vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or change their vote? if not on this vote, the yeas are 75, the nays are 23. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment the amendment is agreed to. ms. murkowski: move to reconsider. a senator: move to lay on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: could we have order in the senate. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. mcconnell: yeah, i'd like to remind everybody these are supposed to be 10-minute roll call votes and to the extent

that you don't make it in the 10 minutes, you inconvenience everybody else, and i would hope people would be respectful of their colleagues and stay close to the floor and vote during the 10 minutes. we've actually reached a milestone here that i think's noteworthy for the senate. we just cast our 15th roll call vote on an amendment on this bill which is more votes -- more roll call votes on amendments that in the entire united states senate? all of 2014. [applause] mr. mcconnell: so i particularly want to commend chairman murkowski and senator cantwell for the fair and open process that's been engaged in. this is the way the senate ought to work. now, the question i know is on everyone's minds is what do we do next, right? it's thursday night. we have a current tranche of amendments. we're having a little difficulty getting our friends on the other

side of the aisle to offer their amendments so they can be considered. in order to consider amendments they need to be offered. so here's where we are for the evening. we're going to finish this tranche. chairman murkowski is interested in getting -- setting up an additional tranche of amendments tonight. and once she has been able to set up an additional tranche of amendments for tonight we'll be able to announce the way forward for later. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. durbin: mr. president first, i want to thank the majority leader for the compliment which he's played to the constructive minority in the senate. we know that under the rules of the senate this procedure could have been stopped at any moment by any senator but yet we have worked in good faith with the good leadership of senator

murkowski, senator cantwell and senator boxer and we want to continue to. we have a number of amendments considered here and many of them had republican responses which we've accommodated. many of your amendments had democratic responses which you have accommodated. i think we've done that in good faith. we have not threatened any filibusters. we have not tried to stop the process and we don't want to. we think we have constructive amendments. we want to bring them forward. we'd like to have a vote. and i think -- i agree with you completely, this is a constructive use of the senate floor and the senate procedure on a critical issue relative to our environment and energy policy in this country. mr. mcconnell: i thank my friend from illinois. he's entirely correct. we're open for business. when we finish that tranche i hope senators on both sides who have additional amendments to be considered will come and offer them. and after we get an additional tranche of amendments that are pending then i think we'll be in a better position to announce the way forward.

i yield the floor. the presiding officer: there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 27 offered by the senator from oregon, mr. wyden. mr. wyden.mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president it's very significant that more than 70 senators just voted for a nonbinding resolution to close an outlandish -- a senator: mr. president i'm sorry. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, more than 70 senators just voted to close an outlandish tax loophole that favors canadian tar sands producers over american oil and american taxpayers. it was a nonbinding resolution. the next amendment that i offer allows the senate to actually eliminate the flagrant loophole now. as for the blue-slip question,

this is a text that we ought to pass now and then add to an appropriate house revenue measure. this amendment colleagues, ends the double standard today to say to your communities to your taxpayers and to your producers that canada should essentially get a free ride is not right. let's actually do the job now. and i yield back. ms. murkowski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president again, i would remind my colleagues that while you may agree that we need to address this -- this legal but it is a -- there is a loophole in the law, and many of us have just voted, 75, i believe say we need to address this oil spill liability trust fund issue. doing so in the manner that the senator from oregon has suggested does create >> a blue-slip problem. it would cause this bill to -- to fail.

it is not constructive to do so. the sense of the senate that we just passed i think sebdz sends clearly the message that we want to address it but we need to do so in a constitutional way. i would ask that members vote "no." the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. cow coy ims. murkowski: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: sufficient you have? there is a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: any senators wishing to vote or change their vote? if not -- the senator from delaware has voted in the affirmative. on this vote, the yeas are 50, the nays are 47. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment the amendment is not agreed to. without objection, there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 78 offered by the senator from missouri mr. blunt. mr. blunt: mr. president. the presiding officer: will the

senate please be in order. mr. blunt: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: i rise to support this amendment as cosponsored by senator inhofe, the chairman of the energy, power and water committee, by senator capito, the new chair of the subcommittee on air. this amendment just simply says that the united states should not be bound by the commitment that we're the only party that has a commitment made in the agreement with china. we agree to reduce emissions by 27% between now and a point in the future. the chinese agree to increase emissions between now and 2030. the amendment also says the president should have these kind of amendments approved by the senate. it also says that the united states should not enter any

international agreements. they are disproportionately disadvantaged to us. and i urge support of the amendment. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. the senator from new jersey. ms. cantwell: mr. speaker, i will speak for the senator from new jersey, although this is a foreign policy question in general. i will say this -- in the next ten years 50% of the new buildings that will be built in the world will be built in china, and they are the most energy-inefficient buildings on the planet. when we reached an agreement through the president of the united states to work together as a way to reduce energy consumption of greenhouse gases guess what's going to win. american business, american product. and we are selling it to them because we have an agreement to work together to be more energy efficient. so i don't want to slow down this president or any president in cutting deals to get u.s. products into markets because they agree that we need to deal with this issue.

please don't slow down the ability to get u.s. products into more than markets. oppose the blunt amendment. the presiding officer: the question is on the blunt amendment. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: anyone wishing to vote or change their vote? if not on this vote, the yeas are 51, the nays are 46. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment the amendment is not agreed to. ms. murkowski: move to reconsider. a senator: move to 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 126 offered by the senator from alaska ms. murkowski, for the senator from texas mr. cornyn. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president the next amendment following the

cornyn amendment seeks to prohibit the use of eminent domain in the building of the keystone x.l. pipeline but eminent domain is actually irrelevant to this bill. this is actually designed to confuse things and ultimately end up being a poison pill. it's i think accurate to say that the distinguished senator from new jersey's no fan of the keystone x.l. pipeline so he wants to add this provision to the bill to make -- to make it impossible basically to implement. the bill doesn't authorize or mandate the use of eminent domain to take any property. it simply approves a cross-border permit. the decision on how the property should be taken should be and will be made by the individual states in a process overseen by state courts and subject to the united states constitution. my amendment simply reiterates that the standard in the fifth amendment to the united states constitution applies. so i'd ask for all senators to vote for the cornyn amendment and to vote against the menendez

amendment. mr. menendez: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president what i'm not a fan of is a foreign company coming to the united states and taking the property of united states citizens. this amendment seems innocuous but it embraces the seizure of private property for private gain to the full extent of the constitution. now, 10 years ago my dear friend from texas decried the kilo decision and advocated for severely restricting the use of eminent domain for private gain. now with this amendment he endorses it. the founders of our country and its constitution never envisioned having a company from another country come to the united states use eminent domain to take the property of u.s. citizens for private purposes. that's what we are trying to avoid in the menendez amendment. if you vote for his amendment you in, essence will continue to allow that opportunity for any foreign company come into

the united states, take private property of u.s. citizens for private purposes. that is not what we want to see. vote "no" against the cornyn amendment. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment as modified. a senator: ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not the ayes are 64, the nays are 33. the amendment is granted. there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 72, as modified offered by the senator from new jersey, mr. menendez. mr. menendez: mr. president the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the

senate will be in order. the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: this amendment protects private property from unjust seizure by foreign corporations using eminent domain proceedings against the will of those who are not willing sellers. let me read from a letter from nebraska landowners to the majority leader where they say "dear senator mcconnell: our farms and ranches are directly at risk of tar sands and benzene spills. we ask even knowing that you support the keystone x.l. pipeline that you vote for senator menendez's amendment that makes it clear that trans-canada cannot take land from unwilling sellers. we ask you to stand up for our property rights and not permit eminent domain be used for private gain." i'd like to yield the balance of my time to senator tester on this. mr. tester:man, i support did the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: mr. president, i support the pipeline. i think it has a lot of good

benefits but make no mistake about it, if you do not support the menendez amendment and there are a lost aggies on the other side of the aisle -- if you do not support this amendment you're going to allow a foreign corporation, a foreign corporation, to come in and use eminent domain to take the property. the presiding officer: time is expired. mr. tester: we don't want to go down this line. a senator: regular order mr. president. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: the senate has spoken on the spreeing amendment and affirmed the constitution as the only standard that should apply under these circumstances. the standard being proposed by the senator from new jersey is an antistates' rights amendment. and it is designed to be a poissonpoison pill on this keystone x.l. pipeline, which he did not support and wants to use every means to kill. i would ask for a "no" vote on this amendment of. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be.

the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: anyone wishing to vote or change their vote? if not on this vote, the yeas are 43, the nays are 54. the amendment is not agreed to. a senator: move to reconsider. a senator: lay it on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president, we have just gone through a pretty considerable period of processing some votes and i appreciate the patience of colleagues as we have gone through it. as the majority leader mentioned mentioned, we want to figure out

what that next tranche that next grouping of amendments that we will take up and be able to figure out the path forward. i think it's the hope of myself and the ranking member on the committee that we be able to get through a few more votes this evening, at a minimum but also to set up a more clearly defined path for the coming days ahead for tomorrow and monday. and so i would ask for members' indulgence as we call up a few amendments here to get them pending. then we will work together to figure out what that amendment -- what those votes will actually look like, which votes we will actually take up this evening. but again, i think the opportunity to get amendments

pending on both sides is good. it gives everybody a little bit of lay of the land, gives them a chance to look at the amendments that we will bring up. so at this point in time, i would like to -- to call up an amendment. when i have concluded i will turn it over to the ranking member and an amendment will be called up on the democrat side. and then we will come back to this side, just alternating back and forth just getting these amendments pending so members can know what it is that we have in this universe out there. and with that, mr. president i ask to set aside the pending amendment and bring up sullivan amendment number 67. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from alaska ms. murkowski for

mr. sullivan proposes an amendment numbered 67. ms. murkowski:ms. murkowski: request that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i would turn to my colleague senator cantwell. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: thank you mr. president. i know our colleagues have been working throughout the day on these amendments and i want to you know, applaud them for their cooperation. as the senator from said, oftentimes these needed side-by-sides, people need to see these, we have various committees that have been involved in these amendment processes. so appreciate our colleagues' patience. and i do think going back tonight on getting another set of amendments pending is a good idea because we have many members on our side who have amendments that they're very interested in having votes on and i appreciate them being here tonight. so i'm going to call on senator cardin to offer his amendment. mr. cardin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i would ask consent

that the pending amendment be set aside so i can call up amendment number 75. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from maryland mr. cardin, proposes an amendment numbered 75. mr. cardin: i assume thus be considered the reading of the amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: mr. president, i'm going to be very brief. this is an important amendment but it deals with the rights of property owners to clean water. the ogallala aquifer is the largest aquifer in our -- in the western part of the united states and the keystone pipeline would bisecretaryisect that. at some points the aquifer is only five feet from the surface. private owners drill wldz wells to get their drinking water and there's no protection in the event there is a spill. spill is a real possibility.

we have seen in prior cases in michigan and arkansas the impact of a spill of the tar sands oil and the damage it can cause. my amendment is pretty straightforward. it allows our governors to be able to challenge the safety of their drinking water so it is a states' rights issue. it gives the property owner whose wells could be contaminated by this the right of action. and i would ask my colleagues to favorably consider this amendment. ms. murkowski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president i request unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and bring up murkowski amendment 98. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from alaska ms. murkowski proposes an amendment numbered 98. ms. murkowski: request that full reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection.

ms. cantwell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: i'd like to recognize the senator from rhode island to bring up his amendment. mr. reed: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent to put aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment number 74. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. reed: and i request dispense with the reading of the amendment. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment by number. the clerk: the senator from rhode island, mr. reed, proposes amendment numbered 74. mr. reed: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: very briefly, this is a bipartisan amendment. i am proud to be a cosponsor with senator collins of maine. it would require by resolution that we fund liheap, the low-income heating assistance program at $4.7 billion.

we've seen a significant diminution of liheap funding over the years. this amendment helps every aspect of the country. it helps low-income households, particularly seniors. it would be something that would help immensely families throughout this country. in the winter, it's about heating oil in new england and alaska and all through the north and central plains. in the summer, it's about cooling in the southwest and the southeast. and if families and households can't get access to these resources, they have to make a hard choice between literally paying for their energy or sometimes their rent or sometimes their food. this is a program we've long supported on a bipartisan basis. we should aim for this figure. and with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. ms. murkowski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: i would turn to my colleague from arizona at this time. mr. flake: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. flake: i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending

amendments and call up my amendment at number 103. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from arizona, mr. flake proposes an amendment numbered 103. mr. flake: i ask consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. flake: mr. president in its 2012 annual report on opportunities to reduce duplication and achieve savings the g.a.o. noted that there -- in 2011 there were 94 federal initiatives to foster green buildings in the non-federal sector. this report highlighted many of the initiatives provided similar types of assistance, grants technical assistance, tax credits and so forth. this obviously doesn't sound like a recipe for proper oversight. if this is still going on five years later. this amendment would help tackle the problem simply by requiring

agencies to evaluate and eliminate duplicative green building programs consistent with g.a.o.'s recommendations. we asked g.a.o. to study these things and we often don't follow through and make sure that the agencies follow up on the recommendations. this would simply ensure that that happens. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. ms. cantwell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: mr. president, i'd like to call on the senator from vermont to offer an amendment. mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president i ask consent to bring up my amendment number 30. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from vermont, mr. leahy proposes an amendment numbered 30. mr. leahy: i ask consent further reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president this will be set aside for the moment, but first i just want to note that my amendment is simply

to make sure that if people have appeals on actions under this law, that they be able to appeal in the courts within their jurisdiction and not have to trunkel their way to washington, d.c. to appeal. because too many people think that washington acts like they have the answers to everything. mine would simply say it's a states' rights issue it would say that the appeals would be in courts within that district. and i'd ask now consent that it be set aside. i don't have to do anything. okay. that's the simple explanation. i spoke earlier on the floor about it. i will speak more about it when the amendment comes up. ms. murkowski: mr. president, at this time i would turn to my colleague from texas. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendments and call up my amendment at number 15. the presiding officer: is there

objection? without objection, the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from texas, mr. cruz, proposes an amendment numbered 15. mr. cruz: i ask unanimous consent that further reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cruz: mr. president, this is an amendment to allow expedited export of liquid natural gas to w.t.o. member countries which would have benefits to our country in terms of jobs and economic growth and also substantial geopolitical benefits to our allies. and i expect to debate this further in the coming days. ms. cantwell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: i'd like to call on the senator from rhode island to offer his amendment. mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: may i ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside and that i may call up my own amendment number 28.

the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from rhode island, mr. whitehouse, proposes an amendment numbered 28. mr. whitehouse: may i ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: mr. president this is a measure that will allow a needed beam of daylight to be shown on the politics that are behind this bill that we're on. as everybody knows it's a little bit unusual to some that the opening measure of the new republican majority would be a project that advantages a foreign oil company. and this measure would require the disclosure of political donations made by companies that stand to earn more than a million dollars from this project. this is the kind of information that the united states supreme court has clearly said citizens

are entitled to know in order to make appropriate decisions. and in our democracy, we should put our citizens first. but i'll speak further about this amendment at a later occasion and yield the floor at this time. ms. murkowski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i would turn to my very patient colleague from kansas. a senator: mr. president i'd ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set assigned call up amendment number 73. ferraro is there objection? without objection the clerk will report the amendment. -- the clerk: mr. moran proposes an amendment numbered 73. mr. moran: mr. president, i would ask that further reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: mr. president, this is an amendment that sets aside the endangered species threatens

species listing of a chick in kansas also oklahoma, new mexico and colorado. i look forward to having this conversation and debate on the senate floor at the appropriate time. ms. cantwell: mr. president, i would like to call on the senator from delaware to offer his amendment of. mr. carper: mr. president i rise to set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment to the murkowski substitute amendment number 121. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator delaware mr. carper, proposes an amendment numbered 121. mr. carper: mr. president, i ask that the amendment be considered as read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: mr. president and colleagues, you will recall from our debate here earlier this evening concerns raised about i think equity of most oil that's

consumed and transported through this country or into this country, pays a fee. it is an eight-cent-per-barrel fee that goes into the oil spill liability fund. one source of oil that does not pay that eight-cent-per-barrel fee is a drive from oil scene. i think this is a fair a agreementamountof agreement that that doesn't seem right and it is not fair to assess an 8-cent-per-barrel fee on these other sources of oil but not to apply that to oil derived from tar sand. what i seek to suggest with my amendment is that an 8-cent-per-barrel fee be assessed on the oil derived from tar sands and that the revenues derived therefrom would be deposited not in the oil spill

liability fund but rather in the land and water conservation fund, which has been in existence for many, many years. i believe the balance in the oil spill liability fund is measured in the billions of dollars. the balance in the land and water conservation fund is not. the moneys are much smaller much more modest. that money provides funding in all 50 states, as many of us know. the need far outweighs the money needed every year for this program. the land and water conservation fund was also established not just to provide revenues for national parks -- and we're always looking for moneys for national parks. we just ex-spantded our national parks system and wondering how we're going to pay for that. and the amendment that i hope to offer would help to address that. but the land and water conservation fund was also established to help protect rivers lakes critical habitat for wildlife, areas that may be

impacted by the construction of this pipeline or a possible spill from this pipeline or another spill. i would -- again so that's it. very concise again. no fee is now paid on oil -- on tar sands oil. i believe it should be the same as that which is assessed against other sources of oil. and what i would suggest is rather than put that eight cents -- the moneys de-friefd derived from that into the oil spill liability fund, which is frankly quite robust but instead to depos that in the land and water fund where we could use it in all 50 states for a have variety of purposes. i hope i have the opportunity to offer that amendment of amendment. ms. murkowski: mr. president and members -- the presiding officer: the senator from alaska.

ms. murkowski: i would like to turn to our colleague from montana. the presiding officer: senator from montana. mr. daines: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that the pend being amendment be set assigned call up amendment 132. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection the the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: mr. daines proposes an amendment numbered 132. mr. daines: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with further reading of the amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. daines: i. in montana we understand that our resource use must be done responsibly. we also know that montanans who live and use the land every day understand how to best protect these resources. unfortunately, the current administration, as well as past administrations, both republican and democratic, their efforts to stretch the intent of the antiquities act threatens

montanans' ability to manage our state's resources and it is a trend we're seeing in other states as well. too often these unilateral designations ignore the needs of the local communities of sportsmen, of farmers and ranchers and small business owners who are directly impacted by this new designation. my amendment i'm offering simply expresses that the sense of congress that all future national monument designations should be subject to consultation with local gofnance and the -- governance and the approval of the governor of that state and the legislature of that state in which the designation would occur. this amendment ensures that the people affected most by these designations have a seat at the table and that their voices are heard. i yield back my time. ms. cantwell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: i would like to call on the senator from mass to offer an amendment. -- from mass to offer an amendment.

mr. markey:man, i ask ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment to call up my amendment number 256789. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the clerk will report the amendment. ask unanimous consent that -- the clerk: the ^stphor from massachusetts, mr. markey, proposes amendment number 25. mr. markey: i ask that the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. markey: and i ask that the amendment be put in order for debate. ms. murkowski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president we now have in front of us six amendments that are pending on the republican side, six amendments that are pending on the other side of the aisle. we indicated we wanted to try to get these up alternating back

and forth. i think we've got a pretty good range in front of us. and recognizing that it is important that members have an opportunity to take a look at the now 12 amendments that are pending i think it's our hope that we would be able to, as the chairman and the ranking member, sit down and figure out how many of these we might be able to move to a vote this evening dispense with some of them. i think it's pretty clear that we will have a difficult time perhaps advancing such a plan with everything tonight. so if we could have a little bit of time to work through an agreement to present to members i think right now people are taking a little bit of a break from the floor activity and that's appreciateed but just to

give them a notice as to where we are. it is my hope that we will be able to come to an agreement here relatively shortly in terms of how many amendments we might be able to take up and vote this evening thus giving members a better chance as to whether or not we are staying in for the long haul tonight or perhaps just for a shorter period. but we need a little bit of time to take a look at that. ms. cantwell: mr. president we just did go back and forth on these amendments, but i heard senator mcconnell say that he wanted members to offer amendments. we have several other members who do want to offer amendments, so i hope there will be a time that those members will be allowed to get their amendments pending before this body. ms. murkowski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: and i appreciate the senator from washington saying that. this is by no means saying this is it for the night. i'm just saying, give the floor

managers an opportunity now with a dozen amendments that we have in front of us, to kind of figure out what it is that we have. this would probably be a great time for people to speak on either their amendments or other amendments that they might wish to bring pending. but i'm not suggesting that we should not be -- that this is our finite list of amendments. this is what we have for this moment in time, having gone back and forth. that's all i'm suggesting. mr. sanders: i've got a pending amendment. do you object to my bringing that up at this point? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: i have got an amendment that i would like to bring up. can i do that? ms. murkowski: mr. president i think it was the intention of the ranking member and myself that we go back and forth. we've done that six on each

time now. i don't have other members on our side here who are either present, which we have asked them to be, or have asked me to introduce on their behalf. i'm certainly not suggesting to the senator from vermont that he should not be allowed to get his amendment pending. i'm just trying to keep with the agreement that we have that we go back and forth. so -- mr. sanders: if i brought mine up and you guys can catch up to it later? i'm sure you are agriculture going to have another one. ms. murkowski: i am sure we will have other amendments. again, i want to defer to your ranking member on that as far as whether or not we bring it pending at thispending at this moment in time. it might be possible after we reach our agreement that we've got another set of back-and-forths to get these pending agreements put forward.

i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: