his pitch, talk about his
accomplishments, and so forth. I felt it wasn't going to go too well,
so all I could do was use the opening statement I had. I had 10 minutes
for an opening statement. This is what I did.
I said: I am going to state seven positions and, Mr. Gore, I would
like to have you, since you are going to have all the time in the world
to respond and I won't have nearly as much time, I want you to refute,
if you can, any one or two or seven of these seven. He could not do it
and did not do it. So we accept as fact those issues which I stated and
he didn't refute. Let me go over them quickly.
No. 1, this is somewhere between a $300 billion and $380 billion tax
increase on the American people annually. That is there. No one is
going to deny that. That has already been verified. He did not refute
that point.
No. 2, if all these things happen, it would be like the chart we saw:
It would only reduce the temperature by seven one-hundredths of 1
degree Celsius in a period of 50 years, and everybody understands that
is true. He didn't refute that.
No. 3, there is no link between hurricane intensity and global
warming. I don't think anybody wants to get into that debate. I can and
I will, perhaps--I won't get around to it until the second go round--
very carefully and succinctly talk about the fact that scientists are
now saying the linkage doesn't exist, and even Senator Gore is not
talking about that anymore. That is No. 3.
No. 4, the sea level rise scenario is bogus. That movie a lot of kids
are required to watch--kids are impressionable. They don't understand.
They don't know it is science fiction. They think this is something
that is going to happen, and those kids have nightmares. I have parents
tell me--similar to the lady from Maryland whose daughter had to watch
that movie once a month--we are all going to drown. It is a horrible
thing, but they believe that.
Now we know the sea level rise scenario is bogus, and we have the
documentation that says it is. He didn't refute that.
No. 5, it is all about money. You could put this in a lot of
different categories. Yes, there are huge amounts of money involved. We
already talked about the corporations supposedly joining in this
coalition to reduce greenhouse gases because they are good citizens,
only to find out they are making millions and, in some cases, billions
of dollars by doing it. Every time I say this, I say I don't criticize
them because if I were chairman of a board of any of those companies, I
would do the same thing.

[[Page S6106]]

I already said how much money we are talking about. There are huge
amounts of money to be made. Al Gore--and this is a small thing--after
his little award the other day, his speaker's fee went up to $200,000 a
speech. That is money. Obviously, there are a lot of people who would
like to get in on that deal.
There is also George Soros, the Michael Moores, and these various
foundations such as the Heinz Foundation that put in thousands and
thousands and thousands of dollars, contribute to campaigns, buy off
scientists. That group is very busy. That is No. 5. That wasn't
refuted.
No. 6, the believers are converting. That is what I started off this
presentation with, that the believers who are out there, who were
strong believers 12 years ago, are now saying the science isn't there.
I have given the documentation, I have given the quotes, I have given
their names and titles. They are all distinguished scientists from all
over, and they are coming the other way. That is why I say panic is
setting in because all of a sudden people realize people are catching
on.
Then the last point, No. 7. If you look at the movie--I confess, I
have not seen it--the last frame of the movie says--I believe this is
going to be accurate because I have it pretty well memorized: Are you
ready to change the way you live?
The whole idea of the movie was to get people to start not using
toilet paper and all this stuff the elitists in Hollywood want
everybody else to do except for them. Then we find out Senator Gore's
house in Tennessee emits 20 times the greenhouse gases of the average
home in America--20 times. I said: You are asking everyone else are you
ready to change the way you live. So I asked him to take a pledge,
giving him a full year to comply, saying at the end of a year I will
have my house emissions down so it will be the same as average America.
This is day 51, by the way, and he hasn't signed that pledge.

I say these not in a light vein, because this isn't light. This is
serious stuff. The science is there. The money is there. The taxes are
there, the cost to the American people. Fortunately, the American
people are catching on.
A lot of people have said: All right, Inhofe, so you got into this
thing after you were once a believer in the fact that manmade gases
were causing climate change, and you changed when you found out what it
was going to cost. If the science isn't there and it is going to cost
the American people 10 times the largest tax increase in history, then
why would people be for it?
I suggest there are a lot of people outside who are very vocal. One
statement is from France, from Jacques Chirac. Jacques Chirac said
Kyoto is not about climate change. He says:

Kyoto represents the first component of an authentic global
governance.

That is not Inhofe, that is Jacques Chirac.
Another is Margot Wallstrom. She was the environmental minister for
the European Union. Margot Wallstrom said:

We are not talking about climate change, we are talking
about--

Listen to this, Margot Wallstrom--

Kyoto is about the economy, about leveling the playing
field for big business worldwide.

There you have it, Madam President. My wife and I have been married
for 48 years. We have 20 kids and grandkids. I am doing this today for
them. I don't want them to have to pay huge tax increases the rest of
their lives for something where most of the science has already been
refuted.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. I ask the Chair if she will share with me what the time is
now at this point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 47 minutes
remaining, and the Senator from Oklahoma has 31 minutes remaining.
Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair.
Madam President, let me try to find a place to begin. That is a
pretty extraordinary set of statements that has been set forth here. I
suppose the first place to begin is by setting the record clear that
the amendment has been completely and totally mischaracterized. This
amendment does not affect the projects that are in the WRDA bill. The
Senator has said this would kill the WRDA bill and every project in the
bill would have to go back and be redone. That is specifically not true
because this is targeted toward future projects, and it specifically
leaves out those projects currently approved and in the process. So it
doesn't touch anything in this bill. That is No. 1. That is the first
mischaracterization.
Secondly, the Senator from Oklahoma spent a lot of time talking about
Kyoto and how Kyoto would be terrible, Kyoto would require people to do
this. We are not doing Kyoto. Kyoto is sort of out of the picture, in a
sense, for us because we are well beyond the ability to ever meet
Kyoto.
More importantly, when he cites the European community not living up
to Kyoto, Kyoto doesn't go into effect until next year. They don't have
to meet it until next year and they have until 2012 to meet it. To be
throwing around comparisons to Kyoto today and saying, well, they
haven't met it; of 15, 2 actually made the target--that is pretty good,
that 2 have made the target before it even goes into effect.
Moreover, over the years, since 1990 when we began this process in
Rio--and I might add, President George Herbert Walker Bush and
Republican EPA Administrator Reilly and Republican Chief of Staff and
former Gov. John Sununu all signed on and agreed we needed to take this
seriously and respond. That is not George Soros, that is not some
Hollywood crew. That is a Republican President of the United States who
signed us on to a voluntary framework over the years. And since then,
Europe has reduced their emissions by .8 percent. Guess what. The
United States has increased its emissions by 15.8 percent. So Europe is
reducing; the United States is not.
The Senator mentioned a certain number of ``scientists,'' et cetera.
First, we have done some research on a number of those folks
previously. Some don't even qualify as legitimate scientists, No. 1.
But No. 2, not one of them has ever produced a legitimate, scientific,
peer-reviewed study that has met with scientifically peer-reviewed
analysis that signs off on their conclusions. Not one of them, not one,
compared to 928 peer-reviewed studies that have been put forward all
over the globe by scientists from all kinds of countries.
He says scientists are changing their minds and moving in a different
direction. I don't know what scientists the Senator listens to or who
he is talking about because the most recent analysis of scientists is
several thousand scientists who make up the intergovernmental panel on
global climate change.
I know I heard the Senator talk about how this represents some kind
of global conspiracy and global government and all of this, but it is
something called the United Nations which Republican Presidents have
used, conservative Republican Presidents, such as Ronald Reagan, often
went to and found the ability to work cooperatively to achieve things.
Whether it was President Jerry Ford, President Richard Nixon, or
others, they respected the United Nations and have tried to enhance its
ability to do some things on an international basis.
These several thousand scientists have put out four reports. Each
report has been stronger than the next, and those scientists who are
part of that process have not been leaving, departing, changing their
minds, recanting, or asking to rescind their opinions. In fact, they
have strengthened those opinions.
The most recent statement is pretty clear. It is unequivocal that the
Earth's climate is warming. Evidence from observations of increased
global air and ocean temperatures--and I quoted earlier the 90-percent
likelihood they quote that it is human beings who are causing that.
You can choose to ignore evidence or not. All through history there
were people who argued man could never fly, and we did. There were
people who argued we couldn't have a vaccine for a disease. There were
people who argued putting fluoride in the water was going to kill you.
There were people who argued all kinds of things. There were people who
argued the Earth is flat. But the fact is there were always bodies of
evidence based on real science that found a consensus, and that
consensus has never been more powerful

[[Page S6107]]

than it is today that what is happening is happening. Eleven of the
last 12 years rank among the 12 hottest years on record since 1850,
when sufficient worldwide temperature measurements began. Quoting from
the IPCC:

Over the last 50 years, cold days, cold nights, and frost
have become less frequent, while hot days, hot nights and
heat waves have become more frequent.

The Senator said people are saying there is doubt about the increased
intensity of storms, so let me quote what 2,000 scientists from over
154 nations, I think is the number, have concluded.

The intensity of tropical cyclones, hurricanes in the North
Atlantic, has increased over the past 30 years, which
correlates with the increase in tropical sea surface
temperatures. Storms with heavy precipitation have increased
in frequency over most land areas. Between 1900 and 2005,
long-term trends show significantly increased precipitation
in eastern parts of north and South America, northern Europe,
and north and Central Asia. Between 1900 and 2000, the
Sahell--that is the boundary between the Sahara Desert and
some of the fertile regions of Africa to the south--the
Mediterranean, Southern Africa and parts of southern Asia
have become dryer, adding stress to water resources in those
regions. Droughts have become longer and more intense and
have affected larger areas since the 1970s, especially in the
tropics and subtropics.

The Senator mentioned the scientists had revamped or revised their
conclusion about ice melting from 39 inches to 23 inches. What they did
was take out of that assessment the ice melting and looked simply at
temperature--at the sea level rise that was occurring as a consequence
of expansion and the other phenomena we are witnessing, and they found
that is between 7 and 23 inches. Maybe people think 7 and 23 inches
doesn't make a difference, but if you are in southern Florida, if you
are on the islands, if you are in a port city, there are 100 million
people who live within 3 feet of sea level. So you are looking at a
potential threat of great significance. Those scientists have not
walked away from that prediction. If you include the melting of the
ice, which our best scientists are now telling us may well happen, it
is even worse. It has the potential of 16 to 23 feet.
When a doctor tells you that you have indications you have a cancer,
you usually go and try to find treatment. Well, the doctors are telling
us something is going on and we ought to be concerned about it, and
they are pointing to what it is.
I want to speak about the greenhouse gas concept for a minute,
because it allows us to use our minds, the minds God gave us. It allows
us to think about consequences. Why do we call it greenhouse gas? Where
does the word greenhouse gas come from? It came long before we talked
about climate change. The word greenhouse gas has been applied to these
gases because they have the impact of creating a greenhouse effect on
the earth, and the science is absolutely unequivocal. I defy any
scientist to come in here, who is legitimate and bona fide, and tell us
there is no greenhouse effect. Scientists agree there is a greenhouse
effect.
In fact, life on Earth would not exist without the greenhouse effect.
It is this thin layer of gases in our atmosphere that in fact preserves
the ability for all of us to live on Earth, and those greenhouse gases
contain heat within the Earth that keeps the average temperature of the
Earth at 57 degrees Fahrenheit. If you didn't have a greenhouse effect,
the Earth would be 60 degrees cooler. The greenhouse effect got its
name because it behaves like a greenhouse at a nursery or in a garden,
where the light can come in through the glass, and it comes through
transparently, the light hits the pots of earth and things that are in
there, reflects, and creates its own energy.
That energy then goes back out, reverberates the light, and comes
back in a shortwave emission from the sun--and it is transparent--and
it goes back in a longwave emission, which is less powerful. It is
opaque. The veneer of the atmosphere, the greenhouse gas veneer is
opaque to that energy trying to be released, which means it can't break
through. It blocks it. A certain amount of that gas is trapped, and
that is what creates the greenhouse effect, and it warms over a period
of time.
That warming is now absolutely conclusive. It is incontrovertible. As
Professor John Holden, who is a professor of government and earth
science at Harvard, and also affiliated with Woods Hole Marine, states
very clearly, the folks on the other side of this argument have two
major obligations, neither of which they have ever met. Obligation No.
1: They have to show the warming that is taking place is caused by
other than the greenhouse gases. In other words, they have to show what
is causing it if the greenhouse gases aren't. And No. 2, they have to
prove the greenhouse gases that are going up and behaving in the way I
just described are not what is creating the warming. And they have
never, ever, ever, ever met that standard. They have never provided a
study that meets either of those tests. They can't show you what is
doing it and they can't show you why the gases we create aren't doing
it. We do have, however, a group of scientists who are warning us about
what we ought to do.
The Senator dismisses very quickly the companies that are involved in
this. Well, I have never met a company that goes off to do something
and creates a storm about science based on complete fraud with respect
to what they are doing. None of them came to the table willingly, may I
add. They have come to the table because they understand the science.
They have come to the table because they understand companies all over
the world are exerting responsibility.
The former Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, was president and CEO of
Alcoa, and for some 15 years now he has been taking steps as a CEO with
a sense of civic responsibility to try to respond to this science.
The fact is all of these scientists, and I might add the presidents
of these other countries, are speaking, obviously, out of concern for
their own countries, out of concern for their own constituencies, and
for the threats they face in those nations. Prime Minister Blair, who
is leaving office shortly, has made this one of his major issues, one
of his major crusades, and obviously has done so at some risk. But the
fact is he and many other leaders of countries accept the science and
understand their responsibility to try to meet it and to do so in a
responsible way.
I have spoken to the sea level rise and to the United Nations, but
there is one thing I might clarify very quickly. Mr. Hansen did not get
a grant from the Heinz Foundation. Mr. Hansen was presented a Heinz
award in honor of former Republican Senator John Heinz, who was a
great leader on this issue. Senator Heinz knew global climate change
was happening, he knew we needed to respond to these things, and Mr.
Hansen received an award, with no strings attached, no communication
whatsoever, as a recognition of his work. He has received awards from
many other organizations and entities over the course of his lifetime,
and I would put his credentials and his experience up against any of
the other so-called scientists we sometimes hear referred to.

I might also add we have heard a lot about the implementation of
Kyoto. I led the floor effort on Kyoto when the so-called Byrd-Hagel
amendment was brought to the floor, so I know something about that
particular process. The fact is those who have always opposed doing
something about global climate change have tried to use that vote and
Kyoto itself as an excuse to sow fear in their own party, saying how
much it is going to cost Americans and how terrible it is going to be,
how it will ruin our economy and take us backwards. These are exactly
the same arguments we heard in 1990 when we did the Clean Air Act.
I sat in the room right back here, which is now the majority leader's
room. It was then Senator Mitchell's office. We sat with EPA
Administrator Reilly, with John Sununu, and with others. Republicans
and Democrats alike sat at that table and we negotiated out the Clean
Air Act. I remember all the ``Chicken Little'' cries we heard as people
came and said, well, you know, if you make us do this, it is going to
cost $8 billion to the industry and it is going to destroy the
industry, and it will reduce American jobs, and we are going to be
noncompetitive. The environmental community came in and said, no, no,
no, those guys are wrong, it is not going to cost $8 billion, it is
going to cost $4 billion. And it won't take 8 years, we can do it in 4
years. Guess what. It cost about $2 billion and

[[Page S6108]]

took half the time. They were wrong, too.
All the statements about how it was going to ruin America's economy?
We wound up growing our economy by 123, or whatever, percent over those
years. More jobs were created and Americans did better. We did it and
we breathed cleaner air at the same time.
The fact is, nobody has the ability to predict what is going to
happen when you start down this road. Once you begin to kick these
technologies into gear, then the entire basis of the judgments you are
making begins to change, because the technology moves far more rapidly
than anybody can surmise, and some things are going to appear that we
don't even know about today.
Let us assume the Senator from Oklahoma is correct and I am wrong,
and the scientists are all wrong, and Al Gore is wrong, and everybody
who has spoken out on this all through the years is wrong, and that we
went down this road in order to deal with some of these issues. What is
the worst that could happen?
Given past experience with the Clean Air Act, and given experiences
with where the world is moving on this issue, we are going to create a
whole bunch of new technologies, create a bunch of new jobs, where we
will have cleaner air to breathe, a population that is less impacted by
asthma and emphysema and by other airborne particulate diseases, there
will be less cancer, and we will wind up more energy independent, with
cleaner fuels, and the United States will have greater security. We
will lead the world in these technologies, because these other
countries are committed to buying them.
If they are wrong, what is the worst? Global catastrophe, according
to every prediction. That is the ledger here. You can take your choice.
You can be prudent and take the steps we need to take, or you can
continue to keep your head in the sand and ignore the work of these
thousands of scientists and these leaders around the world and these
corporate citizens and others who have come to the table.
All we are asking for here is that our Corps of Engineers makes a
judgment. I mean, are we saying they shouldn't make a judgment; that
they shouldn't make an analysis? Maybe the judgment they will make is
they will agree the science is wrong. But shouldn't they be asked to
make that judgment? Shouldn't they be asked to measure what in fact is
possible, as a consequence of the evidence on the table? Wouldn't it be
helpful to all of us to have them making those kinds of judgments?
I think when we look behind the curtain of the sort of red herrings
that get thrown out here, there isn't one that stands up; not one peer-
reviewed scientific analysis, not one legitimate, cogent statement to
the contrary to explain why what is happening is happening and what the
impact is.
Let's say it wasn't just the greenhouse gases, because we are not
doing anything in this amendment to deal with greenhouse gases. Let's
say it isn't the greenhouse gases but that the Earth is warming. Isn't
it smart to have the Corps of Engineers at least make a judgment about
what the effect of the warming may be with respect to water, since they
are going to be dealing with water resources? This is, after all, the
bill that deals with water resources for our country. It would be smart
for the Corps of Engineers to be able to make some judgment with
respect to that.
The Chair of the committee has come to the floor and has some
information with respect to the Corps of Engineers' willingness to do
that, so I yield such time as the Chair might use, and I reserve the
remainder of the time after that.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, how much time remains for Senator Kerry?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Webb). The Senator has 26 minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. If the President could just tell me when I have used 4
minutes, I will yield the rest of the time back to Senator Kerry.
I think, again, this gives us the sense of some of the debate that
has been going on inside the environment committee and across the
various committees. I certainly believe these kinds of debates are
helpful because we get the charges, if you will, out in the open.
People on one side or the other can have this free debate.
I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. When I learned he was going
to offer this amendment, I wrote to the Corps and I asked them whether
they are considering the impact of global warming already as they do
their work. I will ask consent to have printed in the Record their
answer to me. It is dated May 10. I will just read a little bit of it.

The Corps planning process has been considering the
physical impacts of global climate change for over 20 years,
initially through the consideration of sea level rise in
project planning. As part of the evolution in our approach to
incorporating the impacts of global climate change, we are
including more risk and uncertainty analyses in our planning
process. We continue to collaborate with Federal agencies to
ensure that we are up to date on the current interpretations
of climate change scenarios and to refine our processes as
more aspects of global climate change are understood. This is
imperative because the water resources public works projects
being planned and designed today must protect against and be
resilient to future extreme events, which could be
exacerbated by global climate change.

They are basically saying:

We believe the [Corps] is a leader in developing an
innovative, yet practical, cost-effective approach to
addressing climate change impacts in our planning and
management of our key water-based infrastructure. We are well
positioned to respond to the Nation's needs now and in the
future.

I want to have this letter printed in the Record because I want to
say to my friend from Massachusetts that as a result of his offering
this amendment, we were able to get the Corps to focus on everything
they have been doing to address climate change. I think the Senator
will be pleased to see some of the steps they are already taking. I
think his amendment is really consistent with what the Corps has
already begun to do.
I thank Senator Kerry. I thank Senator Inhofe for engaging in this
debate with him. It is a little more pleasant for me to see the debate
between Senator Kerry and Senator Inhofe rather than Senator Boxer and
Senator Inhofe. It is a little bit of a rest for me. I thank both of
them for their intelligent approach to this debate.
I send this letter to the desk and ask unanimous consent that it be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Department of the Army,

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

Washington, DC, May 10, 2007.
Hon. Barbara Boxer,
Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Boxer: This is in response to your letter of
May 8, 2007, to Lieutenant General Strock requesting
information on how the Corps addresses the potential impacts
of global warming in our planning process.
There are many avenues through which the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) Civil Works program addresses the difficult
scientific, technical and operational issues raised by the
uncertainty associated with climate change and its potential
impacts on planning and management of water resources
infrastructure. Attached please find a discussion of some
actions we are taking to address climate change in all of our
activities.
The Corps planning process has been considering the
physical impacts of global climate change for over twenty
years, initially through the consideration of sea level rise
in project planning. As part of the evolution in our approach
to incorporating the impacts of global climate change, we are
including more risk and uncertainty analyses in our planning
process. We continue to collaborate with Federal agencies to
ensure that we are up to date on the current interpretations
of climate change scenarios and to refine our processes as
more aspects of global climate change are understood. This is
imperative because the water resources public works projects
being planned and designed today must protect against and be
resilient to future extreme events, which could be
exacerbated by global climate change.
In conclusion, we believe the USACE is a leader in
developing an innovative, yet practical, cost-effective
approach to addressing climate change impacts in our planning
and management of our key water-based infrastructure. We are
well positioned to respond to the Nation's needs now and in
the future.
Sincerely,
Steven L. Stockton, P.E.,
Deputy Director of Civil Works.

Mrs. BOXER. I yield the remainder of the time to Senator Kerry.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, since we are having so much fun here, let
me go

[[Page S6109]]

back and respond to the Senator's response. After this, I have a very
significant meeting I am going to have to attend. I am going to have to
reserve the remainder of my time, go attend that, and come right back
here. I have to leave temporarily. Let me go ahead and cover these last
12 things the Senator from Massachusetts has said.
First of all, I think he is right on this--I found out he was right.
I had said the cost of this and the effect of this would be to delay
projects. I found out, after he said it and I found out it is true,
that his bill starts from this point forward. The reason I didn't know
that is because his amendment was not filed until last night, and I was
on my way back from Iraq last night, so I was not aware of this. It
doesn't change my argument, though. The argument is this is another
step which has to be taken any time we have to go through any kind of a
process.
I am sure, when we have the next Transportation reauthorization bill,
he will have an amendment saying we have to know for each project how
this could affect climate change. It really doesn't make that much
difference.
The second thing, he said Kyoto is not really on the table. I am glad
to know that because whether you call it Kyoto or something else is not
important. It is still going to have to be some kind of restriction,
some kind of carbon tax, some kind of cap-and-trade policy. When you
do, it is going to cost money. So, yes, I used the Wharton Econometric
Survey to demonstrate clearly that this is a tax increase of $2,700 on
each family of four. However, the more recent bills--I grant to the
Senator from Massachusetts, we are talking about this. We are talking
about the ones that are more recent than this. The more recent ones,
done by MIT, the Massachusetts--I stress that--Institute of Technology,
show that the Sanders-Boxer bill's cost is about $4,500 for each family
of four. McCain-Lieberman would be $3,500. So if you would rather not
use Kyoto, that is fine. We will use some of the more recent ones.
Nonetheless, it will be something equal to 10 times the largest tax
increase in contemporary history.
He said also that there is not one peer-reviewed scientist--or study
that substantiates what we are talking about. So let me just read them
again here to make sure we understand what this is.
Two weeks ago, the top hurricane scientist in the U.S. Government--
indeed, one of the top hurricane scientists in the world--published a
peer-reviewed study in the scientific Journal EOS that concluded from
the evidence that ``hurricanes in the Atlantic have not increased for
more than a century.'' Peer reviewed. There it is.
Another one is a peer-reviewed study published in the April 18, 2007,
issue of the science journal Geophysical Research Letters which found:

If the world continues to warm, vertical wind sheer, which
literally tears apart storms, would also rise. These winds
would decrease the number and severity of storms we would
otherwise have.

In other words, it would actually have a decreasing effect. Again, it
is peer reviewed.
We had a third one, too. We have several of those which are peer
reviewed. So that statement is not correct.
Let's see, the fourth point is Inhofe said this is some kind of a
global conspiracy. No, Inhofe didn't say that; Jacques Chirac said
that, and I quoted him. I have quoted him, so there would be no reason
to repeat it; it would be redundant, although it might be worth
redundancy here. Jacques Chirac said--and he wasn't talking about Kyoto
having anything to do with climate change.

Kyoto represents the first component of an authentic global
governance.

That is not Senator Jim Inhofe saying that; that is Jacques Chirac.
I quoted other people--Margot Wallstrom, who is the Environmental
Minister from the EU, or was at that time. She said it is about
leveling the playing field worldwide. Again, the Senator from
Massachusetts is wrong. It wasn't Senator Inhofe; it was Jacques
Chirac.
No. 5--I always enjoy this one--they use the consensus that the
world--you know, the Flat Earth Society. They have it backward. In
fact, this is what we are faced with, the same thing science was faced
with back when they thought the world was flat. They thought the Earth
was flat, and that was the consensus. All the experts agreed on that at
that time. Then we found out with new science that it was not. That is
exactly, precisely what is happening in this case.

They all thought at that time that manmade gases were causing climate
change. Now they readily admit and say--and I will be glad to read them
again. I plan on yielding back a bunch of time because we do want to
get to voting before too long. But I read all the scientists who are
very strong in their consensus, and these were the scientists who were
the strongest pro-global-warming extremists around 10 years ago, but
they have changed their minds. It is in the record. I already read it
about an hour ago.
Then, No. 6, the statement the Senator from Massachusetts said, the
IPCC survey--that is the United Nations--was talking about 2,000
scientists agree to it. It is not 2,000 scientists. What he is quoting
from is the summary for policymakers. Every time they have an IPCC
meeting--they have had five now, I believe--they start out with a
policy summary for policymakers. These are the politicians, not the
scientists. They are the ones who believe it. Yet, even though they are
strongly on the other side, they have to defend their position. It was
the United Nations that started this whole thing. The IPCC was the
group that did it.
It is going to be very difficult for them to change their position,
so gradually they are coming over to our side.
The next thing the Senator from Massachusetts was criticizing me for
was talking about minimizing the sea level rise. I am not. That is the
IPCC. That is the United Nations. They said prior to this year's report
that it was going to rise 39 inches over the next 100 years--until this
year. They came out and they said: We will reduce that. Instead of 39
inches, it will be somewhere between 7 and 23 inches. Every time they
come out with a new report, they reduce that sea level rise. Again, it
is not Inhofe saying it; it is the IPCC talking about it.
No. 8, the greenhouse gas effect. I agree with this. The greenhouse
gas effect gives life. We need to have that. The question is, What are
the manmade gases? We call them anthropogenic gases, CO<inf>2</inf>,
methane, some others. These are primarily what they are talking about.
Do these have a result of increasing temperatures? Is it increasing
from natural causes or is it increasing from manmade causes?
Keep in mind, we have charts that show throughout the beginning of
recorded history it has been like this. You know, people don't
understand. God is still up there. We have natural things that are
taking place. It gets warmer, gets cooler, gets warmer, gets cooler.
Every time it does, I have an interesting presentation where we talk
about the hysteria we see in the press, only to find out this was
something in the New York Times in 1895, the same thing as they are
talking about today.
This happens, natural causes are out there, and, yes, you need to
have the greenhouse effect. It gives life. The question is, What do
manmade gases--how do they increase it?
Put that Wiggly chart up one more time, the Tom Wiggly chart. This is
the scientist who was commissioned by Al Gore during the Clinton-Gore
administration. He said that if all developed nations signed the Kyoto
treaty and lived by its emission requirements, it would reduce the
temperature only by seven one-hundredths of 1 degree in 50 years. It is
not even measurable. This is not me talking. Again, these are the
scientists. They are scientists I didn't commission. That was done by
Al Gore.
I am glad for the correction on Jim Hanson. He said Jim Hanson was
not given a grant by the Heinz Foundation. Instead of that, he was just
given a check. I recant what I said. He was not given a grant for
$250,000; he was given a check for $250,000.
The Senator from Massachusetts talked about the Byrd-Hagel amendment.
Let's remember what that amendment was. The amendment said--and this
passed by 95 to nothing in this Senate. I was standing here. I voted. I
don't know whether the Senator from Massachusetts was here. I assume he
was.
Anyway, what it was, after they signed this protocol, they wanted to

[[Page S6110]]

submit it to the Senate for ratification. That is the process you have
to go through. The President and administration can sign it, but it has
to be ratified. Thank God it has to be ratified, and all these other
treaties do, so we at least read them. So the Byrd-Hagel amendment was
passed by 95 to 0--that is unanimous from everyone who was here--that
said we will not ratify the Kyoto treaty if either of the two following
is true: No. 1, that we are not requiring the developing nations to do
the same thing the developed nations do, and No. 2, that it would be
economically devastating for our country.
We know what it is going to cost in terms of how it relates to the
largest tax increase in history, and we know also that China and the
developing nations have no interest. China will become the largest
emitter of CO<inf>2</inf> this year, way ahead of schedule. They are
going to be the largest emitter, and they are sitting back laughing at
us. I think we have only put on line one coal-fired generating plant to
give this country the energy to run this country in the last 15 years--
let me correct that. In the 15 years between 1990 and 2005, we didn't
put on line any new coal-fired generating plants. At the same time we
are not doing anything, China is cranking out one every 3 days.
Now, of the people standing on the floor of the Senate, I know
Senator Dorgan is concerned about jobs, life in this country and other
countries as well when we run out of electricity. Right now we are
dependent upon coal for 53 percent of the energy it takes to run this
great machine we call America.
Now, if you pull 53 percent out, this is where the corporations make
money, those who are competing with coal. They make a fortune. Who
pays? The poor pay. There was a very interesting study done not too
long ago. It is not just a matter of the tax increase, CBO, 2 weeks
ago, came out with a report that said, yes, it is going to cost this
amount of money. But the worst part of it is it is going to cost the
poor, people on fixed incomes. Those are the people who have to spend a
larger percentage of their income on energy, on heating their homes and
those things that are a necessity.
So, anyway, the Senator from Massachusetts talked about the Byrd-
Hagel amendment. It is still out there. It still has 95 Senators who
said: We don't want to ratify any program that is not going to apply
equally to Mexico and India and China and other developing nations.
Then, I guess, No. 11, the point he made when he was talking about
the economy, saying, oh, this is not true, well, I have a great deal of
respect for the junior Senator from Massachusetts, but would you rather
believe him or would you rather believe the Wharton Econometric Survey
in conjunction with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology?
Look, I know I am not as smart as most of you guys around here. So I
go to the areas where they are smart. I know where the scientists are.
I would rather quote scientists who do know rather than stand here and
tell you how smart I am because I am not. But I know how to read these
papers. I do know for a fact the scientists have come over to our side.
I would suggest anyone who wants to really get into this thing, I
have got a Web site, which is
www.epw.senate.gov
. Now, go to that. We
have literally thousands, not hundreds but thousands of scientists who
are now saying the science is not there. You cannot say there is a
consensus.
Lastly, Senator Boxer, we are getting along real fine on this bill.
She does not want to kill it; I do not want to kill it. This amendment
is not going to pass. So I think the bill will pass.
But they say the Corps of Engineers is already doing this. If the
Corps of Engineers is already making this evaluation on projects as to
what effect they are going to have, then why do we need this amendment?
I would suggest we do not need this amendment.
I reserve the remainder of my time. How much time do I have
remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 16 minutes 45 seconds. The
Senator from Massachusetts has 22 minutes 41 seconds.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time. I am
going to go to an appointment that I have right now and try to return
in a few minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Webb). The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me respond, if I can, to the Senator
from Oklahoma. I regret that he has to leave.
Almost every single one of the statements he just made does not apply
to the question of global warming itself.
Let me give you an example. The Senator just cited two peer-reviewed
studies. One of the peer-reviewed studies he talked about talks about
hurricanes and the scientists who found that hurricanes have not
increased.
We never asserted they have increased. I didn't come here and say
they have increased. Maybe some people have talked about the increase
in the number of hurricanes, but he has a peer-reviewed study,
supposedly, that talks about hurricanes have not increased. He does not
have a peer-reviewed study that says global climate change is not
happening because of human-induced greenhouse gases. Not one.
The second study he cited as a peer-reviewed study was vertical wind
shear, decreasing the effect of wind. Well, I am not here to debate
vertical wind shear. Yes, there are certain indicators within the
framework of models that cannot predict accurately exactly what is
going to happen as a consequence of climate change. We have admitted
that for 17 years.
The Senator, obviously, missed the fact that I said--I led the effort
on our side on the Kyoto agreement with respect to Byrd-Hagel. I
advised my colleagues to vote for it. I voted for it. And we voted for
it because there was a simple principle at stake, which is whether we
were going to treat this on a global basis, whether we were going to,
all of us, join in. If the United States was going to be part of the
solution, we could not be a solution by ourselves. We needed to have
the less developed countries and others join in.
That has been a fight we have been involved in now for a number of
years. But, please, I ask the Senator, do not misinterpret what we were
doing in that. We were not suggesting that it was the cost factor or
because we did not need to do it. It is because we needed to do it in
the most sensible way, and we needed to do it within a global
framework. We still need to do that.
Now, each of the statements the Senator just made is flat incorrect--
most of them, 90 percent. I will be very specific. He talked about how
it was politicians who wrote this, not scientists. Well, in fact, that
is not true. This report was created by scientists. And the EPW
Committee itself had a briefing in which those scientists, including
the cochair, Susan Solomon of NOAA, presented the results.
The first page of the summary for policymakers lists the lead
authors, every single one of whom are scientists. So let's get our
facts straight. Moreover, the Bush administration made the following
statement in support of the IPCC. They said that they continue to
support and embrace the work of the IPCC and the science behind their
most recent report.
So the Senator is at odds even with an administration that has been
reluctant to deal with this issue. Let me also point out that--he
pointed out this question of the discrepancy of the 7 and 23 inches in
the change in sea level. Incidentally, these little sort of twists of
fact are not so little in the summary because they are being used in
the conglomerate, one after the other, to try to confuse people and
pretend that somehow this issue is not real.

Each one of them gets blown away by the real facts, but they still
keep coming back, something I learned a lot about a few years ago,
where the facts don't matter. You just repeat something enough even if
it is not true. Well, the fact is, with respect to the sea level rise,
they try to make a big deal and say: Well, they have reversed the
science; the scientists are going backwards. No, they are not. The sea
level rise is still predicted to go up between 7 and 23 inches by 2100.
That is what the IPCC report still says. The upper limit is lower than
the previous report because they took out the contributions from
Greenland and the Antarctic ice sheet. The reason they took them out is
because the scientists believed, in keeping with their notion of
accuracy and of trying to not be alarmists, that there was a lack of a
reliable

[[Page S6111]]

model to accurately estimate the melting rate.
Now, you do not have a reliable model to accurately reflect the
melting rate. But, guess what. To your eye, you can go up and see the
melting. You can look at a satellite photo of 1979 and a satellite
photo today, and your eye will tell you 20 percent of the ice is gone.
It is not getting colder, it is getting warmer. The ocean is getting
warmer.
So what is the logical conclusion? The logical conclusion is more ice
is going to melt. And what happens when more ice melts? What was a
reflectent to the rays of the sun--the ice--no longer is there to
reflect. The sunlight goes into the water. Guess what it does in the
water. It is absorbed, it warms up the water, and then guess what
happens. The ice melts faster. You do not need to be a scientist to do
this. Any kid in school can figure that out, which is why young people
get this.
The Senator should not distort these facts. One after another he lays
out something that suggests something that is happening that is not.
Take Jacques Chirac's comment. First of all, he is the only person I
know of who ever suggested that Jacques Chirac speaks for America. But
having said what he said about Jack Chirac and global governance,
global governance is something that Presidents have dealt with in the
context of the U.N. without ever considering giving up the sovereignty
of the United States.
You can have global governance. Anytime you have a treaty, it is
global governance. When you had the World War II treaty on the
battleship Missouri, with Japan, that was governance.
When the United States went over and Douglas MacArthur helped to
create a constitution and create a democracy, that was global
governance. It turned out it was a pretty darn good result as we
rebuilt Europe and a lot of other places.
Global governance does not have to be this bugaboo word that is used
to scare people that somehow we are giving up the sovereignty of the
United States. Every one of these arguments just kind of melts away
like the ice itself. I think we ought to have a real debate about what
is happening.
Let's go to the economy. That is the big one that they love to pick
on and say to Americans: Oh, this is going to cost you so much money if
you do this, and it is going to wind up being terrible. Well, that is
not what the best economists in the world say. That is not what the
best business leaders in the world say.
In fact, they have concluded if you do not do something, it is going
to cost a lot of money. You want to pay a lot more money for insurance?
You want to pay a lot more money for dams that are bigger, pay a lot
more money for hospitalizations, more cancer, for more asthma, for more
problems of the particulates in the air? Then you can go ahead and burn
dirty coal and not be smart about the future.
The fact is, Sir Nicholas Stearn, who is one of the leading
economists in Britain, former head of the Bank of England and one of
the people whom Prime Minister Blair tapped to give them an analysis,
wrote this in a report last fall:

The scientific evidence is now overwhelming.

This an economist.

Climate change is a serious global threat, and it demands
an urgent global response. The review has assessed the wide
range of evidence on the impacts of climate change and on the
economic costs, and has used a number of different techniques
to assess cost and risks. From all of those perspectives, the
evidence gathered by the review leads to a simple conclusion.
The benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the
economic costs of not acting. Climate change will affect the
basic elements of life for people around the world, access to
water, food production, health, and the environment. Hundreds
of millions of people could suffer hunger, water shortages,
coastal flooding as the world warms. Using the results from
formal economic models, the review estimates that if we don't
act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be
equivalent to losing at least 5 percent of global GDP each
year now and forever.

Losing 5 percent of GDP now and forever, that is the economic
prediction of not acting. And they say if a wider risk of impacts is
taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20 percent of
GDP or more. In contrast, the cost of action, reducing greenhouse gas
emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change can be limited
to around 1 percent of global GDP each year.
That is an economic standard that, in fact, MIT economists have also
confirmed, not quite the same figures but very similar. The bottom line
is there is a consensus that the cost of not acting is far more
expensive to the American people than the cost of acting.
I go back to the experience we had on the Clean Air Act in 1990. I
don't remember Senator Inhofe being part of that discussion. But the
fact is, in 1990, when we did that act, the same arguments were put
forward about not proceeding forward, and every one of those arguments
was blown away by the reality of what happened as well as by the
judgments of Republicans and Democrats alike that it was important to
act.
Back then, incidentally, DuPont, which has already been castigated by
the Senator as somehow being in this for the money--DuPont was the
principal producer of the chlorofluorocarbons that were part of the
Montreal Protocol. DuPont was unwilling to move until they knew that
the marketplace was going to be the same for everybody, which is what
happened when the protocol went into effect. Once they knew what the
marketplace was going to do, then they proceeded forward with an
alternative to the CFCs.
So they proved that, No. 1, you can do it, but, No. 2, you have to do
it where the marketplace is, in fact, working. That is why people
believe--incidentally, this amendment has nothing to do with cap and
trade. I happen to support it. We will have that debate down the road.
But this amendment has nothing to do with it. This merely suggests if
we are going to spend Federal dollars on water projects in America and
levees and other kinds of projects, that we ought to know for certain
every one of those projects is being judged specifically as to the
impact of global climate change.
With respect to the cap and trade issue, the fact is, those companies
don't want to proceed ahead until they have the same kind of certainty
that the marketplace will give them when there is a uniform standard
throughout the marketplace. That is far from a bottom-line, profit-
seeking motive.

I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
If neither side yields time, time will be charged equally to both
sides.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask
unanimous consent that time be charged equally.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am sorry I had to leave at a very
contentious time. Notes were given to me of what the distinguished
Senator from Massachusetts said, that 90 percent of everything that
Inhofe said is wrong. I didn't say anything. I am quoting scientists. I
am quoting groups that are making analyses, and three of the quotes I
made were from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He can say
what I said is wrong, but he is saying that the scientists were wrong,
and they never asserted that hurricanes have increased. It is a little
confusing to me because maybe in the last few days he hasn't asserted
that, but look at the movie. It talks about hurricanes. Those
statements are made with regularity. In fact, they made the prediction
that this past year was going to have more and more severe hurricanes.
As it turned out, we had less and less severe hurricanes. I agree the
models aren't perfect.
I don't know what he said about the Byrd-Hagel amendment but, again,
you can't find any of these studies on any of the plans----
Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. INHOFE. No, I will not. You can't find any of the studies that
are out there that haven't somehow talked about the fact that it is
going to do economic damage. We know it is. No one can possibly say
that there is a way to approach this where it is not

[[Page S6112]]

going to cause the economy to be damaged. So that was in the Byrd-Hagel
amendment. The Byrd-Hagel amendment also said we don't want to ratify
anything. We are not going to ratify anything. Every Senator said: We
are not going to ratify anything that does not require that the
developing nations do the same thing that the developed nations do.
Obviously, we have not seen one plan that has come along that addresses
the cap and trade and greenhouse gas, anthropogenic gas emissions, that
doesn't inflict damage that the developing nations are willing to do.
IPCC was not written by politicians. I never said the report was. I
said the summary for policymakers was written by politicians.
Sea level rise is not going backward. All I can say is, if you are
going to hang all your hopes on the IPCC, look at the report. This was
this year, 2007. I have said this several times. I don't know why I
have to keep repeating it. Yes, it has been cut in half, their estimate
as to how much sea level rise was going to take place. This isn't the
first time that has happened. This happens almost every time they have
it in one of the reports. So the sea level rise, no sense repeating
that.
Inhofe shouldn't distort. He is the only one I know of who says
Chirac speaks for America. Chirac speaks for America--ye gods. Since he
accused me of saying that this is some kind of a global conspiracy, I
was quoting the person who said that, who I am sure is a much better
friend of the Senator from Massachusetts than he is of mine, and that
was Jacques Chirac. Jacques Chirac said:

Kyoto represents the first component of an authentic global
governance.

That is not me. That is Jack Chirac. It answers the question why are
these countries over in Europe so interested that we do something in
this country that is going to hurt our economy. The answer came from
Margot Wallstrom, Minister of the Environment for the European Union.
She said:

Kyoto is about the economy, about leveling the playing
field for big business worldwide.

Yes, there are other countries that would love to have America be
overtaxed and have all these economic problems that we don't have right
now. It could inure to their benefit; there is no question about that.
No one would deny that.
Best economists don't say controlling carbon will be costly. How many
economists and how many scientists do I have to quote? I could use the
rest of my time and not repeat one of the scientists, read another
whole list, but I have done it so many times. Here are some I haven't
talked about. This is the cost.
Going back, if you want to catch 60 at one time, let's take the 60
scientists in Canada, the ones I said earlier were the ones who
recommended to the Prime Minister, 15 years ago, that they sign onto,
ratify the Kyoto treaty. Now they say:

If back in the mid-1990s we knew what we know today about
climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist because we
would have to conclude that it was not necessary.

That is 60 scientists there. You can try to discredit all 60 of them
at one time and maybe you can do it. I don't know. But there are
others. You can't look at these guys with the qualifications they have.
Read what they have said. The fact that they have reversed their
positions and say the scientists are not, there is some consensus
because there is no consensus.
Senator Kerry quoted the Stern report, which has been discredited by
even the economists who are climate change believers. I guess he was
saying that I said there is a group of industries and we had a hearing
on this. I wish the Senator from Massachusetts had attended the
hearing. Yes, it is true there are several large corporations in
America that are now embracing any kind of reduction, cap and trade or
a tax or anything else because it inures to their benefit. I was
specific as to how many millions and how many billions of dollars each
one of these corporations would have. How dare me say that.

Again, if I were on the board of directors of any of these, I would
say: Let's do the same thing. The whole idea is to make money. The
problem is, it is as if no one is paying for all this fun we are
having. Yes, it would have to be more money. But if we did that,
somebody has to pay for it. Again, even the CBO says that all this
money it is going to cost, the tax increase on the American people,
whichever of these schemes we decide on, is going to be
disproportionately on the poor and those who are on fixed incomes.
By the way, one of the statements on here was that no one has said we
were going to have a worse hurricane season. I will quote one person I
think the junior Senator from Massachusetts would know. It is Teresa
Heinz-Kerry. Teresa Heinz-Kerry, the chair of the Heinz Foundation, has
helped financially bankroll the Environment2004 campaign coalition,
which is placing billboards throughout Florida claiming ``President
Bush's environmental policies could result in stronger and more
frequent hurricanes.'' That is a quote.
I don't know how much time we have left. We are now repeating each
other. Nothing new has come out. I will have maybe a short final
statement. I am willing to yield back the balance of my time.
I ask unanimous consent at this point, while we are both resting,
that Senator Warner be recognized for up to 4 minutes to make a
statement as in morning business and that those 4 minutes be equally
charged to both sides.
Mr. KERRY. Reserving the right to object, I respect the Senator. I
would like to give him the time to speak but outside of my time. I
would be happy to yield at this point in the day if he wants to speak
as in morning business but not to be charged against our time. If he
wants to take it off the Senator's time, he can.
Mr. INHOFE. All right. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from
Virginia be recognized for up to 4 minutes to speak as in morning
business and his 4 minutes not be charged against either Senator Kerry
or myself.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The senior Senator from Virginia.

____________________