vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber who wish to vote or to change their vote? the presiding officer: if not on this vote, the yeas are 55, the nays are 44. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment the amendment is not agreed to. a senator: move to reconsider. the presiding officer: without objection. there will now be two minutes of

debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 18 offered by the senator from nebraska, mrs. fischer j -- mrs. fischer. ms. murkowski: mr. president mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: the senate is not in order. pyrite -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: thank you mr. president. our national parks are facing $13 billion in maintenance needs. the entire federal land and state is looking at $22 billion in needs. we want to keep these resources and parks open for our children and grandchildren to marvel at and enjoy. all of us have unique and special areas within our states, but we here in congress have the responsibility to care for the natural resources of our country. this amendment has been softened so that the limitations are now just considerations.

let us vote yes on this amendment to take care of the resources we have so the future generations can enjoy them. thank you mr. president. mr. cardin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i rise in opposition to this amendment. this amendment would open up the courthouse door over disputes of whether to place worthy lands under protection because of challenges that there is not enough resources or certain issues were not considered ahead of time. let me just give you one concrete example. a little over a year ago, the president designated harriet tubman as a national historic monument. it was a prerequisite to becoming a national park. that could have been challenged in the courts and it could have prevented the protection of that land. that could have been done. so what this amendment does -- i know it's not intended to do that -- is add additional bureaucracy to the protection of worthy lands and i would urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. i think it will do harm to the protection of necessary lands in our country.

the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will please call the roll. vote: vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or to change their vote? if not on this vote, the yeas are 54, the nays are 45. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment the amendment is not agreed to. ms. murkowski: move to reconsider. the presiding officer: without objection. there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 99 offered by the senator from washington, ms. cantwell, for the senator from west virginia mr. manchin.

the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: mr. president we can all agree that climate change is real and that seven billion people have had an impact on the climate. and we can all agree that we need to act to address the potentially devastating impact of climate change. the energy administration predicts the united states will continue to rely on fossil fuels for almost 26% of our energy by 2040. my amendment says the only base load fuels we have are coal and nuclear. that's going to expand to natural gas. but what we're asking for is we need a federal commitment from the president and the congress to invest in the research and development of fossil energy so that we can use the cleanest and most environmentally responsible way possible and find that technology to do it so we are responsible. and my amendment does recognize these facts. i ask for a yea vote and appreciate your support. a senator: mr. president.

the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: mr. president the manchin amendment is a side-by-side to my amendment which will follow. the first three provisions are exactly the same -- climate change is real, it is caused by human activity and it is already causing devastating problems. we agree on that. but what my amendment says, importantly, is that according to the scientific community, it is imperative that the united states transform its energy system away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy as quickly as possible. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president thank you. we had -- we had a robust discussion i think yesterday on two amendments that dealt with the issue of climate. i think we had a very clear and a resounding vote on the one that had a perfectly reasonable

statement that climate change is real, climate change is not a hoax. i also supported my colleague from north dakota's amendment on this same topic. i think that it was important that we had that debate. what i'm hoping we can do now is get beyond the discussion as to whether or not climate change is real and talk about so, what do we do? how do you move forward to those technologies? how do we make a difference with reasonable steps like greater efficiency a no regrets energy policy that makes our energy supply even cleaner? i want to move on to that, but i think at this point in time, with what we have had in front of us, we could have a whole series of amendments that basically restate the same thing. i would like to move us beyond that conversation, and i look forward to that, but at this time i'm going to move the -- move to table and i would ask for the yeas and nays. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: is there

a sufficient second? there appears to be. mr. manchin: mr. president? the presiding officer: rog. mr. manchin: mr. president i ask unanimous consent. i ask unanimous consent for one minute to reply. the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president it's my understanding that a motion to table is not debatable. the presiding officer: it is not debatable. the senator is correct. mr. manchin: i'm asking for unanimous consent sir. the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia is asking for unanimous consent. mr. manchin: i don't think it will change anything. ms. murkowski: i would object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. ms. cantwell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: mr. president the original agreement said that further that all these amendments be listed -- limited to 60-vote affirmative threshold adoption except for cornyn and menendez and that no second degrees be in order. so the original agreement we entered into allowed for this vote.

the presiding officer: the consent agreement was for a vote in relation to each amendment and the motion to table is in order. ms. cantwell: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: a quorum is present. the yeas and nays have been previously ordered. on the motion to table. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber who wish to vote or change their vote? if not the ayes are 53, the nays are 46. and the motion to table is agreed to. ms. murkowski: move to reconsider. a senator: lay it on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 24, offered by the senator from vermont mr. sanders. who yields time? mr. sanders: mr. president? the presiding officer: order

please. the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: mr. president, we are walking down a very dangerous road as a nation when we reject the findings of a vast majority of scientists on one of the most important issues facing humanity which is climate change. a vote to table this amendment is a vote to reject science and that's a very bad idea for the united states senate. the presiding officer: who yields time? ms. murkowski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president for the same reasons that i just expressed in the previous amendment that was before us, i would suggest that we move to table this amendment and i will make that motion now to table the sanders amendment and would ask for the yeas and nays.

the presiding officer: there is still 30 seconds remaining for the senator from vermont. sand this ismr. sanders: this is a vote that our kids and grandchildren who will have to live with the consequences of climate change, will remember. yielding back. the presiding officer: all time is yielded back. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not the yeas are 56. the nays are 42. the motion to table is agreed to. a senator: move to lay it on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 71 offered by the senator from utah, mr. lee. mr. lee: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, i stand to urge my colleagues to support this amendment. the purpose of this amendment is to expedite the process by which the bureau of land management processes applications for a permit for drilling on federal land. we all know that drilling, the production of oil and natural gas in our country on federal lands, this is an essential activity for energy security and, therefore for our national security. the fact is that although these

things are supposed to be handled in an expedited manner, they're not and the average right now for them to be processed is about seven and a half months. that's too long. we need a simple up or down ruling by the bureau of land management especially given the fact once they get to this stage are deemed to be suitable for oil and gas leasing. i urge each of my colleagues to support this amendment and thereby secure our energy independence. thank you. ms. cantwell: mr. president speaking against the lee amendment i urge my colleagues to oppose this because it relates to oil and gas permits on federal land. i guess if you want to keep rolling on on trying to loosen environmental regulations then maybe you should support this. but this amendment would impose new limitations on the secretary interior and their ability to process and permit for drilling and provides a waiver for the national environmental policy

act, the endangered species act if necessary. reviews have not been completed by an arbitrary deadline and waives judicial review of these actions, so i encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president i would just remind members that we are trying to keep a schedule here. we have six more amendments to go in this stack and we are supposedly at ten minutes per amendment. we have not been following that and i would urge members to stick close is so we can move more expeditiously. i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber who wish to vote or change their vote? if not on this vote, the yeas are 51, nays 47.

under the previous order requiring 60 votes for adoption of this amendment the amendment is not agreed to. without objection. there will be now two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 123 offered by the senator from alaska, ms. murkowski. the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president request that we have order in

the chamber. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order please. the senate will be in order please. ms. murkowski: mr. president, we have a sense of the senate that would express that all forms of bitumin or synthetic crude should be subject to the eight-cent-per-barrel excise tax that's associated with the oil spill liability trust fund. this is important because right now we have got a legitimate but an unintended loophole on the books. it's also a matter of fairness, i think because conventional oil pays into the trust fund. we need to address this, and i commend my colleague senator wyden, for the effort that he has done, but the problem that we have is as we work to enact legislation to update our laws, we have to make sure that it's consist the president with the constitution which requires revenue-raising measures to originate in the house. so if we agree that we want to close this loophole, which we

should do, we need to allow for the house to address this. otherwise, we face a blue slip issue, and quite honestly it would act as a poison pill to the keystone x.l. bill. so the sense of the senate expresses -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. wyden: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president i'm glad senator murkowski has now agreed that the outlandish tar sands loophole which rips off taxpayers and communities must be closed. the difference between our amendments is that senator murkowski's amendment is a nonbinding resolution to close the loophole some time down the road. my amendment in contrast closes the loophole now. the argument senator murkowski makes against my amendment is that it is a revenue measure that should start in the house. the fact is there is a house revenue measure at the senate desk right now that i would be happy to call up and amend as a

substitute with my amendment to close the loophole that ends the tar sands double standard, harming our communities and taxpayers. that way we would be acting in a constitutional fashion and the senate makes clear we want to close the loophole today. i'll close by saying until i can propound the unanimous consent request to do just that, i intend to go along with the murkowski amendment and after its consideration i hope my colleagues will vote for my amendment because closing this flagrant tax loophole is too important to wait. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. the question is on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: