[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 92 (Thursday, June 5, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5194-S5198]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CLIMATE CHANGE
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the legislation we have
been debating and that we are going to be precluded from debating,
should cloture happen tomorrow. The reason I say precluded from
debating is we are not being allowed to do any amendments. The whole
stage has been set: One amendment so far; it is a take-it-or-leave-it
amendment. My experience in the 11\1/2\ years I have been around here
is that bills that come to us that way do not pass.
That is what the whole Senate was designed for, to see that take-it-
or-leave-it stuff doesn't make it through here, that the opinions of
100 people get to be reflected in legislation. The longer we are here,
the quicker we think we ought to be able to get bills done. The longer
we are here, the more complicated the issues. This is a very
complicated issue. There are things people are doing. There are things
people need to be doing. But to make it very prescriptive and to not
allow the opinions of 100 people who could point out some of the flaws
and some ways it could be better is wrong.
The majority leader and a number of Members on the other side have
called climate change the ``greatest environmental threat facing our
world.'' I am not hearing big arguments against that. But if that is
the case, we should put our heads together and come up with a plan to
protect us from this massive threat. We should spend time amending it,
ironing out any problems, and determining what we will have to pay.
There is a huge disconnect in America, thinking that we can solve
this problem and it will not cost the consumer anything. We are
actually promulgating that myth here, now. I heard the fuel economy we
are going to get is going to offset any of the costs. I know a few guys
out there who are getting ahold of me on a regular basis because they
drive trucks. They do contract work. I am pretty sure they didn't put a
little clause in there that gave them a fuel escalation break. Some of
the big companies might have thought of that. The little companies
didn't. So far as I can tell, they are not planning on trading that
truck in for a more fuel-efficient truck because they can't afford to
do that. New trucks cost more money. They have a contract that limits
what they can do. So the offset is not going to pay to the person who
is paying the bill. It may go to somebody else.
We do need to encourage better mileage. We need to encourage less
travel--although somebody the other day pointed out to me that if we
have less travel--for instance, if I rode my bike back and forth from
home to work, although I usually walk, that consumes calories. And to
replace those calories, I have to eat food. And that food probably is
transported in somehow, so I am still adding to the climate problem. It
is not solving it just by doing some alternatives. I hadn't thought
about that.
But what I am talking about tonight is that the debate has been shut
down; the amendment tree has been filled. That means a little
parliamentary procedure around here has already put some amendments,
with relatively insignificant changes in them, so nobody else can bring
up an amendment and have it voted on. It is getting to be a very common
thing around here.
Now, I understand partly why it is being done. The majority has had
two people out on the Presidential campaign trail, and now Senator
Kennedy is not able to be with us. That is the loss of three votes. It
is a 51-to-49 Senate. So I sympathize with the leader in trying to
control votes when some of the people are not here, because with our
one Presidential candidate gone and three of their people gone, it
winds up with a tie. I have noticed the Vice President usually votes
with me.
But what we are trying to do, I think around here, is get bills done
and get them done in a logical process and actually finish them. But I
do not think that is what we are doing. The amendment tree got filled.
The greatest threat of our time, the greatest deliberative body is not
allowed to deliberate, to be deliberative. Something is wrong with that
picture.
Now, I have some amendments that are important. I think they are
important to anybody who might be listening, especially my colleagues.
Do not think that not paying attention to or being interested in
politics is going to shield anyone from the consequence of this bill if
it were to pass. It could change our way of life. The bill is going to
cost money, and you have a right to know how much it is going to cost
you.
I filed an amendment that requires utilities to include on the bill
they send you, the consumers, the amount it is costing to comply with
this legislation.
I would like to take a look at a part of the bill that is very
significant for Wyoming residents; that is the coal portion. Coal is
our Nation's most important and abundant energy source. Wyoming's coal
is the cleanest coal in the Nation. We ship to every State in the
Nation.
They mix it with their coal to meet the clean air standards. I want
the lights to stay on in Wyoming and the rest of the Nation. California
relies heavily on electricity from Wyoming. Without coal, that is not
going to happen.
Now, China understands energy. China understands that the future
economy of the world depends on energy. They have already bought all
the oil supply, they have bought up gas supplies, they are in the
process of buying up coal supplies.
How do I know about that? They are buying coal in Campbell County,
WY, and shipping it to China. Now, a lot of it is in the test burn
stage, and I suspect they may be burning that in the powerplants right
around Beijing, which will clean their air for the Olympics.
I do not know how long the contracts are, and I do not know how
expensive it
[[Page S5195]]
will be. But I suspect that coal will be sold, and I know, by the way,
because of rotation of the Earth, the direction the wind blows. The
powerplants in Wyoming do not put anything in California, but the
powerplants in China, of which they are building one a week, it takes
longer, but they are opening one a week, that air will blow to
California. China is not going to be part of this.
I have had an opportunity to sit down with some of the Chinese
delegation who are at the global warming conferences. They do point out
they are a developing nation. I have asked them, as a developing
nation, is there any point in the future at which they would do
something to cut down their pollution? They have assured me they will
always be a developing nation and will always come under those
provisions. So do not count on China to help out in this.
Now, I filed another amendment with my colleagues from Missouri,
Ohio, and Oklahoma that is an approach to making cleaner coal. I have
also cosponsored another amendment with my fellow Senator from Wyoming,
an amendment, that was filed by Senator Dorgan from North Dakota taking
another approach to greening up coal so we can more efficiently harness
its power while minimizing its impact on the environment.
I have cosponsored multiple approaches because it is vital we improve
the bill by improving the way we use coal. Half our electricity comes
from coal. There is no short-term substitute for coal. We need to come
together and come up with a real solution, hopefully one that does
place a little bit of confidence in the ingenuity of the American
people.
If there is a problem, they can solve it; not always immediately and
not always without some kind of incentive. There are a number of ways
of providing that incentive. We have not gotten to discuss those, and
the majority is not going to let us do that today. I cannot even call
up my amendments to let other Members debate them because the majority
leader has used a parliamentary tactic to prevent us from offering
changes to this bill.
The majority leader has decided we cannot fully debate what he calls
the greatest environmental threat facing the world. Is he serious?
Well, I am. But apparently the proponents of this bill are not. If they
were, they would be working to come up with a solution to this problem
rather than playing another inning of ``gotcha'' politics.
This is a complex piece of legislation. I am not sure anybody knows
exactly how it works. The bill we originally talked about came through
committee. The substitute we are doing now did not come through
committee, so it hasn't had the same look everything else had.
Anytime we go to a bill that hasn't been through committee and we
invoke cloture so amendments cannot be done, the bills do not make it
here. I appreciate my colleagues' approach on that. I have seen it
happen, though, regardless of who was in the majority. That is the way
it works. People get upset when they cannot do amendments.
Now, I do know people who buy coal from my State say this bill will
be a real punch in the gut. I do know the vast majority of studies say
this bill will take money out of your pocket because you will have to
pay higher energy prices. These are issues that need to be addressed.
But we are not being allowed to address them. There is this sudden
urgency that if it does not pass this week, the world will not exist
next week. I think that is a lit bit of an exaggeration.
I have a list of people who were supporting this legislation
apparently as it is. I think they were generally supporting the concept
of cleaning up the environment. But I did notice the list of supporters
included those who have figured out a way to make some money off this.
That is how it works in America. But it does leave out those who are
currently having a job in these areas.
Now, it is baffling to me that we are being precluded, that it is
being cut off early. I hope my Senate colleagues will not do that. When
the Senate considered the Clean Air Act amendments in 1990, and it was
very important for them to consider that, because prior to that time we
had a one-size-fits-all approach in the United States. It needed to be
corrected.
Those clean air amendments of 1990 passed, and they made corrections
to it. They made a system that worked, or at least worked better. There
is no such thing as perfect legislation. We spent 5 weeks on the bill.
There were 180 amendments that were considered, and 130 were processed.
Usually, we are asked if we cannot get our amendments down to two or
three or five. No, you cannot. The reason you cannot is that if you
have a series of amendments that deal with the smaller topics, people
understand them better.
You will have one section 3 people will object to, another one 11
people will object to, another one 4 people will object to, and pretty
quickly you are at 51. It is a pretty good philosophy if you do not
want an amendment to pass, you cram them all together, so you can
generate enough animosity over each of the parts so it adds up to 51
votes against and it never makes it.
On the other hand, if you are serious about making changes, then you
do it such as we did with--I was not here at that time--the Clean Air
Act of 1990, where there were 180 amendments and 130 were processed.
We have been debating this bill for less than a week at this stage,
with lots of interruptions. We have considered exactly one amendment,
and that is the substitute amendment from the Democratic chair of the
committee that dramatically changes the bill from what came out of
committee.
That is not the way to conduct business in the Senate. It is not the
way to get anything done. But, then again, that is probably apparent
that if there was a real desire to get something done, this bill would
be debated in the regular order.
When the Senate was less polarized, it was because there was more
debating in the regular order. The bill we were debating had gone
through committee, S. 2191; but the bill S. 3036 did not. I do not know
anyone who believes this bill is going to be signed into law. I am not
even sure anybody wants it signed into law considering the process it
is going through.
I think it is an effort by the majority saying: Oh, woe is us. We
need to have 60 on our side of the aisle so we can cram these ideas
down the other side's throat. That is not the Senate. The majority, in
fact, is saying, until we have 60 votes on our side, we are not going
to let anything pass. They take this approach, even though the energy
crisis is the main concern of the American people.
Oh, but that is right, this bill is not going to do anything for
energy prices, particularly in the short run. I am disappointed with
the situation the majority leader has put the Senate in today that will
actually happen tomorrow morning--it is happening at 9 o'clock--which
means there is going to be debate before the vote, it will be rather
limited, probably between the two leaders.
I do not think this bill is ready for debate, so I voted against
proceeding to this bill. However, now that we are on the bill, we do
have to consider its merits. That is what I have done on all this. That
is why I filed two amendments to it. Unfortunately, we are not truly
debating the bill because the parliamentary procedure, the
parliamentary tactics are going to cut off all the amendments.
Oh, there will be some conversation about how there will be 30 hours
to do things after cloture is done. I follow the proceedings around
here. Now, you can stall through 30 hours and make sure not a single
vote happens. So anybody who votes for cloture means voting to preclude
amendments, and anybody who says: Oh, there will be an open debate on
it and an opportunity for amendments, ought to check the history on
this and see if they have actually talked to anybody who would allow
that to happen because it will be a new one on me.
So the whole purpose right now is to do ``gotcha'' politics, avoid
the committee to bring it to the floor, have a motion to proceed
introduced on Friday, we vote on Monday followed by 30 hours, while we
are waiting for people to show up to vote during the week because they
are out on the campaign trial, and then filing a final cloture motion
to make it be a one-size-fits-all, take-it-or-leave-it bill.
I think it is very unfortunate that we have come to this point. I
will oppose
[[Page S5196]]
further tactics designed to shut Senators out in the cold while the
proponents are inside making their own global warming plan.
The ``take it or leave it'' has never been a successful approach
around here. I am willing to bet it will not be a successful approach
tomorrow.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I listened to my friend from Wyoming, and
I will tell anyone who was listening, first, he says the bill is not
ready for debate. Now he wants to debate.
You know, my friend voted not to go to the bill in the first place.
He does not want a global warming bill, neither do most of the people
on that side of the aisle, with some exceptions.
Their answer is: No, no, no, no, status quo. That is why they keep
losing seats all around the country. Now, 89 percent of the people want
us to take up this legislation. Now, you can say you are against this
for technical reasons and procedural reasons. I wish to talk about
that, I do, because our leader went to the Republican side and said: We
are ready to come up with a good plan to move forward on this bill. And
he said to the other side: Let's start off with doing two amendments a
side.
No, that wasn't good enough.
OK. Let's make an agreement for 3 amendments, 10 amendments, germane
amendments. No. It was obvious from the start. No. Well, we think it is
time to say yes, to stand and tackle the problem of global warming.
They do not think it is time.
I don't think they will ever think it is time.
What is really remarkable is that the States out there have started.
The western Governors have gotten together. They have signed a western
climate initiative. Why? The American West is heating up more rapidly
than the rest of the world. That is where my friend comes from. I
didn't hear him talk about global warming. I heard him talk a lot about
China. I don't know what he was saying, whether he is so happy that
China keeps building these dirty coal plants. I will tell him, the
people of China can't breathe. There was a whole series about this. We
want to have a clean coal future. That is why the Boxer-Lieberman-
Warner bill invests heavily in clean coal. We understand there is 200
years worth of coal in America, and we want to make sure we get the
technologies moving. That is why we want this bill, so we get to the
day where we can have clean coal.
I want to tell my friend, he got up and criticized the way this bill
was handled and the rest. I wish to speak about what we have done on
our committee.
The Presiding Officer serves on that committee and is an active
member who has supported even stronger legislation than this. We are
getting attacked because they say it is too strong. The bottom line
is--my friend will attest because he was part of this--we had 25
hearings, one of which I remember well which he chaired, since the day
I took the gavel, inclusive. The bill was written in the subcommittee.
The bill was worked on. It got to the full committee. I remember my
friend in the chair was not happy with the bill in the subcommittee. He
worked very hard. We changed it. Yes, we changed it, because that is
what legislating is about. There isn't one person in this Chamber who
has all the answers. I certainly don't. This has to be a collaborative
approach.
Then a wonderful thing happened. Senator John Warner said: I am
breaking the stalemate. I have kids. I have grandkids. I am a national
security expert. The national security people are saying we need to do
something about global warming. It is going to be one of the biggest
causes of wars in the future. This is a big issue. Senator Warner came
and said he wanted to work with us. That meant we could get legislation
out of the committee. Senator Baucus comes from a huge coal State. He
took the lead in the coal provisions. We worked very hard.
When the bill came out of the full committee, we took it to our
colleagues in the Senate. We did an unprecedented thing. We had open
hearings for every Senator. I don't know if Senator Enzi came to any of
those. Maybe he did. My staff is sitting here next to me. No, he
didn't. I remember Senator Bennett came. I remember many Senators came.
They asked the experts the questions. We had the IPPC, the leading
experts. We had the Bush administration come to talk about public
health problems. We opened a transparent process to all. We asked
Senators: Can I come to your office? I went to probably 30 offices.
Senator Lieberman did. Senator Warner did. Anyone who wanted it did.
Transparent. What do you need? What do you think? How can we do this
better? How can this work? That is the way legislation ought to be
done. That is what leadership is.
This is a tripartisan piece of legislation--a Democrat, a Republican,
and an Independent. I will say this: When you say no to this and when
you divert attention to gas prices, which have gone up 250 percent
under George Bush--250 percent--and when you say this bill is going to
make it worse, you don't really know what you are talking about because
if you look at the modeling that was done--and George Bush confirmed
this--the modeling says under a worst-case scenario, gas will go up 2
cents a gallon per year for 20 years. It is a 12-percent increase
attributable to this bill which we know will be entirely offset by the
fuel economy. In other words, that 2 cents will be offset by the fuel
economy bill. So this bill will lead to lower gas prices. Why? Because
it will spur technology. That is the point of the bill.
If we could look at the pie chart, what you see is that most of the
money that is generated in this bill from the permits bought by the
2,100 biggest emitters of carbon goes to tax relief for our people,
consumer relief for people, deficit reduction, more than half, and the
rest goes to investments. A little bit goes to help the emitters in the
early years. The rest goes to national security, and international
agricultural resources and forestry, low-carbon technology efficiency,
and local government action. We want to help local governments. That is
why the U.S. Conference of Mayors has endorsed this bill.
I have to say, what amazes me about what I hear from the other side
is there is nothing about the issue of global warming or climate
change. You don't hear anything, very little except from the supporters
of our bill. Senator Snowe, Senator Warner, yes, we hear from them. But
for the most part, we have heard no words that let us understand where
we can sit down and talk.
As far as China is concerned, to hold them up as some kind of model,
if that is what my friend was doing, let me say that I don't want to be
a party to it. I want to be a party to leading China, leading India,
leading the world, not following countries where the people are so sick
they can't even breathe. That is not what we want. We heard the same
thing when we passed the Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, the
Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act--this is the end of the
world. They made all kinds of excuses why we should not act.
Tomorrow, we have a chance. I hope we will get a good vote. I don't
know what we will get. But I do want to put into the Record some very
important letters from our colleagues.
First, I am very touched to tell my colleagues that we have a letter
from Senator Kennedy. I am so happy to say that. It reads:
Dear Chairman Boxer: I commend you and Senator Lieberman
and Senator Warner for your leadership on the Climate
Security Act. At long last, significant legislation long
needed to address this growing crisis is ready for Senate
action, and I wish very much that I could be there for this
landmark debate.
Regrettably, I'm unable to participate, but I hope my
colleagues will support the Act by voting for cloture, as I
would if I were able to do so.
With respect and appreciation and all great wishes,
Sincerely,
Edward M. Kennedy.
Ted, if you or your family is watching, we received this letter with
such pride. We thank you so much, and we send you our heartfelt prayers
and hopes for a speedy recovery. We miss you so much.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from
Senator Biden:
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[[Page S5197]]
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, June 5, 2008.
Senator Barbara Boxer,
Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Boxer: As we discussed, I regret that a
longstanding speaking commitment will cause me to be absent
for the scheduled cloture vote on your substitute amendment
to S. 3036, the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act.
I write to make it clear for the record that, had I been
present, I would have cast my vote in support of cloture.
Sincerely,
Joseph R. Biden, Jr.,
U.S. Senator.
Mrs. BOXER. We thank Senator Biden. I again thank Senator Obama. He
sent a similar letter that he would, if he were here, vote for cloture.
And a beautiful statement from Senator Clinton from which I will read
in part:
. . . I would vote for cloture on this legislation if I
were able to be present in the Senate. . . .The time is now
to move forward and deal with global warming, and I urge my
colleagues to vote for cloture.
Continuing from her letter:
This bill makes steep reductions in emissions, encourages
the development and deployment of clean energy technology,
provides assistance for American families, training for
workers whom the clean energy industry will demand.
I ask unanimous consent to have the letter printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
M. President, the scientific consensus is clear: strong and
swift action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is needed to
prevent catastrophic effects of climate change. That's why
the debate this week in the Senate about the cap-and-trade
bill crafted by Senators Boxer, Lieberman and Warner is so
important. This bill makes steep reductions in emissions,
encourages the development and deployment of clean energy
technology, provides assistance for American families,
training for workers that the clean energy industry will
demand. I congratulate Chairman Boxer for moving this bill to
the floor. It's a first step toward Congress enacting a cap-
and-trade bill as part of a broad, comprehensive effort to
combat global warming and reduce our dependence on foreign
oil, including aggressive steps to improve energy efficiency
and deploy renewable energy that will benefit our economy and
help create millions of new jobs. I believe that we can and
should make this bill even stronger, and I hope that we can
do that as we continue to consider the bill. For now, we need
to move forward on this important legislation. That's why I
would vote for cloture on this legislation if I were able to
be present in the Senate for the vote. The time is now to
move forward and deal with global warming, and I urge my
colleagues to vote for cloture.
Mrs. BOXER. She congratulates us on the bill. It is with great pride
that I add these letters to Senator Obama's letter.
I do hope my colleagues will give us a ``yea'' vote. We know that
under the rule, we can have amendments. Absolutely, we can. We hope we
will get a good cloture vote.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from
California for her leadership on the Environment Committee and on this
important legislation. It is time to face up to it. One cannot find a
more critical environmental issue facing this Senate, our country, or
our world than fighting global warming. We need legislation that faces
this problem head-on. Inaction here endangers our children, our
grandchildren, and future generations who can never understand the
opposition and unwillingness of the Senate to deal with this problem.
Yet, as we stand here now, Senators on the other side of the aisle are
filibustering this legislation. We are losing precious time. The
patient is sick, and we have to start providing the meds. We have
already lost over 7 years under a President who has ignored science and
questioned the very existence of global warming. We have seen other
Members of this body do the same thing, even calling global warming a
hoax.
As we sit here and wait for leadership from our President and from
this Congress, our world is literally paying the price. As temperatures
rise, our world suffers. In the United States, the glaciers in Glacier
National Park are shrinking. The park's largest glaciers are one-third
of their 1850s grandeur. The oceans are being altered. Ocean levels are
rising, threatening coastlines far across the globe and here at home,
including, in my State, the New Jersey seashore, where the very
survival of the State's residents is at stake. Defense experts see
security risks from global warming. A Pentagon report says that large
populated countries could become nearly uninhabitable because of rising
seas. Megadroughts could affect the world's breadbaskets, such as
America's Midwest, and future wars could be fought over the issue of
mere survival in this new climate.
The American people sent us here to take real action and to confront
these problems. We need to take some bold steps to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions to match the research of the world's best scientists.
This bill would be a critical step forward. It would reduce emissions
by 15 percent by the year 2020 and by nearly 70 percent by the year
2050.
It will do so by placing a cap on our emissions and giving industry
the flexibility it needs within a cap-and-trade system. We already know
that a cap-and-trade system works. We used it in the 1990s to
successfully combat acid rain, and we should be doing the same thing
now to fight global warming.
I ask my colleagues, please join us in taking this landmark step
forward, and do not let politics interfere with our obligation to
protect our families.
As we move forward, we have to listen to those scientists who
dedicate their lives to the pursuit of fact and truth, not raw
politics. We have to make sure scientists in our country can freely do
their work and tell the truth to the American people without having
their research suppressed--suppressed--by a President and an
administration with a political agenda.
President Bush, his administration, and many here in Congress have
squandered precious years, ignoring the reality of global warming. Even
worse, they hindered and outright suppressed, as I mentioned, the work
of Government scientists who were sounding the alarm about global
warming's effect on our planet and all of us who inhabit it.
The United States is expected to be a leader in the world. Yet, while
the 2,500 scientists from 113 countries were collaborating on the most
recent United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report
on global warming, the President of the United States was still
unwilling to hear the truth.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report found that:
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
And human activity is to blame.
Beyond the importance of what the report said is the fact that the
report relied on uncensored, unaltered science to say so. In contrast
to the integrity and accuracy of the IPCC report, the Bush
administration has censored the conclusions of the U.S. scientists to
advance a political agenda. The administration has blocked or delayed
the release of Government reports on global warming. It has deleted key
words such as ``global warming'' from public documents. And it has
denied scientists the ability to freely discuss their conclusions with
the public.
Mr. Phil Cooney, the former Chief of Staff for the White House
Council on Environmental Quality, was one of the architects of this
campaign of scientific suppression.
Mr. Cooney--not a scientist--weakened or edited out scientific
judgments from Federal climate change reports. These changes made the
threat of global warming seem less serious. In the 2002 climate change
report ``Our Changing Planet,'' the original text read, ``Earth is
undergoing a period of relatively rapid change.'' Mr. Cooney changed
that to, ``Earth may be undergoing a period of rapid change''--totally
altering the significance of this statement. Mr. Cooney later left the
administration to go to work for ExxonMobil.
In 2006, 13 other Senators joined me in asking the inspectors general
of NOAA and NASA--both agencies--to investigate the Bush
administration's suppression of science on global warming. The report
from NASA just came out this week and found that political appointees
in NASA's press shop had manipulated the work of scientists. The
inspector general stated that political appointees at NASA had
``reduced, marginalized, or mischaracterized climate change science
made available to the general public.''
[[Page S5198]]
It is incredible to believe. It is simply unacceptable for the
greatest democracy in the world to stifle the findings of scientists
for political and ideological reasons. It is common sense to listen to
the best scientists in the world and to act on their research. And
their research is telling us that global warming is getting worse and
it is time for us to act.
It is disappointing beyond words that our colleagues on the other
side of the aisle are preventing us from moving forward with this bill.
In this place--the Senate--and at this time, some Members of the Senate
are putting special interests and politics ahead of the safety and
well-being of our people. We have to act now, and this bill is the
right place to start. We dare not let this time pass without action.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
____________________