quorum call:

,

quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i now ask unanimous consent the senate resume legislative session and appropriate to the consideration of the house message to accompany s. 2244, which is the terrorism risk insurance act, that the majority leader be recognized for the purpose of offering a motion to concur in the house amendment to s. 2244, that there be up to 10 minutes of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to a vote on the motion to concur. that there be no motions to consider or motions to refer in order prior to a vote on the

motion to concur. finally, the vote on the adoption of the motion to condition occur be subject to a 60-affirmative vote threshold. the presiding officer: is is there objection? mr. coburn: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: i would like to first of all thank senator schumer for trying to work with me on this bill and the members of the banking committee. they have known my objections all along on both the narab and the options that we had offered. we had offered this evening to the house three options under which they could enroll to come back to where the senate had been in terms of a two-year sunset position. they disagreed with that. and the other things that we had offered, which is taking narab completely out of this bill, which is -- doesn't have anything to do with the tourism risk insurance bill, or to give a state opt-out so that the states that don't want to be a part of the narab provision wouldn't be there. we have not been able to find agreement on that despite the

best efforts of a lot of people here this evening, and with th that, i would ask the senator if he would agree to amend his request to strike the narab provision from the bill? mr. reid: mr. president, reserving -- the presiding officer: does the majority leader so modify his request? mrmr. reid: reserving the righto object, mr. president. my friend from oklahoma seeks to amend the house-passed tria bill with an unrelated piece of legislation in the sense that he knows, we all know that we changed the bill. bill, it's gone and that would be a modification to the bill. if the senate were to amend tria, we would have to send it back to the house of representatives. they're gone. they're not going to change anything in the bill. we've been told that many times. amending the tria bill would be just another way to kill the tria bill. now, mr. president, i say respectfully to my friend from oklahoma, i've worked with him

for 10 years, from the very beginning, we've tried to work something with him -- work out something with him on this bill. we have been unable to do that. it's unfortunate but his objection is going to kill tria. i'm very sorry about that but that's the fact. so i cannot accept his modification. the presiding officer: objection is heard. is there objection to the original request? mr. coburn: reserving the right to object to continue one portion of my statement. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: according to industry calculations, tria has made the industry $40 billion in the last 12 years. the american taxpayer takes all the risk except for 35% and the insurance industry makes the money. we had a compromise bill coming out of the banking committee. my objections were well-known at that time.

they were tried to be accommodated by senator schumer. and with that, i must object to the bill. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the clerk will report to invoke cloture. the clerk: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of stephen r. bough of missouri to be united states district judge for the western district of missouri. signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: the question is: is it the sense of the senate that debate on the noment anything of stephen r. bough of missouri to be united states district court judge for the western district of missouri, shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer:. the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, the ayes are 51. the nays are 38. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: mr. president? and the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, steven bough of missouri to be united states district judge for the western district of missouri. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. reid: mr. president, was the nomination reported? the presiding officer: yes. mr. reid: we couldn't hear. this will be the last vote of this congress. i ask unanimous consent that the remaining cloture motions with

respect to judicial nominations be withdrawn and the senate proceed to vote on the nominations in the order upon which cloture was filed. i ask consent that all time on the bough nomination be yielded back. the presiding officer: is there objection? hearing none, so ordered. the question now occurs on the bough nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

any senator wishing to vote or change their vote? the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to the following nominations which the clerk will report. the clerk: nominations the judiciary, jorge luis alonso of

ilto be united states district judge for the northern district of illinois. hayward sterling gilliam for the northern district of judge, united states district judge. mehta for the district of columbia. al son burwell of massachusetts. john robert blakely of illinois to be judge for the northern district of illinois. robert lee pitman of texas to be united states district judge for the western district of texas. robert william schroeder iii of texas to be united states district judge for the eastern district of texas. joan marie azrack of new york to be united district judge.

loretta cope land biggs of north carolina to be united states district judge for the middle district of north carolina. the presiding officer: under the previous order the question occurs on the alonso nomination. all those in favor say aye. opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order the question occurs on the gilliam nomination. all those in favor say aye. opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order the question occurs on the mehta nomination. all those in favor say aye. opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order the question occurs on the burr

rouse nomination. -- on the buroughs nomination. all those in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the question owe cuss on the blakey nomination. all those in favor say aye. opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the question occurs on the madzant nomination. all those in favor say aye. opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the question occurs on the pitman nomination. all those in favor say aye. opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the

question occurs on the schroeder nomination. all those in favor say aye. opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have t the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the question occurs on the azrack nomination. all knows in favor say aye. opposed, no. the ayes appear too have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the question occurs on the dillon nomination. all those in sphaifer aye. opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have t the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the question occurs on the biggs nomination. all those in favor say aye. opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. the majority leader.

mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the motions to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the nominations be printed in the record, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: i now ask unanimous consent the senate move to a period of morning business for debate only with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. officer certificate without objection. -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 5701, which is at the desk, that the bill be read three times and passed, and the motions to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. vitter: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: mr. president, on behalf of senator sessions, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. wyden: mr. president, this objection is very unfortunate, as the oregon congressional

delegation has teamed up in a bipartisan way to provide, among other things, trust land for the two remaining native american tribes in our state that have no land base. these tribes have been waiting for over 100 years, and senator merkley and i, with the whole oregon congressional delegation, intend to be back early next year and will be working to pass these bills and stay at it until justice is done. mr. vitter: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: thank you, mr. president. also on behalf of senator sessions, i would ask unanimous consent that the committee on finance be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 4137. that the senate proceed to its immediate consideration, that the bill be read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. wyden: reserving the right

to object, mr. president -- the presiding officer: the senator from or omplet. mr. wyden: mr. president, i want to be clear as chair of the senate finance committee that i oppose taxpayers subsidizing illegal conduct. and i also oppose setting up a one-size-fits-all federal mandate that's going to create red tape and confusion for our states to implement. this proposal says that tanf electronic benefits cannot be used in any retail store which sells marijuana. this means that a tanf card cannot be swiped in these locations. but the reality, mr. president, is tanf benefits can be withdrawn for cash and cash can be spent anywhere. yet this proposal does not seem to recognize that fact. of course, we here in the senate often hear of burdensome federal rules and regulations that are imposed on our states and our

businesses. my view is that this sounds like the epitome of needless bureaucracy in its current form and actually achieves nothing except generating a lot of regulatory hassle. for the reasons i have stated, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. ms. warren: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. rein reasoms. warren: mr. presi, came to the floor last week to ask a question: who does this government work for sno does it work only for the biggest corporations and billionaires or

does it work for all of us? and i asked that as congress considered the government funding bill, a bill that included a completely unrelated provision literally written by citigroup lobbyists that increased the risk of future taxpayer bailouts, just so the biggest banks in this country could rake in more profits. now, sadly, that bill was just the latest example of how the government works just fine for those who've already made it. in the past few yeeks years federal agencies have entered into a number of major settlement agreements with big banks and other large corporations after those companies have broken the law. these agencies have touted these settlements as being worth millions or in some cases billions of dollars. that seems like a great deal for taxpayers, but often that sticker price is much higher than the actual value of the settlement. agencies have often permitted corporations to deduct the cost of the settlement from their

taxes, which can cut the actual value of the payment by more than 30%. and instead of requiring corporations to actually pay the full settlement amount, agencies often give corporations credits toward the settlement amount for taking certain actions, actions that the corporations would have taken even if the settlement had never existed. by structuring the settlements this way, agencies can get credit for being tough on corporate wrongdoers, even when the actual deal paints a much different picture. in january, i introduced a bill with senator coburn to shed more light on this kind of backroom deal making. this bipartisan bill, the truth in settlements act, is pretty simple. it just requires federal agencies to publicly disclose certain basic information about the major settlements they enter into with corporations, information like weather whether a settlement is going to be

tax-deductible or whether it lets taxpayers claim credit for things they're already doing. that's just pretty much t the idea behind the bill is straightforward: if the government is going to cut deals on behalf of the american people, the american people are entitled to know what kind of a deal they're getting. that's the only way that the public can hold agencies accountable. the homeland security and governmental affairs committee approved the truth in settlements act in july without any objections from any democrats or any republicans. the c.b.o. found that the bill wouldn't cost taxpayers a single dime. this is a nonpartisan, commonsense measure that simply brings more transparency to critical actions that the government takes on behalf of the public. accordingly, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to consideration of calendar number 566, s. 1898, that the

committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. toomey: mr. president, on behalf of senator cornyn, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. ms. warren: mr. president, i am disappointed but not surprised that there is an objection to this request, because although there is bipartisan support for this bill and only one outside group has raised concerns, that group is the united states chamber of commerce, a powerful lobbying organization that represents the interests of large corporations. the chamber's concern about this bill demonstrates just how much the interests of these giant corporations that break the law conflict with public interests.

in its letter opposing the bill, the chamber wrote, and i am wreeting here, "that the bill would remove the incentive for investigation targets to settle and force the government to expend more resources to approve its assertions in court." think about that for a second. the chamber's position is that agencies shouldn't disclose basic facts about settlement agreements to the public because if the public was aware of those facts, they would demand more accountability for corporate wrongdoers. the chamber's position bails down to this: let's keep the details of these agreements hidden from view so that corporate wrongdoers don't have to worry about any real accountability for their illegal actions. thea's that sounds great if you are a big company that breaks the law, but i don't think it sounds great to the american people. i think that the american people are tired of seeing large corporations break the law and

then negotiate sweetheart deals behind closed doors. while we have not be able to pass the truth in settlements act this congress, i will be reintroducing it in the next congress, and i will continue to fight for the public to get access to the details of these agreements. because we weren't sent here to work for big companies and to protect them from accountability when they break the law. we were sent here to stand up for everyone. thank you, mr. president. and i yield. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: mr. president, i'm here with senator portman from ohio. we are here to try, i think, for about the sixth time to try and get energy efficiency legislation passed. now, senator portman and i have been working on legislation

called the energy savings and industrial competitiveness act for four years now. we have tried to bring it to the floor, and it has been objected to -- not because of provisions in the bill but because of extraneous provisions that have people holding it up. but tonight we are again trying to pass a smaller version of that bill. it is h.r. 2126, the energy efficiency improvement act, that was passed out of the house with a strong bipartisan vote -- 375 to just 36. it was sponsored in the house by representative mckinley from west virginia and representative welch from vermont. senator portman and i introduced the same bill here in the senate a couple of weeks ago, because

it is a smaller version of our energy efficiency legislation, and i'm going to be asking for unanimous consent that the senate consider passage of this legislation. but before i do that, i just -- it's my understanding that it's going to be objected to again, and that senator toomey is here to do that. but i wonder if, mr. president, if i could get an answer to a question from senator toomey about what his specific objections are to the legislation. i understand that the tenant star provision that's in the bill is what he is objecting to and yet this would establish best practices. it would set up a voluntary certification system for efficiency in commercial tenant spaces. what is does not do is provide financial incentives or create new regulations. it is a voluntary market-based

business-friendly approach to encouraging energy efficiency which is the cheapest, fastest way to deal with our energy needs in this country. it's something that everybody agrees that we should try and do. and so i wonder, mr. president, if i can ask my colleague from pennsylvania if he could describe his concerns about that provision in the bill. mr. toomey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: i'm objecting on behalf of a colleague who is unavoidably detained. the senator from new hampshire will have to take this up with our colleague. mrs. shaheen: well, mr. president, in that case i would like to ask unanimous consent that the energy committee be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 2126, the energy efficiency improvement act, and that the senate proceed to its consideration. further, that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no

intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. toomey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: on behalf of a colleague who is unavoidably detained, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mrs. shaheen: thank you, mr. president. i would yield to my colleague from ohio who i know is here to talk about the legislation, or my colleague from new hampshire who has been working on the tenant star provision with senator bennet from crosm. ms. ayotte: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. ms. ayotte: mr. president, first of all, i want to thank my colleague from new hampshire and my colleagues from ohio, senators shaheen and portman, for their important work on this legislation. as my colleague from new hampshire has said, unfortunately this is a piece of legislation that is being blocked. we saw on the floor we don't even know the reason that it's being blocked. and i think that when you have an objection on the senate floor, you should have to come to the floor and state what your objection is.

so here we are, we're going to again ask for this legislation to be brought forward, that passed overwhelmingly in the house and in fact has overwhelming support from both the business community and environmental groups. and if the tenant star provision is what is being raised, we're not quite sure what the objection is because we haven't heard here publicly. this program is supported not only by commercial landowners but also tenants, the business community, environmental groups. and what it does is it established a market-based approach that is not a mandate but encourages both the commercial owners and tenants to be able to create a voluntary tenant star certification to encourage commercial tenants to implement cost effective measures that will help reduce energy consumption. now, energy efficiency, that is

a bipartisan way that we can reduce energy costs. we can protect our environment. we can ensure that we don't have to be dependent on countries overseas. i want to thank senators shaheen and portman for working so hard on this bill. it's surprising this bill that passed. it's obviously a smaller version of the bill that they introduced and i'm proud to cosponsor. but it has overwhelming support. it passed the house and it's unfortunate that we are here and we aren't going to be able to get this done because it's just plain common sense. again, the tenant star program is not a mandate. there is no tax incentive, no grant program. it contains no regulatory authority, no new costs. this is one that makes just common sense. so, mr. president, i'm very disappointed that this bill is not going to be brought forward tonight. it's unfortunate that we're essentially here fighting against something we don't even

know what the objections are because they haven't been stated publicly. and with that, i again want to thank my colleagues for working on this bill. i hope to support their efforts in the next congress to get this bipartisan, commonsense, energy efficiency legislation through this body. and with that, i turn to my colleague from ohio. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: i'm also joined by our colleague from alaska, the ranking member on the energy committee who will be the chair come january and i want to give her a chance to talk in a moment. let me say a few things if i could. one, this legislation represents a lot of hard work by a lot of people including senator ayotte from new hampshire. senator shaheen also from new hampshire. senator bennet and others. it is an example of smart bipartisan legislation that was worked out with the business community, with folks who are concerned about energy

efficiency, who are in nonprofits. it has no objection as far as i know in the real world, meaning there is no group, not a single group that objected to it. on the other hand, there are dozens of people who support it, including business groups, environmental groups and people who want to have the opportunity on a voluntary basis. no mandates, as the senator from new hampshire has said, to be able to know that there is a certification that a building is energy efficient to be able to have better information. second, i want to make the point that it is part of four provisions, one of which is urgent because it involves a decision we have to make now, tonight, here in the united states senate in order to keep a regulation from the department of energy unfairly imposed on businesses and consumers in america. and this is the water heater provision. so not only are we objecting to something that i don't think anyone objects to in the real

world but also we are blocking something that would be good for our consumers, good for business. because now because of our inaction tonight, because we had this objection for reasons we don't know, because we have not been able in two nights here on the floor to get a reason. all we heard was we object; no reason. we're stopping the ability for companies to produce water heaters that are used by rural electric co-ops, that are used in an energy efficient way because during a peak demand they are turned off so they super heat the water, turned off in peak demand, called demand response. it's an efficiency measure. the regulation doesn't make any sense that bans the production of these water heaters. but it's because of legislation that congress passed that d.o.e. feels they have to impose these regulations. tonight we had the opportunity not only to pass something good on tenant star, not only to do two other things that are good for the federal government to become more efficient -- the

biggest energy user in the world, by the way. but also we have an urgent matter before us, and that is to change this regulation before manufacturers are blocked from producing these water heaters. rural electric co-ops all over the country are watching tonight and they're disappointed. why? because they use these water heaters and they use them in an energy efficient way. they're not going to be able to do that going forward because manufacturers are literally having to stop producing these water heaters because we're not acting. after the first of the year, i hope we will be able on regular order to take this forward and hopefully some of these manufacturers will begin to produce these water heaters against once we can take care of this regulation that's onerous on business and consumers, does not make sense for energy efficiency. but i will say finally, if i could, this is part of what i hope will be the past congress, and i hope in the future congress which will start in january, that we do things in a different way. i hope that we begin to look at

ideas from both sides of the aisle, find common ground and move forward on legislation helping the american people. it's a small matter. i understand that. it's a big matter if you're a rural electric co-op, if one of those consumers that sits back or if you're a commercial building that wants the ability to use energy star or if you're concerned about the fact that we think that $5 billion is wasted in energy efficiency in the federal government. but this is, i think, unfortunately symbolic of where we are as a congress. we can't even get the simple things done. this legislation was reported out of the committee in the house unanimously, all four provisions. we're talking about the republican-led house. unanimous. on the floor of the house it was passed by a vote of 375 -- i think 357-34, as i recall. you don't see those kind of bipartisan votes often. it came over here, it's gone through the energy committee. the energy committee vote was something like 18-3 as i recall. it's come to the floor now for

the third time. the fourth time if you include last night. this is legislation that's been fully vetted. we've had hearings on it. we've done all the right things. we have played by the rules. and those of us who played by the rules on both sides of the aisle on this legislation, again, are being stopped as we get to the floor of the senate. i hope that we will see not just good energy efficiency legislation passed in the next congress, but other legislation as well that deal with our tax code that is out of date and antiquated, to deal with the overreaching regulations, some of the regulatory reform measures, mr. president, you and i have talked about. that we can deal with the fact that we are falling behind in terms of exports. that we're not dealing with some of our urgent problems we should be dealing with to get this economy moving. we have to change the way we do business around here. we're letting things move only in very, very incremental and, unfortunately, partisan ways. we're not allowing the process to work. and so i'm theefl this

legislation -- i'm hopeful that this legislation will be taken up in january. very disappointed it was objected to again tonight for no apparent reason. and i'm hopeful, mr. president, that this will lead us to be able to better represent the people who hired us, the people who said go to washington. i want you to find common ground because there are big problems to solve. not just give speeches. we've had enough of those. there's enough rhetoric. it's time to get some things done. that is small example of exakd have -- of what could have gotten done tonight but for an objection for no apparent reason. my colleague from alaska stayed late to talk about this tonight. she will be the next chair of the energy committee and she will have the opportunity to get great legislation accomplished. i hope this will be one of them. with that, i yield back, mr. president. ms. murkowski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: i join with my colleagues in expressing

disappointment that we are yet again at this place, yet again we are a good measure that has good, strong bipartisan, bicameral support, has been blocked, has been objected to. i made the comment last evening when we once again attempted to bring up a unanimous consent order to advance this energy efficiency bill. i said it kind of feels like groundhogs day, the movie, where it's just the same scene over and over again. third time to the floor here on a measure that enjoys strong support. it kind of begs the question why? what's the problem with it? but as my colleagues, both senator shaheen and senator ayotte from new hampshire have outlined in terms of the specifics, there's no opposition there, as the cosponsor here, my colleague from ohio has pointed out, these four provisions that

are contained in this house measure have so much bipartisan support that it passed the house unanimously. unanimously coming over here. and so you have to -- you have to ask if we cannot advance a measure in this body such as energy efficiency that enjoys this level of support, how can we do anything around here? i asked the question months ago when i was being stopped in the hallway by a reporter saying what's going to happen with the energy efficiency bill? and i was bullishly optimistic because i said this is a measure that enjoys strong support. it enjoys strong support and it's common sense. and i said if we can't

demonstrate that we can't get a measure like energy efficiency through both houses and enacted into law, how are we ever going to get to the really thorny, difficult issues? i've been working with my colleagues on the appropriating side of energy and water. the senator from california and the senator from -- senator alexander from tennessee working with us on the authorizing side. first it was me and senator wyden. then it was me and senator landrieu. and in january it will be senator cantwell. we'll be trying to figure out how we're going to deal with the issues surrounding nuclear waste disposal. these are tough. these are contentious. we've got some issues that will face us in the new congress relating to export of our energy

resources. these are also going to be contentious. how are we ever going to get to the tough ones if on the easy ones what we describe around here as the low-hanging fruit, that we can't get it through this process? so i have to tell you, mr. president, it is -- it's not the 11th hour. it's beyond the 11th hour because we've just taken the last vote, the last vote of the 113th congress. we're done. and what we are leaving people with is uncertainty. and when we're talking about those ways that we as a congress can help right some of the problems in this country, how we can get our economy on a better track, how we can move towards more jobs and job creation, have the best thing we can do is offer a level of certainty. well, right now you've got these manufacturers of these water

heaters that are saying, we don't know whether or not we're going to -- we're going to have any kind of a reprieve from this legislation -- from this regulation or not. so we're not only not going to be making these water heaters but that means you don't need -- you don't have the workers, those in the manufacturing company that were going to be there, the people that are selling them. think about what we've done with just one -- one -- one hurdle that we just couldn't get around. and yet we couldn't get a straight answer as to what the opposition, what the pushback was. something's wrong with this process when we cannot advance measures like the energy efficiency bill, a measure that has been worked on for years

diligently and in good faith in a very, very open and bipartisan way. so i'm hopeful that the 114th congress is going to bring with it not only kind of some fresh air, fresh perspective but a willingness and a commitment to move through a process. if you've got an objection, you come down, you state it, we work it out. but to -- to just continue to block and block, again, when we have the level of support on a measure like we have, it's just not right. there's got to be a better way. so i have pledged to my colleagues, the sponsors of this bill and all those that have been working so hard on it, we're taking this back up again in the new year. we're going to work to make sure that this has yet again the committee process now for the third time and we will work to

advance it to the floor. and it's my hope that if you have problems with it, you've got a solution to fix it and you come down and you offer your amendments and we'll debate them and we'll move on. but we've got to be in a better place than we have ended this evening. so it's with regret that i say we'll take it up again next year r. buyear. but my hope is that we will do right by our energy policy, by focusing on not only the production side, not only the renewable side but our efficiency measures that we have included in this bill and we're going to do right for a lot of the right reasons. and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and thank you.

ms. mikulski: mr. president mure ms. murkowski: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: