[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11321-11328]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             LIEBERMAN-WARNER CLIMATE SECURITY ACT OF 2008

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to 
proceed to S. 3036 be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid 
on the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object--I withhold.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will read the bill by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 3036) bill to direct the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency to establish a program to 
     decrease emissions of greenhouse gases, and for other 
     purposes.


                           Amendment No. 4825

                (Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send the Boxer substitute amendment to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mrs. Boxer, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4825.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The clerk will continue to read.
  The assistant legislative clerk continued with the reading of the 
amendment.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading 
of the amendment be waived.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The clerk will continue to read.
  The assistant legislative clerk continued with the reading of the 
amendment.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have a unanimous-consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, in order to debate global warming 
legislation to get us to lower gas prices, I ask unanimous consent that 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with so we can get back to the 
business of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CORNYN. Reserving the right to object, this is a brand new 
substitute bill comprised of 491 pages that very few people have even 
had a chance to see. I think this is an opportunity for us to learn 
what is actually in the legislation so that we can do our job and 
consider it and vote accordingly.
  I do object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. BOXER. I reiterate my request because the reason given by my 
friend

[[Page 11322]]

is wrong. We have had a summary available for 2 weeks.
  I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed 
with.
  Mr. CORNYN. Regular order, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will continue the reading of the 
amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk continued with the reading of the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, in order to proceed with this piece 
of legislation which would reduce carbon pollution that causes global 
warming, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with further reading of 
the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. ALLARD. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The clerk will continue the reading of the amendment.
  The journal clerk continued with the reading of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, in order to continue with this 
tripartisan legislation which is agreed to by an Independent, 
Republican, and a Democrat, which will save the planet from the ravages 
of carbon pollution and global warming and make us energy independent, 
I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the bill be dispensed 
with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schumer). Is there objection?
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The clerk will continue the reading of the amendment.
  The assistant journal clerk continued with the reading of the 
amendment.
  (The amendment as read in full is printed in today's Record under 
``Text of Amendments.'')
  Mr. SALAZAR. Addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, given the lateness of the hour and the 
hard work of all our staff today, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CORKER. I object, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The clerk will continue 
reading.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, would it be in order for this Senator 
from Colorado to ask a question of the Senator from Tennessee?
  Mr. CORKER. Madam President, regular order, if we could.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Regular order is the reading of the amendment. 
The clerk will read the amendment.
  The assistant Parliamentarian (Leigh Hildebrand) continued with the 
reading of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The Senator from Nevada, the 
majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the American public has had the opportunity 
for the last 8 hours to watch what is wrong with the Republican 
minority. No wonder an election in a heavily Republican House district, 
the seat of the former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Dennis 
Hastert, goes Democratic big time; a House seat in a special election 
in Louisiana, which has been Republican for a long period of time, went 
Democratic; and a seat in the State of Mississippi, in a special 
election, went Democratic. All you have to do is look at the picture of 
what has been going on here today to understand why.
  It seems the Republican minority wants to do anything they can to 
maintain the status quo. They do not want legislation, and they have 
proven that time and time again. I want everyone to understand that 
because of the Republicans, we are going to have to have a vote. In a 
short time, I am going to call a live quorum and people are going to 
have to take off their pajamas, turn off their TV sets and head for the 
Capitol, and they should do that because that is what we are going to 
have, as the terminology is here, in a few minutes.
  Now, I want also people to kind of get the other picture. The 
Thursday before our recess, 13 days ago, we were working on a package 
of nominations. I worked with the Chief of Staff of the President of 
the United States, Josh Bolten. We cleared a lot of names. The vast 
majority of them, 80-some, were Republicans, Republican nominees. There 
were a handful of Democrats, five--I don't know how many. It was all 
done. I thought we had worked this out with the Chief of Staff, the 
President's Chief of Staff. But lo and behold, at the last minute, no. 
So I thought, well, we would start early this time. So a couple days 
ago I started working again with Josh Bolten, and the last couple days, 
in fact 3 days, we have been working. He has had somebody work with my 
Chief of Staff and my appointments person, and I thought we were making 
a lot of headway. We did another deal. We learned at the last minute 
that the Republicans don't want it. They do not want their own people, 
one of whom was a Secretary of the Cabinet.
  So this is the stall that is taking place, for reasons that are--
well, the American people can see.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll to ascertain the 
presence of a quorum.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll, and the 
following Senators entered the Chamber and answered to their names.

                          [Quorum No. 2 Leg.]

     Boxer
     Reid
     Salazar
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum is not present.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to instruct the Sergeant at Arms to 
request the presence of absent Senators, and 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 motion. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the 
Senator from Indiana (Mr. Bayh), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman), the Senator from West 
Virginia (Mr. Byrd), the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the 
Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper), the Senator from New York (Mrs. 
Clinton), the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator 
from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), 
the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), the Senator from New Jersey 
(Mr. Lautenberg), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the 
Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. 
Murray), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson), the Senator from 
Illinois (Mr. Obama), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller), 
the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow), the Senator from Virginia 
(Mr. Webb), the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse), and the 
Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Utah (Mr. 
Bennett), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from Kansas 
(Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator 
from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), 
the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. 
Domenici), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the Senator from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel), the 
Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), 
the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. 
McCain), the Senator from

[[Page 11323]]

Kansas (Mr. Roberts), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), the 
Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Specter), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
alexander) would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 27, nays 28, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 143 Leg.]

                                YEAS--27

     Baucus
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Casey
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Harkin
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Tester

                                NAYS--28

     Allard
     Barrasso
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins
     Corker
     Craig
     DeMint
     Dole
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Sessions
     Snowe
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--45

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Byrd
     Cardin
     Carper
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Feinstein
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     McCain
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
  The motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum is present.
  The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to be patient for a 
short time.
  First of all, these valiant people who are sitting in front of the 
Presiding Officer have been required today to read for more than 8 
hours--total, without any breaks, 8 hours--for no reason other than the 
Republicans are trying to maintain the status quo in everything.
  Talk about this picture: reading an amendment that is done extremely 
rarely. We had our staff check, and it is done every decade or so. This 
was a bill of some 500 pages. The bill has been available for people to 
read long before today. The substitute amendment has been ready long 
before today.
  As I said earlier this week, manmade pollution is causing the Earth 
to warm. The science is crystal clear. We have for more than 100 years 
been taking carbon out of the Earth and putting it into the sky. It is 
causing our Earth to have a fever. Our Earth is sick, and we must look 
at the sickness and try to do something about it.
  The warming is clear. It has already harmed our environment and our 
economy. We know that. The scientists know that. You can see it all 
around us. It is causing more frequent and more intense drought, 
wildfires, and floods.
  Western wildfires. I look around this room, and I see Senator Baucus, 
I see the Senator from California and the Senator from Washington. In 
the last 30 years, 72 more days of wildfire season--72 more days--
lightning striking in those 72 days. More fires. Fires are more 
intense.
  Floods, tornadoes. At least 110 people have been killed in the United 
States so far this year by tornadoes, putting this year on track to be 
by far the deadliest year in the history of tornado deaths. The average 
for recent years is 62 tornado fatalities for the entire year. We are 
just completing May, and we are already at 110 deaths. January had 84 
tornadoes. The 3-year average for the month is 34. It is approximately 
three times the average. February had 148 deaths compared to a 3-year 
average of only 25. Multiply that, Mr. President. That does not include 
the records that are unverified for March, April, and May. One tornado 
season does not make a long-term climate trend. We understand that. But 
it should give Senators pause and should make them want to limit these 
kinds of global warming risks.
  Global warming is easily the gravest long-term challenge that our 
country and the world faces. It is the most critical issue of our time. 
The American people have a right to expect their legislature, their 
Congress to address this issue. That is why we decided a number of 
months ago that the Senate should take up climate change on June 2. We 
did so to let the American people know that the Senate was prepared to 
act, and put all Members of this body on notice we were going to act. 
Senators should begin preparing for this important debate, is what we 
said, so we could hit the ground running and truly legislate on this 
most important issue.
  Late last month, I sought permission to proceed to the climate change 
bill and was informed by the Republicans that they would object to this 
request; and they objected. Had the minority, the Republicans, not 
objected last month, the Senate could already be in its third day of 
legislating on this important bill.
  But where do we find ourselves? We find ourselves confronting an 
orchestrated effort by the Republican leader to delay and obstruct. We 
have seen this play a record number of times before this body. In 10 
months we all know they broke the 2-year filibuster record.
  We are now, I believe, at 72 filibusters for this Congress. There is 
one difference in this instance. We have actually been provided with a 
copy of a page from the Republican playbook and how they intend to 
thwart this body from acting on this important legislation. This was 
provided to us by a lobbyist involved in Republican strategy meetings. 
Let me read verbatim what this e-mail says. It is too bad the press 
galleries are bare because it is almost midnight:

       The thinking now is to still use as much of the 30 hours 
     post-cloture on the motion to proceed for debate on 
     thematically-grouped amendments. The goal is for a theme 
     (example: climate bill equals higher gas prices) each day, 
     and the focus is much more on making political points than in 
     amending the bill, changing the baseline text for any future 
     debate or affecting policy.

  Let me repeat the last sentence:

       The goal is for a theme (example: climate bill equals 
     higher gas prices) each day, and the focus is much more on 
     making political points than in amending the bill. . . .

  That is what they say. So this Republican strategy memo could not be 
more clear. The Republican plan for dealing with the greatest challenge 
facing this world and this Nation is more about making political points 
than legislating. Those are not my words; that is what they say in 
their memo.
  But there is more to this cynical strategy that is completely out of 
touch with this body's obligations and the American people's 
expectations. Continuing from a Republican strategy memo, I will quote:

       GOP anticipates a struggle over which amendments are 
     debated and eventually finger-pointing over blame for demise 
     of the bill. In the GOP view, this will take at least the 
     rest of this week, and hopefully into next week.

  Mr. President, you could not make anything up more cynical. This is 
the truth and they say truth is stranger than fiction, and this 
certainly is. They go on to say:

       At some point, Reid will have to move from the bill, and 
     GOP plans to oppose UC and potentially force debate on 
     debatable motions, and vote against cloture on any such 
     motion. While Reid will eventually be able to circumvent by 
     moving to a privileged vehicle or using some other 
     parliamentary maneuver, the bottom line is that the GOP--

  The Grand Old Party--I bet President Abraham Lincoln would be happy 
about this one--

     very much wants to have this fight, engage in it for a 
     prolonged period, and then make it as difficult as possible 
     to move off the bill.

  Again, as they say, they want to make political points. Anybody 
watching this debate will know the Republicans have fully executed this 
strategy. What did they do today to execute in making political points? 
That is some political point. It is routine here to not read the 
amendments, but they said ``we object.'' So we proceeded to have the 
amendment read. They executed this strategy and they have done

[[Page 11324]]

it well, and they tried to make political points. I have no reason to 
doubt that they are prepared to go the final mile to stretch out the 
final consideration of this bill before finally killing it.
  In case anybody needed more proof about their desire, I offered, with 
our staffs, several consents that would have stopped the obstruction we 
have witnessed in the past few days. My consents would have allowed the 
Senate to move forward to complete action. Isn't that an interesting 
concept? A bill is offered--and I have been around here a long time, 
and some people have been here longer than I have, but I defy anyone to 
say they have ever laid down a perfect piece of legislation.
  That is why we have the amendment process. A bill was laid down and 
we thought there should be an opportunity to try to make the bill 
better. That certainly wasn't what they had in mind. In keeping with 
the strategy spelled out in this Republican memo, their response was 
that we are not going to allow this; we are going to object, object, 
and object. Their obstructionism is disappointing to me personally and, 
obviously, to the American people.
  I repeat what I said earlier this evening. Is it any wonder that 
Speaker Dennis Hastert's long-time Republican district, in a special 
election, went Democratic? Is it any wonder a long-time Republican 
district in Louisiana went Democratic? Is there any reason to not 
understand why the special election in Mississippi went Democratic? Of 
course not, because the American people are seeing what is going on 
here. The American people want us to do things.
  Do you know what the Republicans get glee out of doing? They are 
happy that our approval rating is about the same as the President's. 
Isn't it wonderful that they are a part of this body, 49 of them, and 
there are 51 of us, and they are boasting about the fact that the 
people don't think much of Congress. Why don't they? Look at this 
Republican memo. That should give you some inclination as to why the 
American people feel the way they do.
  This important legislation has been worked on very hard on a 
bipartisan basis. Is it perfect? Of course not. Shouldn't we be able to 
move to try to amend this and have the old-fashioned debate to move 
forward on it? I commend Senators Boxer, Warner, and Lieberman. They 
have worked so hard, and I appreciate their caring about this issue.
  At this point, I think we have some very serious problems here. I 
will go through this. We have been told what the answer is going to be. 
Specifically, to every request that we have given to staff as to how to 
proceed on this bill, there is an objection.
  I want everybody here to know what I have gone through a little bit. 
Listen to this. The Thursday before we went out, I worked very long and 
hard and spent hours working with the President's Chief of Staff, to 
work out some way to move forward on these nominations. We had more 
than 80 Republicans and a handful of Democrats. I thought if you have 
the President's Chief of Staff working on something for several days, 
that should be sufficient. But guess what happened. I am here late at 
night with loyal Lula, and everybody else is gone. We asked unanimous 
consent and there was an objection. I called the Chief of Staff and 
said, ``What's this all about?'' Nothing happened. Remember, one of 
them--I personally asked Chairman Dodd to do a special meeting to get 
the Secretary of Housing out of the committee. He held a special 
meeting in the President's room back there. We did that for the 
President of the United States, so he would have a Cabinet officer in 
Housing. Today was the culmination of 3 days of work with the 
President's Chief of Staff on nominations. We added more people than 
they requested. We only have 5; they are way over 80 now. I thought we 
had it all worked out. We called Joe Biden, who had a hold on somebody. 
Joe, the man that he is--always willing to go the extra mile to work 
things out--said go ahead. The person was Jim Glassman. Some of us know 
who Jim Glassman is--not exactly a bipartisan person who has been 
around Washington. He was going to replace Karen Hughes in that 
position in the State Department. We worked very hard to get that 
completed and released. The reason we worked so hard is Mr. Bolten said 
they would appreciate us doing this because if we don't do it tonight, 
he is going to withdraw. We went the extra mile and worked for a couple 
of hours getting him cleared. We thought we had a deal. I give it to 
Lula Davis, the secretary of the majority, and she submits it to the 
minority and we wait all day.
  Listen to this. They have rejected it. Guess what. Out of nowhere, 
they want three district court judges. I have not talked to the 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Senator Leahy has always been good 
on district court judges. But they want three district court judges, 
and I had never even heard their names. How unfair could they be?
  So again, Mr. President, wherever you are--probably sleeping, as you 
should be--you are not going to have a Secretary of Housing because the 
rules around here seem to be only for one side. I worked very hard to 
try to get this done. We are going to continue to try for some basic 
fairness. We have an obligation ourselves. All of the nominations don't 
come from the White House. We have nominations ourselves to fill 
various positions. We will have a new President in 7 months. I have the 
obligation and the honor of submitting names to the White House. We 
have some people we wish to get, too. It is not just a one-way street, 
even though they may think it is.
  I think that what we have seen here is outlandish, unfair, 
unreasonable, and not in keeping with this body. I have been here a 
while, and we work on comity. We work together. That isn't the way it 
is now. I understand how upset the Republicans were in November of 2006 
when we got the majority. Quite frankly, Senator Schumer and I worked 
closely, and we thought we might be able to get the majority, but we 
weren't certain. We got the majority and we were happy--but it is a 
slim majority. My friends on the Republican side have to get over it. 
We are in the majority, as slim as it might be. For the next 7 months, 
I am committed and I will try to work with the President. It has been 
difficult to do for 7 years and 5 months, but I am never one who is 
without patience. I will continue to try to move forward on nominations 
and anything else we can work on together.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the substitute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 4826 to Amendment No. 4825

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a perfecting amendment to the 
substitute at the desk and I ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4826 to amendment No. 4825.

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

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the United States 
 should address global climate change through the negotiation of fair 
                and effective international commitments)

       At the end of title XIII, insert the following:

     SEC. 1334. SENSE OF SENATE REGARDING INTERNATIONAL 
                   NEGOTIATIONS TO ADDRESS GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) There is a scientific consensus, as established by the 
     Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and confirmed by 
     the National Academy of Sciences, that the continued buildup 
     of anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the atmosphere threatens 
     the stability of the global climate.
       (2) The 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the 
     Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that most 
     of the global warming observed since the mid-20th century is 
     very likely due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and 
     that anthropogenic warming is strongly linked to many 
     observed physical and biological impacts.

[[Page 11325]]

       (3) There are significant long-term risks to the economy 
     and the environment of the United States from the temperature 
     increases and climatic disruptions that are projected to 
     result from increased greenhouse gas concentrations.
       (4) The potential impacts of global climate change, 
     including long-term drought, famine, mass migration, and 
     abrupt climatic shifts, may lead to international tensions 
     and instability in regions affected and, therefore, have 
     implications for the national security interests of the 
     United States.
       (5) The United States has the largest economy in the world 
     and is also the largest historical emitter of greenhouse 
     gases.
       (6) The greenhouse gas emissions of the United States are 
     projected to continue to rise.
       (7) The greenhouse gas emissions of some developing 
     countries are rising more rapidly than the emissions of the 
     United States and will soon surpass the greenhouse gas 
     emissions of the United States and other developed countries.
       (8) Reducing greenhouse gas emissions to the levels 
     necessary to avoid serious climatic disruption requires the 
     introduction of new energy technologies and other climate-
     friendly technologies, the use of which results in low or no 
     emissions of greenhouse gases or in the capture and storage 
     of greenhouse gases.
       (9) The 2006 Stern Review on the Economics of Climate 
     Change commissioned by the United Kingdom and the 2008 World 
     Economic Outlook from the International Monetary Fund each 
     concluded that the economic costs of addressing climate 
     change are limited.
       (10) The development and sale of climate-friendly 
     technologies in the United States and internationally present 
     economic opportunities for workers and businesses in the 
     United States.
       (11) Climate-friendly technologies can improve air quality 
     by reducing harmful pollutants from stationary and mobile 
     sources and can enhance energy security by reducing reliance 
     on imported oil, diversifying energy sources, and reducing 
     the vulnerability of energy delivery infrastructure.
       (12) Other industrialized countries are undertaking 
     measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which provides 
     the industries in those countries with a competitive 
     advantage in the growing global market for climate-friendly 
     technologies.
       (13) Efforts to limit emissions growth in developing 
     countries in a manner that is consistent with the development 
     needs of those countries could establish significant markets 
     for climate-friendly technologies and contribute to 
     international efforts to address climate change.
       (14) The national security of the United States will 
     increasingly depend on the deployment of diplomatic, 
     military, scientific, and economic resources for solving the 
     problem of the overreliance of the United States and the 
     world on high-carbon energy.
       (15) The United States is a party to the United Nations 
     Framework Convention on Climate Change, done at New York May 
     9, 1992, and entered into force March 21, 1994 (in this 
     preamble referred to as the ``Convention'').
       (16) The Convention sets a long-term objective of 
     stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere 
     at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic 
     interference with the climate system.
       (17) The Convention establishes that parties bear ``common 
     but differentiated responsibilities'' for efforts to achieve 
     the objective of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations.
       (18) At the December 2007 United Nations Climate Change 
     Conference in Bali, the United States and other parties to 
     the Convention adopted the Bali Action Plan with the aim of 
     reaching a new global agreement in 2009.
       (19) The Bali Action Plan calls for a shared vision on 
     long-term cooperative action, increased mitigation efforts 
     from developed and developing countries that are measurable, 
     reportable, and verifiable, and support for developing 
     countries in addressing technology transfers, adaptation, 
     financing, deforestation, and capacity-building.
       (20) The Major Economies Process on Energy Security and 
     Climate Change, initiated by President George W. Bush, seeks 
     a consensus among the countries with the world's major 
     economies on how those countries can contribute to a new 
     agreement under the Convention.
       (21) In April 2008, President Bush called for a ``binding 
     international agreement'' with participation by all countries 
     with major economies in ``goals and policies that reflect 
     their unique energy resources and economic circumstances''.
       (22) An effective global effort to address climate change 
     must provide for commitments and actions by all countries 
     that are major emitters of greenhouse gases, developed and 
     developing alike, and the widely varying circumstances among 
     developed and developing countries may require that such 
     commitments and actions vary.
       (23) The latest scientific evidence suggests that 
     anthropogenic climate change is increasing and the United 
     States has supported the goal of achieving a new 
     international agreement during 2009, both lending urgency to 
     the need for renewed United States leadership in the effort 
     to counter global climate change.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) the United States should act to reduce the health, 
     environmental, economic, and national security risks posed by 
     global climate change and to foster sustained economic growth 
     through a new generation of technologies by participating in 
     negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on 
     Climate Change, done at New York May 9, 1992, and entered 
     into force March 21, 1994, and leading efforts in other 
     international fora, with the objective of securing United 
     States participation in binding agreements, consistent with 
     the Bali Action Plan, that--
       (A) advance and protect the economic and national security 
     interests of the United States;
       (B) establish mitigation commitments by all countries that 
     are major emitters of greenhouse gases, consistent with the 
     principle of common but differentiated responsibilities;
       (C) establish flexible international mechanisms to minimize 
     the cost of efforts by participating countries; and
       (D) achieve a significant long-term reduction in global 
     greenhouse gas emissions; and
       (2) the President should support the establishment of a 
     bipartisan Senate observer group, the members of which should 
     be designated by the chairman and ranking member of the 
     Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, to--
       (A) monitor any international negotiations on climate 
     change; and
       (B) ensure that the responsibility of the Senate under 
     article II, section 2 of the Constitution of the United 
     States to provide advice and consent to the President with 
     respect to treaties be carried out in a manner to facilitate 
     timely consideration of any applicable treaty submitted to 
     the Senate.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 4827 to Amendment No. 4826

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at the 
desk, and I ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4827 to amendment No. 4826.

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

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the United States 
 should address global climate change through the negotiation of fair 
                and effective international commitments)

       For the amendment, strike all after the word ``SEC'' on 
     line 2 and insert the following:

     1334. SENSE OF SENATE REGARDING INTERNATIONAL NEGOTIATIONS TO 
                   ADDRESS GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) There is a scientific consensus, as established by the 
     Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and confirmed by 
     the National Academy of Sciences, that the continued buildup 
     of anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the atmosphere threatens 
     the stability of the global climate.
       (2) The 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the 
     Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that most 
     of the global warming observed since the mid-20th century is 
     very likely due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and 
     that anthropogenic warming is strongly linked to many 
     observed physical and biological impacts.
       (3) There are significant long-term risks to the economy 
     and the environment of the United States from the temperature 
     increases and climatic disruptions that are projected to 
     result from increased greenhouse gas concentrations.
       (4) The potential impacts of global climate change, 
     including long-term drought, famine, mass migration, and 
     abrupt climatic shifts, may lead to international tensions 
     and instability in regions affected and, therefore, have 
     implications for the national security interests of the 
     United States.
       (5) The United States has the largest economy in the world 
     and is also the largest historical emitter of greenhouse 
     gases.
       (6) The greenhouse gas emissions of the United States are 
     projected to continue to rise.
       (7) The greenhouse gas emissions of some developing 
     countries are rising more rapidly than the emissions of the 
     United States and will soon surpass the greenhouse gas 
     emissions of the United States and other developed countries.

[[Page 11326]]

       (8) Reducing greenhouse gas emissions to the levels 
     necessary to avoid serious climatic disruption requires the 
     introduction of new energy technologies and other climate-
     friendly technologies, the use of which results in low or no 
     emissions of greenhouse gases or in the capture and storage 
     of greenhouse gases.
       (9) The 2006 Stern Review on the Economics of Climate 
     Change commissioned by the United Kingdom and the 2008 World 
     Economic Outlook from the International Monetary Fund each 
     concluded that the economic costs of addressing climate 
     change are limited.
       (10) The development and sale of climate-friendly 
     technologies in the United States and internationally present 
     economic opportunities for workers and businesses in the 
     United States.
       (11) Climate-friendly technologies can improve air quality 
     by reducing harmful pollutants from stationary and mobile 
     sources and can enhance energy security by reducing reliance 
     on imported oil, diversifying energy sources, and reducing 
     the vulnerability of energy delivery infrastructure.
       (12) Other industrialized countries are undertaking 
     measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which provides 
     the industries in those countries with a competitive 
     advantage in the growing global market for climate-friendly 
     technologies.
       (13) Efforts to limit emissions growth in developing 
     countries in a manner that is consistent with the development 
     needs of those countries could establish significant markets 
     for climate-friendly technologies and contribute to 
     international efforts to address climate change.
       (14) The national security of the United States will 
     increasingly depend on the deployment of diplomatic, 
     military, scientific, and economic resources for solving the 
     problem of the overreliance of the United States and the 
     world on high-carbon energy.
       (15) The United States is a party to the United Nations 
     Framework Convention on Climate Change, done at New York May 
     9, 1992, and entered into force March 21, 1994 (in this 
     preamble referred to as the ``Convention'').
       (16) The Convention sets a long-term objective of 
     stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere 
     at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic 
     interference with the climate system.
       (17) The Convention establishes that parties bear ``common 
     but differentiated responsibilities'' for efforts to achieve 
     the objective of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations.
       (18) At the December 2007 United Nations Climate Change 
     Conference in Bali, the United States and other parties to 
     the Convention adopted the Bali Action Plan with the aim of 
     reaching a new global agreement in 2009.
       (19) The Bali Action Plan calls for a shared vision on 
     long-term cooperative action, increased mitigation efforts 
     from developed and developing countries that are measurable, 
     reportable, and verifiable, and support for developing 
     countries in addressing technology transfers, adaptation, 
     financing, deforestation, and capacity-building.
       (20) The Major Economies Process on Energy Security and 
     Climate Change, initiated by President George W. Bush, seeks 
     a consensus among the countries with the world's major 
     economies on how those countries can contribute to a new 
     agreement under the Convention.
       (21) In April 2008, President Bush called for a ``binding 
     international agreement'' with participation by all countries 
     with major economies in ``goals and policies that reflect 
     their unique energy resources and economic circumstances''.
       (22) An effective global effort to address climate change 
     must provide for commitments and actions by all countries 
     that are major emitters of greenhouse gases, developed and 
     developing alike, and the widely varying circumstances among 
     developed and developing countries may require that such 
     commitments and actions vary.
       (23) The latest scientific evidence suggests that 
     anthropogenic climate change is increasing and the United 
     States has supported the goal of achieving a new 
     international agreement during 2009, both lending urgency to 
     the need for renewed United States leadership in the effort 
     to counter global climate change.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) the United States should act to reduce the health, 
     environmental, economic, and national security risks posed by 
     global climate change and to foster sustained economic growth 
     through a new generation of technologies by participating in 
     negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on 
     Climate Change, done at New York May 9, 1992, and entered 
     into force March 21, 1994, and leading efforts in other 
     international fora, with the objective of securing United 
     States participation in binding agreements, consistent with 
     the Bali Action Plan, that--
       (A) advance and protect the economic and national security 
     interests of the United States;
       (B) establish mitigation commitments by all countries that 
     are major emitters of greenhouse gases, consistent with the 
     principle of common but differentiated responsibilities;
       (C) establish flexible international mechanisms to minimize 
     the cost of efforts by participating countries; and
       (D) achieve a significant long-term reduction in global 
     greenhouse gas emissions; and
       (2) the President should support the establishment of a 
     bipartisan Senate observer group, the members of which should 
     be designated by the chairman and ranking member of the 
     Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, to--
       (A) monitor any international negotiations on climate 
     change; and
       (B) ensure that the responsibility of the Senate under 
     article II, section 2 of the Constitution of the United 
     States to provide advice and consent to the President with 
     respect to treaties be carried out in a manner to facilitate 
     timely consideration of any applicable treaty submitted to 
     the Senate.
       The provisions of this section shall become effective in 7 
     days after enactment.


                           Amendment No. 4828

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and I ask 
for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4828 to the language proposed to be stricken by 
     amendment No. 4825.

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

       At the end of the bill, add the following:
       The provision of this Act shall become effective 5 days 
     after enactment.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 4829 to Amendment No. 4828

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4829 to amendment No. 4828.

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

       In the amendment, strike ``5'' and insert ``4''.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a cloture motion at the desk on the 
substitute amendment, and I ask that it be stated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the substitute 
     amendment No. 4825 to S. 3036, the Lieberman-Warner Climate 
     Security Act.
         Barbara Boxer, John Warner, Joseph Lieberman, Tom Harkin, 
           Robert Menendez, Bill Nelson, Thomas R. Carper, Sheldon 
           Whitehouse, Charles E. Schumer, Frank R. Lautenberg, 
           Dianne Feinstein, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., John F. Kerry, 
           Robert P. Casey, Jr., Patrick J. Leahy, Richard Durbin, 
           Harry Reid.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask that the mandatory quorum call be 
waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4830

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to commit the bill to the Environment 
and Public Works Committee with instructions to report back forthwith 
with an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] moves to commit the bill 
     to the Environment and Public Works Committee, with 
     instructions to report back forthwith, with an amendment 
     numbered 4830.

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

[[Page 11327]]

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end, insert the following:
       This section shall become effective 3 days after enactment 
     of the bill.

  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4831

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have an amendment to the instructions at 
the desk and ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4831 to the instructions of the motion to commit.

  Mr. REID. 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:

       On line 1, strike ``3'' and insert ``2''.

  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 4832 to Amendment No. 4831

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment to the 
instructions at the desk, and I ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4832 to amendment No. 4831.

  The amendment is as follows:

       In the amendment strike ``2'' and insert ``1''.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is finally 
debating legislation, S. 3036, addressing the serious problem of 
climate change. For years, Congress and the White House have ignored or 
downplayed the scientific consensus and failed to act on this pressing 
issue. That delay is inexcusable.
  The details of S. 3036 are as complicated as they are important, and, 
given the potential implications for our economy, our energy policies 
and our planet, we need to take the time to make sure we get them 
right. A number of questions have been raised about elements of the 
bill we are considering, and I look forward to considering amendments 
to address some of these concerns. But one thing is clear, and that is 
the need to establish a cap-and-trade program to reduce total domestic 
greenhouse emissions.
  To avoid the significant costs and consequences of climate change, 
leading scientists inform us that we must stabilize global atmospheric 
concentrations of greenhouse gases below 450 parts per million and 
prevent the temperature from increasing above 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit 
above pre-industrial levels. To achieve these reductions, I am a 
cosponsor of legislation introduced by Senator Sanders, S. 309, that 
would require that such emissions be reduced by 80 percent from 1990 
levels by 2050.
  I hope that this debate marks a new recognition of the need for 
meaningful Federal action to address a threat that has been neglected 
for far too long. Though the challenge before us is great, the cost of 
inaction is even greater.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the amendment I am filing to S. 3036, the 
Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008, is aimed at preserving 
the legislative process. With an issue as complex and wide-ranging as 
climate change, there are several committees within the Senate that not 
only have an interest but a responsibility to deal with some aspects of 
the cap-and-trade system we develop. This amendment will assure that 
the appropriate committees of the Congress will have the opportunity to 
consider those aspects of a cap-and-trade proposal within their 
jurisdiction.
  Mr. President, the amendment I am filing to S. 3036, the Lieberman-
Warner Climate Security Act of 2008, is designed to use the revenues 
generated from the auctioning of the greenhouse gas allowances for tax 
relief.
  A cap-and-trade system proposed in this legislation will generate 
billions of dollars. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the 
Boxer substitute will generate $902 billion in revenues during the 
initial 10 years of the program.
  As chairman of the Finance Committee, I have a responsibility to 
direct Federal revenues to the purposes that the committee, initially, 
and the Senate, ultimately, consider in the best interest of the 
country.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of 
the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act. This bill addresses the most 
significant environmental challenge facing our country. The scientific 
evidence clearly demonstrates the human contribution to climate change. 
According to recent reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change, increases in greenhouse gas emissions have already increased 
global temperatures, and likely contributed to more extreme weather 
events such as droughts and floods. These emissions will continue to 
change the climate, causing warming in most regions of the world, and 
likely causing more droughts, floods, and many other societal problems.
  In the United States alone, emissions of the primary greenhouse gas, 
carbon dioxide, have risen more than 20 percent since 1990. Climate 
change is the most daunting environmental challenge we face and we must 
develop reasonable solutions to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.
  I have observed in person the dramatic effects of climate change and 
had the opportunity to be briefed by the preeminent experts. In 2006, 
on a trip to Antarctica and New Zealand, for example, I learned more 
about research by scientists at the University of Maine. Distinguished 
National Academy of Sciences member George Denton took us to sites in 
New Zealand that had been buried by massive glaciers at the beginning 
of the 20th century, but are now ice free. Fifty percent of the 
glaciers in New Zealand have melted since 1860--an event unprecedented 
in the last 5,000 years. We could clearly see the glacial moraines, 
where dirt and rocks had been pushed up in piles around the glacial 
terminus in 1860. I thought it was remarkable to stand in a place where 
some 140 years ago I would have been covered in tens or hundreds of 
feet of ice, and then to look far up the mountainside and see how 
distant the edge of the ice is today.
  In Antarctica, I visited the Clean Air Station at the South Pole. 
Being the farthest place on Earth from major emissions sources, the 
South Pole has the cleanest air on Earth, and thus provides an 
excellent place to measure the background quality of the Earth's air. 
By analyzing carbon dioxide in ice cores, scientists have been able to 
create reliable measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide going back 
over hundreds of thousands of years. The measurements of carbon dioxide 
at Clean Air Station provide a reliable comparison to document the 
impact of human activity on increasing carbon dioxide concentrations in 
recent years compared to the last hundreds of thousands of years. The 
melting is even more dramatic in the Northern Hemisphere. In the last 
30 years, the Arctic has lost sea ice cover over an area 10 times as 
large as the State of Maine, and at this rate will be ice free by 2050. 
In 2005 in Barrow, AK, I witnessed a melting permafrost that is causing 
telephone poles, planted years ago, to lean over for the first time 
ever.
  I also learned about the potential impact of sea level rise during my 
trips to these regions. If the West Antarctica Ice Sheet were to 
collapse, for example, sea level would rise 15 feet, flooding many 
coastal cities. In their 2007 report, the IPCC found that due even just 
to gradual melting of ice sheets, the average predicted sea level rise 
by 2100 will be 1.6 feet, but could be as high as 1 meter, or almost 3 
feet. In Maine a 1-meter rise in sea level will cause the loss of 
20,000 acres of land, include 100 acres of downtown Portland--including 
Commercial Street, a major business thoroughfare along the water. 
Already

[[Page 11328]]

in the past 94 years, a 7 inch rise in sea level has been documented in 
Portland.
  The time has come to take meaningful action to respond to climate 
change. My colleagues worked tirelessly in recent months to develop 
legislation that will preserve our environment for future generations 
while providing reasonable emission reduction goals, offsets, and 
incentives for the industries covered by the bill.
  I applaud the leadership of my colleagues from Virginia, Connecticut, 
and California in bringing this bill to the floor this week.


                           Rural Cooperatives

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy 
with my friend, the junior Senator from Connecticut. I was pleased to 
cosponsor the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act shortly after it 
was introduced last October, and I followed its progress through the 
Environment and Public Works Committee with interest.
  Today, the full Senate will begin considering that bill, and Senator 
Boxer, the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, will 
offer a substitute amendment that she has worked out with Senators 
Lieberman and Warner. I have a question for my friend from Connecticut 
regarding this substitute amendment.
  As the Senator from Connecticut knows, many rural electric 
cooperatives in this country serve the role of local distribution 
companies. The committee-reported version of the Climate Security Act 
included rural electric cooperatives among the local distribution 
companies that receive emission allowances over the entire 42-year life 
of the program. In Florida, electric cooperatives serve more than 
1,000,000 Floridians in 58 of our 67 counties. Most of these rural 
electric cooperatives own fossil fuel-fired powerplants.
  I was recently in Florida and held a series of town hall meetings 
across the State and heard from rural cooperatives that are concerned 
about the way emission allocations are distributed under the substitute 
amendment.
  Can my friend from Connecticut address their concern and explain how 
allowances are available to rural cooperatives under the Boxer-
Lieberman-Warner substitute amendment?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend, the senior Senator 
from Florida, for his question.
  I would be glad to address the concern that rural electric 
cooperatives in Florida have brought to him.
  Let me reassure him, and them, that the substitute amendment does 
include rural electric cooperatives among the local distribution 
companies that receive free emission allowances over the entire 42-year 
life of the program.
  And let me reassure him, and them, that the substitute amendment does 
include rural electric cooperatives among the fossil fuel-fired 
powerplant owners that receive free emission allowances over a 
transitional period that lasts from 2012 through 2030. As in the 
committee-reported version of the bill, the separate allocation of free 
emission allowances that is exclusive to rural electric cooperatives in 
the substitute amendment is additional to the free emission allowances 
that rural electric cooperatives receive as local distribution 
companies and as fossil-fuel-powerplant owners. Under the substitute 
amendment, as under the committee-reported bill, rural electric 
cooperatives in Montana and Virginia are the only rural electric 
cooperatives in the country that receive free emission allowances 
solely from an exclusive allocation and not also from the bill's local-
distribution-company and fossil-fuel-powerplant allocations. Indeed, 
there is a provision in the substitute amendment, section 552(c)(2)(C) 
that would be mere surplussage if the case were otherwise.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I thank my friend from 
Connecticut for the clarification.

                          ____________________