the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or change their vote? if not the yeas are 53, the nays are 47. the amendment is agreed to. there are now two minutes of debate on mcconnell amendment 836. the senate will be in order. the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president i believe the next second amendment number 836. the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. mcconnell: let me just say to my colleagues this is an amendment that ought to pass 100-0. let me tell you why. the administrator of e.p.a. testified in the last couple of weeks she doesn't are have the authority under the clean power plans to cut off state roads and bridges funds. so today with my friends from kentucky and oklahoma, i've introduced an amendment that's really quite simple. it says washington bureaucrats shouldn't be allowed to punish innocent americans by threatening the roads and bridges they use. just because a citizen's state may take a wait-and-see approach -- a wait-and-see approach -- as courts rule on e.p.a. regulations. these are regulations that would threaten the middle class without having a meaningful impact on the global climate anyway. the legal issues here will resolve themselves eventually, but whatever our party or ideology we should be able to agree that the federal government should not be punishing hardworking families just to score a political point as states await the legal clarification. let me sagene. the administrator of e.p.a. doesn't believe that she has this authority to do this. we need to make it clear that the senate opposes any step in that direction. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: who yields time? the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: mr. president i rise in opposition to amendment 836 that seeks to undercut the president's clean power plan to address climate change and reduce dangerous carbon pollution. 2014 was the single most dangerous year ever recorded in terms of temperatures, the warmest in history. noaa and nasa continue to chronicle this ever-worsening warming planetting. not only will the president's power plan reduce greenhouse gases but it will also reduce the amount of pollution that leads to dangerous smog-related diseases that are contracted by americans all across our planet. instead of debating this amendment, we should be debating the way to reduce the impacts of dangerous greenhouse gases on our planet. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. the presiding officer: the question is on the mcconnell amendment 836. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be and 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 57 yeas, 43 nays. the amendment is agreed to. there are two minutes of debate prior to a vote on the merkley amendment number 842. mr. merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: mr. president the consumer protection bureau has returned $ed 5 billion to american citizens victimized by predatory scams and unscrupulous practices. if you support ending the victimization of our citizens, support this bill. if you support predators then vote against it. and i yield to my colleague from delaware. coons kienls amr. coons: i'm proud to join with senator merkley. it is important that we continue to have a strong cfpb to ensure fairness and security in our marketplace and i urge an aye vote by my colleagues. mr. enzi: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: mr. president i urge my colleagues to vote "no" on this amendment. the consumer fng financial protection bureau is an agency with excessive independence today. it's had excessive independence since it was started. it actually steals funding from the federal reserve before it goes to the federal government, which takesway from our general fund -- which takes away from our general fund. there's no control over any part of that agency once the director was put in place a year ago we said that there needed to be an inspector general taking a look at this. the inspector general has since said that he has no being a he is to the records even though he works there. so this is an agency that's out of control. it's time that we got some control over it, and i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. the presiding officer: question is on merkley amendment. is there a sufficient second? appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote: the presiding officer: anyone wishing to change their vote? if not the yeas are 46. nays are 54. the amendment is not agreed to. there are two minutes of debate prior to a vote on the grd -- gardner amendment number 443. mr. gardner: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. gardner: thank you. the amendment protects state water rights. it creates a deficit-neutral reserve fund to make sure we are protecting privately held water rights from intrusion by the u.s. forest service or the ski area water rule, make sure we're keeping private water rights safe from groundwater rules by the u.s. forest service. this is an effort to make sure that we are protecting private water rights, preventing bypass flows and making sure we're doing everything we can to make sure that state water law is the eminent feature of our water in this country. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: mr. president the gardner amendment would radically change the way water is handled on public lands. there are real concerns of how federal land management agencies deal with water particularly in the drought-afflicted west, but this amendment is so broad that it is trying to address these problems in a way that it will have numerous unintended consequences. it would make even worse some of the water shortages in the areas of the west, particularly in the lower colorado basin. it would also create havoc in our national parks and our federal properties in both the east and the west. the amendment would call into question the status of water contracts actually signed by the bureau of reclamation throughout the west. and uncertainty is the last thing we need. it would damage locations for settlements like the yakima basin where people have come to agreement. so i agree we need to continue to work on the drought issues of the west, but saying that federal management agencies don't have their obligations such as helping in the national forest with firefighting -- the presiding officer: the senator's time is expired. ms. cantwell: i urge a no vote. mr. gardner: mr. president once again, this is about water rights. this is about making sure we protect state-held private water rights. it's a very clear contrast. if you believe water rights should be managed by the federal government then vote against the amendment. but if you believe that our private water rights are under state law managed by state law decided by state law then vote for this amendment. let's protect our private water rights. let's keep our law clear. this matter belongs in the hands of the states and not in the hands of the federal government. the presiding officer: the question's on the gardner amendment. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote: the presiding officer: anyone wishing to change their vote? if not the yeas are 59, nays are 41. the amendment is agreed to. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: there are two minutes of debate prior to a vote on the murray amendment amendment number 951. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, as a former preschool teacher, i have seen firsthand the kind of transformation that early learning can inspire in a child and i believe that we should be investing more in our children not less. so today i'm offering an amendment to expand access to early childhood education so more kids can start kindergarten ready to learn. this amendment would expand high-quality early learning opportunities for low- and moderate-income three- and four-year-olds and build on the investments that governors and legislator across the country regardless of party affiliation are already making to improve early learning opportunities through public-private partnerships. it's fully paid for by closing wasteful tax loopholes. so mr. president, i hope that our colleagues can support this critical amendment, and i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. mr. enzi: mr. president? the presiding officer: the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. enzi: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: mr. president i'd urge my colleagues to vote "no" on this amendment a. all of us know that there's a great value to preschool and the federal government already spends as much as $20 billion per year on early childhood programs including head start. and this would call for $66 billion over 10 years so it's just $6.6 billion per year but we already do $20 billion which is almost as much as we spend on kindergarten through 12th grade. how many programs do we need? we have 45 at the moment. a year ago when we did the child development block grant i had an amendment in there to reduce that to five and put them all under one agency. that would save enough money to do this. now, elementary and secondary education's going to be marked up i think when we get back. that would be the appropriate place for this not in the budget. so i would ask a "no" vote. the presiding officer: the question's on the murray amendment. the yeas and nays have been ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote: the presiding officer: anyone wishing to change their vote? if not the yeas are 46, nays are 54. the amendment is not agreed to. the presiding officer: there are two minutes of debate prior to a vote on the graham amendment number 763. mr. graham: thank you mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: thank you mr. president. i'm going to withdraw this amendment but give you a couple minutes to let you know what it would do and what the -- what awaits us. most members of the body don't understand, i don't think that 160 programs are exempt from sequestration. our pay is exempt from sequestration. freddie mac, fannie mae food stamps most all of medicare all of medicaid the veterans administration. so we're really taking devastating cuts to the military the intel community the n.i.h. and we don't include our own pay. and at the end of the day how can you justify making sure you take care of the veteran but you're putting those who are serving in the fight today at risk? so i'll -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. graham: so, mr. president i'm going to withdraw this amendment for now because i think we're about to get some reason regarding sequestration but if we don't i'm going to have an amendment for every 160 programs starting with our pay and we need to feel the pain we're inflicting on other people people. so i withdraw this amendment for now hoping we can fix sequestration. but if not we need to take the entire government and let it feel the pain, not just those who wear the uniform and who are doing work that this country needs to be done. so with that, i withdraw the amendment. the presiding officer:unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. there are two minutes of debate prior to a vote on the blumenthal amendment amendment 825. mr. blumenthal: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you mr. president. this amendment helps to keep faith with our veterans and to make sure that we leave no veteran behind by reflecting and responding to their voices. and the message they've given us about the need for more and better health care relating to postpost-traumatic stress, treatment for military sexual trauma and the improvement of delivery of health care for them around the country. it also improves the job and training and rehabilitation -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. blumenthal: -- job training and rehabilitation programs for our veterans and makes sure, among other provisions that there is greater accountability more funds in support for the inspector general of the v.a. so that we avoid the kinds of gaps and egregious shortcomings that we've seen in this past year and also improve the choice program that this congress passed. i urge my colleagues to join me in this bipartisan amendment. i thank senator moran and senator baldwin for their support and cosponsorship and urge that we keep faith with our nation's heroes and leave no veteran behind. i yield the floor. thank you. mr. enzi: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: we're willing to take this on a voice vote. we yield back all time. the presiding officer: all time is yielded back. the question occurs on the blumenthal amendment. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to. there are two minutes of debate prior to a vote on the flake amendment number 665. mr. flake: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. flake: in 2009, the president signed executive order 13502 that states "it's the policy of the federal government to encourage executive agencies to consider requiring the use of p.l.a.'s, or project labor agreements, in connection with large-scale construction projects." this executive order did not mandate the use of p.l.a.'s. however, some federal agencies have interpreted that the order to require and so all this amendment does is take it back to what the law intended, that the federal government is neutral with regard to awarding of contracts allowing the free market to work its will and to deliver to taxpayers the best possible product at the best possible price. i urge adoption of the amendment amendment. the presiding officer: the assistant democratic leader. mr. durbin: mr. president, this flake amendment -- senator flake's my friend -- strikes the project labor agreement option. what is a project labor agreement? it is only awarded to a company after they win the competitive bid. so they've got to come in with a low, competitive bid. and what does a project labor agreement contain? how much it's going to cost what wages will be paid how disputes will be settled. and the net result? the projects cost less, they're done on time. why would we want to eliminate the possibility of saving taxpayers' money with project labor agreements? i hope that you'll vote "no" on this so we can put the money that we're going to save from the flake amendment into some important investments in america. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: yeah, if i could have the attention of all senators. at the rate we're going, we could be here until 5:00 in the morning. so it's i think a good time to seek some cooperation. we've got a number of amendments lined up here where sponsors will take a voice vote in the tranche that we're -- that we are working on now. if you're not in the current tranche and would like to be considered what i'd recommend you do is come over here and talk to the budget staff see if we can't take some of them by voice vote and see if we can move through this process and get us out of here at a reasonable hour. so that's where we are, i would say to my friend, the democratic leader, on this side. give us your view of the status on your side. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. he reid: the senator from south carolina set a good example by withdrawing his amendment. that's really what the standard should be. [laughter] [applause] mr. reid: senator blumenthal was second best when he said, "i'll take a voice vote." the only disagreement i would have with my friend, the republican leader is that if we go through all these amendments that are pending it will take 33 more hours. that's the math. that's the truth. we need to move on. remember this budget resolution is a statement of policy. it's not the law. and we can say "i gotcha you" on this one "we gotcha you on that one." we've done that now for eight hours, whatever it is. and i really do agree with the republican leader. we -- we -- the staff has worked so hard. they haven't worked just today and yesterday and this week. they've been working for weeks to get us in a position to where we are tonight. and i know that the republican leader bought dinner tonight and i appreciate that very much, but i -- if we can finish here by 11:30, i'll buy dinner when we get back. it will be better than that. [laughter] so i -- we've had an ample vote-a-rama. for all you new members, you see what it's like. the time has come for senators to show some restraint. no one's elections can be determined, i say that to the world, no one's election is going to be determined by what has taken place here tonight. nothing. no election. i defy anyone to show me in any of these vote-a-ramas where a vote has made any difference. and we are -- we are -- we are witnesses to that, and i can testify to that. one time, to show you how meaningless these votes are we voted to -- we voted against prisoners being able to have viagra in prison. we actually voted on that. no one lost an election. by the way, it was defeated. so let -- let's -- you know, we can go through all the viagra amendments and do all these things to embarrass each other but that isn't what we should be doing. the time has come to forego pressing amendments to votes altogether. this is -- this -- we -- it's been very dignified. i earlier today told how proud i was of the two managers of this legislation. they are totally -- they have totally different political outlooks but they've been gentlemen to each other and gentlemen to each of us. so i would hope that we can move forward as quickly as possible. and the agreement for the dinner was not a las vegas bet it's something i'll do. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mcmcmr. president, i'd just -- mr. mcconnell: mr. president i'd just add. we will finish tonight. and it might help us move quicker, in addition to having voice votes on a lot of amendments, for us to sit at our own desk and see if we can just get through this as rapidly as possible without denying anyone their rights. so i recommend we go ahead with whatever the next amendment is. the presiding officer: the question is on the flake amendment. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: the presiding officer: anyone wishing to change their vote? if not the yeas are 51 nays are 49. the amendment is agreed to. the presiding officer: there are two minutes of debate prior to a vote on the sanders amendment number 475. sanders: thank you mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: thank you. this amendment establishes a deficit-neutral reserve fund to prevent the united states postal service -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: this deficit-neutral reserve fund would prevent the postal service from shutting down 82 processing plants in 37 states. it would restore delivery standards which have been slowed down and protect rural postal services. the postal service is vital to the well-being of our nation and our economy. this is especially true in our rural areas. this is an issue that has had bipartisan support for the last number of years. senator collins is a cosponsor of this amendment. she has been very active on this issue and i would hope we could pass it with a voice vote. mr. enzi: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: i want to thank senator collins for all of her efforts in this area and senator sanders for making it a bipartisan amendment. and i would ask we accept this on a voice vote. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. all in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to. there are now two minutes of debate prior to a vote on the hatch amendment number 1029. mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i call up amendment number 1029 and ask for its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the amendment is pending. mr. hatch: mr. president nobody in the chamber believes in tax policy that has the effect of shipping jobs overseas. my amendment which is cosponsored by senator wyden -- it's a true bipartisan amendment amendment -- goes right to the heart of what my friend from michigan's amendment 523 and my friend from illinois's amendment, 817 claim to be doing. tax policy leaders of all ideological stripes agree on a key point -- the u.s. corporate tax rate is the highest among our trading partners and is making american firms less competitive, thereby hurting american workers. my amendment would put in place a deficit-neutral reserve fund to bring the corporate rate down and prevent the bleeding of u.s. jobs. vote for it to preserve and grow u.s. jobs. i yield back. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: sanders: the purpose of this amendment as i understand it, is to prevent american jobs from being moved overseas. i think if we are serious about this, we may want to change our disastrous trade policies which have led to the shutdown of thousands of factories in this country and millions of decent paying jobs. in my view at a time when we have an $18 trillion national debt the last thing we need to do is to cut corporate taxes on profitable corporations that in many cases pay little or nothing in federal taxes. we have major corporation after major corporation making billions of dollars. they pay zero in federal income taxes. i don't quite know how you could lower their taxes below zero. we need real tax reform in this country that ends corporate loopholes which are costing us well over a hundred billion dollars a year. so i would urge a "no" vote on this amendment. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. mr. wyden: mr. president? i think if the senator would yield me his moment? the presiding officer: there's no time remaining. mr. hatch: mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent the distinguished senator from oregon be given 30 seconds. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: i'll be very brief. i support this amendment. president obama favors lowering this tax rate. and i believe the reason he does is because he thinks this will provide another opportunity to the reduce offshoring. i support the amendment. mr. enzi: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: since this is another one that's bipartisan, i would hope that we would take this by a voice vote. it's the chairman and the ranking member of the committees that have to do the work. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. all in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to. there are now two minutes equally divided prior to a vote on the schatz amendment. number 1063. mr. schatz: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. schatz: thank you mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that my amendment numbered 1063 be modified with the changes at the desk. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schatz: thank you mr. president. all legally married same-sex couples deserve equal treatment under the law regardless of where they live. but right now eligibility for spousal benefits provided under the social security act and by the department of veterans administration is determined by a place of residence standard. that means that legally married same-sex couples who move to a state that doesn't recognize same-sex marriage could be denied social security and veterans' survivor benefits. plain and simple, this is wrong and this doesn't reflect our american values. this amendment will fix this and provide the equal protection under the law. and the social security and veterans' benefits that gay americans have earned. i'd be happy to entertain a voice vote 3 in support of this amendment if the majority is amenable. mr. enzi: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: it's come to my attention that that's not going to be possible on this -- this amendment. again -- again, this is a statement that has to be handled by the committee of jurisdiction and has no real effect so i would ask that everybody vote "no" on this one. 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:

Related Keywords

Vermont , United States , Kentucky , Delaware , Illinois , Oregon , Michigan , Washington , District Of Columbia , Connecticut , Arizona , Oklahoma , South Carolina , Wyoming , Massachusetts , Colorado , Utah , Hawaii , Americans , America , American , Freddie Mac , Las Vegas ,