transform this economy to a clean energy economy, that will get us off foreign oil, which is only to the good. you know, iran has been in the news and our hearts go out to those who are trying to take their country back, if i could say that. and we all stand with those demonstrators. we will not forget what they have gone through and their struggle. but i will tell you, iran in the eyes of the world, would not be so powerful -- and i ask unanimous consent that when i'm done, senator kerry finish this time on global warming, followed by, if senator coburn would like to be recognized at that time. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. boxer: good. so, what thomas friedman, again writing his great come up, as he does, says that iran would not be such a formidable power in

the world if oil wasn't so sought after in the world. now, we don't buy any iranian oil, for obvious reasons, but the rest of the world does. and the fact is, if we can create these clean alternatives, it's going to make every difference -- every difference -- in the world. so, in closing -- and i'll so pleased that senator kerry is here -- let me say this: my ranking member, jim inhofe, made a comment -- and i just want to say that we are good friends, and anything i say here, i say to him and vice versa. my ranking member said in the press -- and i don't know if senator kerry saw this -- my ranking member, senator inhofe, said to me in the press, "i should gei should get a life. get a life and stop trying to pass global warming legislation, because it isn't going it happen. and i want to say to him, very

clear today, i have a life. and i am spending it getting the votes i need to make sure that we take advantage of this momentous opportunity, and i want to thank those over in the house that seem to understand this golden moment of opportunity for our economy, for our foreign policy, for the creation of millions of new jobs, for energy independence. that's whatter in a fighting for over there and for great opportunities for our agricultural sector, our manufacturing sector. this is an opportunity we shouldn't lose, and i'm very pleased at the progress we're making over here. and i want to send that signal we are making great progress. and i thank you very much, mr. president, and i yield the floor. mr. kerry: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: mr. president, thank you. what is the parliamentary situation right now?

the presiding officer: the national is operating -- the senate is operating under cloture in considering the nomination of harold koh. mr. kerry: and the tile on that -- has the time for a vote been set at this point? the presiding officer: it has not. mr. kerry: is not set. i thank the chair. with that in mind, i think the leadership is hopeful of trying to ghat vote somewhere in the near-term. and i want to make some closing comments with respect to the nomination of dean koh. but before i do, i want to have a chance to share a few thoughts with the distinguished chairman of the environment and public works committee, who has been just an extraordinaril an extran this subject of global change. i think the senator has a terrific life. and i'm proud of what she is doing with respect to this

issue. and it's rulely interesting -- i think it's really important for us to talk about a few of the things. the senator from oklahoma, senator inhofe, has made some comments on the floor of the senate that are either wrong on facts or, i think, wrong in terms of the judgment politically. and i want to say up front, as my colleague has said, i enjoy my conversations and my relationship with the senator enormously. we're both pilots. he flies often, much more frequently than i do these days, but we both share a passion for flight and for different types of airplanes, and i love talking to him about them. i wish he were really up to state-of-the-art with respect to the science on global climate change. he made a number of comments on the floor of the senate which senator boxer and i just have to

set the record straight on. number one, suggesting that the science is somehow divided -- that is -- that's myth. it's wishful thinking, perhaps, on the part of some people. and i suppose if your definition of "divided" is that you got 5,000 people over here and two people over here who want to put together a point of view that is usually encouraged and in fact paid for by a particular industry or something, that you can claim that it's divided. but by any peer-review standard, by any judgment of the broadest array of scientists in the world -- not just the united states, across the planet -- the science is not divided. the fact is that presidents of countries are committing their countries to major initiatives on global climate change,

environment ministers -- mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: could i ask the distinguished senator from massachusetts if he would yield for a unanimous consent request or two? mr. kerry: of course i would yield, mr. president. mr. reid: as usual, i appreciate the courtesy of my friend from massachusetts. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that all postcloture time be yielded back except for 30 minutes, and that tienl divided as follows: 10 minutes for senator kerry, if you count the time he's already used. you need more time? okay. i just have people -- you know how they call thursday afternoon wanting to leave. 10 minutes each: senator kerry, 10 minutes for senator cornyn, 010 minutes for senator coburn. each 10 minutes. or their designees. upon the united states or yielding back of time, the senate proceed to vote on confirmation of the nomination. upon confirmation, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative sessionment. mr. president --

yes? the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. kerry: mr. president, reserving the right to objec object ... mr. reid: i would ask to modify the consent agreement. that until 10, 10, 10, senator kerry be given 15 minutes and senator cornyn be given 15 minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that upon the disposition of the koh nominee flashings the senate resume

legislative session, the senate then move to proceed to consideration of calendar number 84, h.r. 2 the 18, the legislative branch appropriations act; that the motion be agreed to, and once the bill is reported, the nelson of nebraska substitute amendment, which is at the desk being be called for consideration. further, that following -- that the following be the only first-degree amendments and motion in order: mccain, nebraska photo exhibit; coburn, onloon disclosure of senate spending; demint, visitors center inscription "in god we trust"; vitter, motion to recommit 2009 level, demint, audit reform federal reserve, upon disposition of the amendments in motion, the substitute amendments, if amended, be degreeds, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, the bill as amend be read a third time and the senate proceed to vote on passage of

the bill; upon passage, the senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the house on the disagreeing votes of the two houses, and that the chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the senate, provided further in a point of order is raised against the substitute amendment, it be in order for another substitute amendment to be offered minus the offending provision, that including any amendments which have been greed to and no further amendments be the senate will come to order. upon the substitute amendment -- and that the substitute amendment as amended, if amended, be agreed to, and the remaining provisions be adopted in the substitute amendment remain in effect. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the proceedings just -- the prior proceedings not interrupt the comments that we're engaged in. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. kerry: thank the chair. and, mr. president, could i have a five-minute notice from the

parliamentarian. the presiding officer: the senator will be notified. mr. kerry: mr. president, let me just briefly state before i talk about dean koh in the time we have before the vote -- and i know it is important to get to that vote -- so the science is clearly not divided with respect to global climate change. in fact, every major scientists in the united states whose life has been devoted to this effort -- like jim hanen at nasa or the president's science advisor formerly at harvard -- all of these people will tell you in private warnings that are even far more urgent than the warnings that they give in public. and the reason is that the science is coming back at a faster rate and to a greater degree in terms of the damage that was predicted than any of these people had predicted. the fact is, there's a recent study about the -- the melting of the permafrost of the planet. and it shows that if the arctic -- this is the siberian shelf

study which i would ask my colleague from oklahoma to read -- it shows columns of methane rising up out of the sea level and if you light a match where that's columns break out into the open acres it will ignite. those columns of methane represent a gas that is 20 times more damaging and dangerous than carbon dioxide. and it is now, as the permafrost melts, uncontrollably be released into the atmosphere. in addition to that there's an ice shelf, the wilkins ice shelf down in antarctica, 25-mile ice bridge connected to the wilkins ice shelf to the mainland of antarctica. that shattered, just broke apart months ago. and now you have an ice shelf that for centuries, thousands of years, was connected to the continent, is no longer connected. you have sea ice, which is melting at a rate that the arctic ocean now increasingly is exposed. in five years scientists predict we will have the first ice-free

arctic summer. that exposes more owe hasn't to sunlight. ocean is dark t consumes more of the heat from the sunlight, which then sel accelerates the e of the melting and warming rather than the ice sheet and the snow that used to reflect it back up into the atmosphere. there are countless examples of evidence of what global climate change is already doing across the planet. in nutok, arks they just voted to move their village nine miles inland because of what's happening in the sea ice melt and the melting of the permafrost and we will spend millions of dollars mitigating and adapting to these changes as they come at us. the audubon society has reported 100-mile-wide swath of land in the united states where there are gardeners -- they don't record themselves as democrats, republicans, ideologue,

conservatives, liberals -- they're people who like to go out and garden and they're part of the audubon. as a result of that they are reporting plants that they can no longer plant that used to be able to be planted in those parts of our country. you have millions of acres of forests in alaska and in canada that have been lost -- spruce and pine -- to the pine nut spruce beetle that used to die but because it is warm now, it 0 no longer dies. mr. president, i am not going to go through all of it now, but suffice it to say, he's wrong about china. i just came back from a week in china, where i met with their leaders. i went out to see what they're doing in wind power. i went to see their energy conservation efforts. they're ahead of us in some respects with respect to those efforts. they have a higher standard of automobile emissions reduction that they're porting in place -- sooner than we are. they are tripling their level of wind power that they're trying to target. they have a 20% energy-intensity

reduction level that they're now exceeding in several sectors of their economy, which they didn't think they'd be able to do. china, in two or three years, we're going to be chasing china if we don't recognize what's happened and do this. so, the senator from california, the chairperson of the environment and public works committee, completely understands, as do many others here -- this can be done without great cost to our electric production facilities, without our companies losing business, losing jobs. on the contrary, the jobs are of the future are going to be in alternative and renewable energy and in the energy future of this country. and there's barely a person i know who doesn't think we wouldn't be better off in america not sending $700 billion a year to the middle east to pay for oil so we can blow it up in the eye and pollute and turn around and try to figure out how we are image to spend billions to undo it. why not spend those $700 billion

here in the united states, creating that energy in the first place with jobs that don't get sent abroad and which pay people good value for the job they're doing and it liberate ls mechanic for our energy security, it provides a better environment, we're a healthier nation, and we increase our economy. so you get all those pluses. what are they offering? what's the alternative that senator inhofe and others are offering? if they're wrong in their predictions, we have catastrophe for the planet. i think we're on the right track. china is going to reduce emissions. china will be on a different schedule because that's what the international agreement set up years ago. but as a developing country with 800 million people living on less than $2 a day, it's understandable that they would fight to say we can't quite meet the same schedule now, but we will get to the same schedule. what's important is that globally all countries come together to reduce emissions.

that will happen in copenhagen. and it is much more likely to happen in copenhagen if the united states of america leads here at home. if we undertake these efforts and pass legislation here, i guarantee you copenhagen will be a success and china and other countries will all agree to reductions that are measurable, that are verifiable, and that are reportable. so we need to get our facts straight as we come at this debate. and the senator from california and i are thirsty and waiting for this debate because we will show how we can reduce emissions, how we can transition our economy with minimal -- minimal -- cost. in fact, for the first few years it pays for itself to undertake many of these transformations. now, mr. president, i need to say a few words in the time i have about dean koh. dean koh has been chosen to be legal counsel for the state department. and he has -- i've already

spoken about his remarkable academic career, his leadership in the legal profession, the respect and glowing praise that he has received from colleagues within the legal profession. so we heard a lot about it. but i just want to address some of the points that have been raised in opposition to his nomination, which i believe some of them are just plain disrespectful and indiesent. and it's hard to find the rationale for where they come from, frankly. maybe a mean-spiritedness or something, but it's really hard. and i'm grateful, as i think we all ought to be, that nominees are willing to subject themselves to some of these kinds of arguments. also there are some misunderstandings and mischaracterizations. it's no surprise that not everybody is going to agree with him on every decision or opinion that he's made, but the fact is that a lot of arguments that have been made just aren't grounded in reality.

first, there have been allegations that his views on foreign law would somehow undermine the constitution of the united states. please, mr. president, that is just baseless beyond any kind of evidence that i've ever seen or any statement that he's ever made. let me repeat what dean koh himself has said about the primacy of our constitution. i quote -- "my family settled here in part to escape from oppressive foreign law, and it was america's law and commitment to human rights that drew us here and have given me every privilege in life that i enjoy. my life's work represents the lessons learned from that experience. throughout my career both in and out of government, i have argued the u.s. constitution is the ultimate controlling law in the united states, and that the constitution directs whether and to what extent international law should guide courts and policy-makers." that is definitive, mr. president, and no one should insert any other interpretation into it other than the

constitution is primary. some have also argued that dean koh's views on international law, particularly on something called -- quote -- "the transnational legal process" would somehow undermine our sovereignty and our security. again, this represents a fundamental misunderstanding of his views. dean koh understands that international law institutions are simply part of life in a globalized world. engagement with the international community is inevitable. and he believes that it is best to engage constructively. here's what he said at his confirmation hearing: "transnational legal process says what we all know, that we live in an interdependent world that is growing increasingly more interdependent. it is not new and it is not an ideology. it is a description of a world in which we live. it is from the beginning of the republic. it is the basic views of thomas jefferson and ben franklin who called for us to give decent

respect to the opinions of mankind. and most importantly, it is necessary and unavoidable that we be able to understand and manage the relationship between our law and other law." mr. president, those aren't the words of an ideologue. they aren't the words of a radical. it is the broad perspective of a deeply knowledgeable and pragmatic and committed advocate for our nation's interests. it reflects how we represent our interests. it reflects our real challenge, which is how we best use international law and institutions to advance national security interest and promote our core values. that is exactly what dean koh has spent his career working on and is one of the world's leading experts on international law. there is nobody better qualified to meet this challenge. yesterday my colleague from texas suggested that dean koh somehow created a moral equivalence between the united states and iran's brutal and deadly crackdown after the

recent election. this is what our colleague said "koh appears to draw moral ekweuf plans between the iranian regime's political suppression and human rights abuses we've been watching play out on television and america's counterterrorism policies on the other hand. in 2007 he wrote the united states cannot stand on strong footing, attacking iran for illegal detentions when similar charges can and have been lodged against our own government." well, mr. president, common sense. in one sentence the senator accuses dean koh of equating our treatment of detainees with iran's actions and violently suppressing protests this week -- right now -- and in the next sentence he cites as evidence for that comments that dean koh made a couple of years ago on an unrelated issue of iran's treatment of detainees. you know, i've heard of people trying to make six degrees of separation connections and

somehow make them mean something, but this is to the extreme. the broader point is that dean koh was not suggesting there is a moral equivalence between iran and the united states. he was arguing that we're safer if we can convinces countries like iran and north korea to respect tkpwhrorpl norms and standards. it's harder for the united states to run around the world enlisting allies and marshal pressure when we are simultaneously forced to fend off accusations of lawless activity by ourselves. guantanamos and other things work to deplete our ability to be able to maintain the highest moral ground. that's not moral equivalence, mr. president. that's a practical reality about how the world works and how you protect the interests of the united states. we've heard the argument that dean koh's position in supporting the regulation of global arms trade is somehow going to infringe on the rights of americans under the second

amendment. please. i mean, please. nothing could be further from the truth. the fact is that dean koh supports efforts to regulate the transfer of guns across borders, which does nothing to interfere with the domestic possession of firearms. as he said at his confirmation hearing, the goal is to prevent child soldiers in places like somalia and uganda from having ak-47's transferred from the former soviet union. it's not to in some way interfere with a legitimate hunter's right to use a hunting rifle in a national or state park. dean koh went on to unequivocally state that he respects the supreme court's decision in heller which affirmed the right to bear arms under the second amendment as the law of the land. mr. president, there are other criticisms that have been made. i don't have time to go into all of them now. but the bottom line here is whether it's the convention

against description against women or questions about -- against discrimination against women or questions about his beliefs about the war in iraq, the fact is that -- and i ask unanimous consent that the full statement be placed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kerry: as if read in full. dean koh has been questioned about supporting suits against the bush administration involved in abusive techniques. dean koh had no personal involvement in the law against john yuw. the state department's legal advisor is not charged with srelgs of allegations of war crimes. that's the job of the justice department and the defense department. finally we've heard questions about dean koh's respect for the role that congress has paid in crafting legislation relating to our national security. dean koh said at his confirmation hearing -- quote -- "the constitution's framework,

while defining the powers of congress in article 1 and the president in article 2, creates a framework in which the foreign affairs power is a power shared. checks and balances don't stop at the water's edge. it is both constitutionally required and is also smart in the sense that the president makes better decisions when congress is involved. if they are in at the takeoff, they tend to be more supportive all the way through the exercise. so, mr. president, i hope that the chorus is a vast number of people supportive of dean koh's nomination. hundreds of law deans, many clergy, former state department legal advisors. let me just close with the words of senator lugar. he said, "given dean koh's record of service and accomplishment, his personal character, his understanding of his role as legal advisor and his commitment to work closely with congress, i support his nomination and believe he is well deserving of confirmation by the senate. there is no stronger bipartisan

voice for foreign policy more for the constitution in the senate than senator dick lugar of indiana. i hope my colleagues will follow his example. thank you. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i rise to speak once again on the nomination of harold koh, who the president has nominated to be legal advisor for the state department. just to put this in context, as the senator from massachusetts has addressed, the legal advisor is a very important job at the state department. he is responsible for providing guidance on important legal questions, including treaty interpretation and other international obligations of the united states. he gives the secretary of state legal advice during negotiations with other nations. and so it is the legal advisor can be a very influential voice

in diplomatic circles, especially if he or she has particularly strong views on america's obligations to other nations in multilateral organizations. based on my review of dean koh's record, i don't believe he's the right man for this job. his views are intentioned with what i believe are core democratic values in that he would subjugate american sovereignty to the opinions, the so-called international common law, including treaty obligations that the united states senate has never ratified. indeed, they are not obligations, but he nevertheless would impose them on the united states. and when the senator from massachusetts says he believes it's -- the u.s. constitution is primary, i would have felt much better if he said it was the exclusive source of american law, together with the laws that we ourselves pass as

representatives of the people. not just a consideration, but the consideration when it comes to determining the obligations and rights of american citizens rather than subjecting those to international opinion and vague international norms, which i heard the senator refer to. it is true that professor koh is an advocate of what he calls transnational jurisprudence. he believes that federal judges -- these are united states judges -- should use their power to vertically enforce and dough mess indicate american law with international -- domesticate american law. these judge use treaties to override a wide variety of american laws, whether they be state or federal. of course we understand treaties that have been ratified by the united states senate are the law of the land, but professor koh believes that even treaties that the united states has not

ratified can be evidence of customary international law and given legal effect as such. the legal advisor to the state department has important role, as i mentioned, in drafting, negotiating and enforcing treaties. that's why it's so crucial that he understands that no treaty has the force of law in the united states until it has been ratified pursuant to the constitution by the united states senate. do we really want a top legal advisor at the state department who believes that norms that he and other international scholars make should become the law? even if they're rejected or not otherwise embraced by the united states congress? that can't be within the mainstream. that is outside the mainstream. indeed, i believe a radical view of our obligations in the international community in 2002, professor koh delivered a lecture on the matter o