[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 80 (Tuesday, May 15, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6092-S6112]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           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.
 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.
  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 
CO2, 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 CO2. 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 
     CO2 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, CO2, 
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 CO2 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.

                          ____________________