[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 138 (Monday, October 15, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10682-S10685]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS 
              APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 5 p.m. 
having arrived, the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to 
proceed to H.R. 2506, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A motion to proceed to the bill (H.R. 2506) making 
     appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and 
     related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2002, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, for the edification of the Senator from 
Vermont.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Senator McConnell asked that during the period of time prior 
to the vote I represent him. I will be happy to do that. I assume that 
since the proponent of the legislation is the Senator from Vermont, he 
will want to begin, and I respect that.
  I presume from the shrug, the Senator from Vermont does not wish to 
move forward, in which case I will be happy to continue with the 
discussion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I will respond to a couple things the Senator 
from Vermont had to say. I very much appreciate the burden he carries 
as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and the fact he was not in the 
majority until June. However, I think it important to point out there 
is a reason the chairman of the Judiciary Committee before him did not 
hold hearings on nominees.
  We will all recall that it took President Bush a little while to 
secure his office this time, and he was probably a good 6 weeks or so 
behind. I am not sure how that translates into making nominations to 
the bench, but by early May he, indeed, was making nominations. There 
are a whole number of nominations that were made on May 9, as a matter 
of fact, and then following that, on May 25 and then in June, and so 
on.
  Very shortly after he was sworn in, he began the work of nominating 
people to fill the vacancies on the court. It is important to point out 
that, probably more than any of the last four Presidents, himself 
included, he has acted with alacrity to fill vacancies. As a matter of 
fact, by the beginning of the August recess, in the short time that 
President Bush held office, the President had submitted to the Senate 
44 judicial nominees. Let me put this in perspective.

  President Reagan had submitted 8 nominees before the end of the 
August recess, President Bush submitted 8 nominees before the August 
recess, and President Clinton submitted 14 nominees before the August 
recess. President Bush submitted, as I said, 44 nominees before the 
August recess.
  It is true that those were not submitted in February and March and 
April. Obviously, he was just taking office at that time. To point out 
no hearings were held before the distinguished Senator from Vermont 
became chairman of the committee I think does not represent the 
situation in any accurate way for us to take action now.
  The fact is, we had 44 nominees pending prior to the August recess, 
108 vacancies currently, and therefore it is time to act. Whatever the 
situation was before June, we now know we have all of these nominees. 
My question is, Why are we not acting on them?
  In terms of hearings, it is true the Senator from Vermont has held 
hearings, but the problem is he does not put very many judicial 
nominations on the hearing calendar. In contrast to his predecessor, 
Senator Hatch, who averaged 4.2 judicial nominees per confirmation 
hearing, Senator Leahy has been moving at about a third of that place--
1.4 judicial nominees per confirmation hearing. It is a little hard to 
fill these 108 vacancies when you are only having 1.4 nominees per 
hearing and you only hold the hearings on the schedule they have been 
held so far.
  As a result, we have only confirmed eight judges. That is the reality 
of where we are today.
  The fact that we have 41 designated emergency judges as indicated by 
the Administrative Office of the Courts does not concern anyone? It 
certainly concerns me as a Senator representing a border State, where I 
have three nominations pending, with no action being taken on those.
  There are 21 nominees pending in the Judiciary Committee who are 
slated to fill positions which have been declared judicial emergencies 
by the Administrative Office of the Courts. Why are we not holding 
hearings on these nominations? As far as I know, there is nothing to 
prevent us from holding hearings, and if I am wrong, I ask the 
distinguished chairman of the committee to tell me how I am wrong.
  He says anyone who takes the position I have taken is utterly lacking 
in judgment. I ask him to perhaps reconsider that comment. Perhaps I 
can ask the Senator from Vermont who he thinks is acting like petulant 
children in the schoolyard--the other comment he made.
  The fact is, we have had time to hold hearings, and there are all of 
these nominations pending. They were pending before the August recess. 
There is nothing preventing us from holding the hearings. There is 
nothing preventing us from voting on those nominations in the hearing, 
nothing except politics, I submit, and that, at the end of the day, is 
apparently where we are.
  I do not like to hold up other business any more than anyone else. It 
is important to get the foreign operations bill done. Clearly, we will 
do that. But for those who say we are just so busy doing other things, 
then I am forced to say, fine. Then let's stop until we can get some of 
these nominations to the floor for a vote and acted on.
  Mr. President, I wish to make one other comment. These are not my 
words but the words of the distinguished Senator from Vermont. When 
Bill Clinton was President and there were fewer than 85 vacancies--now 
there are 108--Senator Leahy took the position that ``[a]ny week in 
which the Senate does not confirm three judges is a week in which the 
Senate is failing to address the vacancy crisis.''
  When there were fewer than 70 judicial vacancies, the Senator told 
the Judiciary Committee:

       [W]e must redouble our efforts to work with the President 
     to end the longstanding vacancies that plague the Federal 
     courts and disadvantage all Americans. That is our 
     constitutional responsibility.


[[Page S10683]]


  I certainly agree with the Senator.
  Finally, in May of 2000 Senator Leahy argued that we should move more 
judges than had been moved before at a time when they were being moved 
faster than they are now. He said:

       I have challenged the Senate to regain the pace met in 1998 
     when the committee held 13 hearings and the Senate confirmed 
     65 judges.

  I suggest if it was an appropriate pace then, it is an appropriate 
pace now. There is no reason not to do it. Therefore, we should get on 
with that task.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I am going to speak on this issue of 
judicial nominations for a few moments. I urge us to get as many of 
these judges reported as possible, but I do also think we need to stick 
to some of the facts. I will put in the Record a few facts.
  President Bush has submitted 60 nominees for confirmation to us this 
year; we have confirmed 8. That is 13 percent. President Clinton 
through all of 1993--the Senate confirmed 27; he submitted 47; so that 
was a total of 57 percent.
  The first President Bush, in 1989, in his first year, submitted 24. 
We confirmed 15. So he had 62 percent of the judges he submitted to 
Congress in his first year be confirmed.
  President Reagan, in 1981, submitted 45. Forty-one were confirmed for 
a confirmation rate of 91 percent. For President Reagan, we confirmed 
91 percent of the judges he submitted in his first year in office; 
President Bush, 62 percent; President Clinton, 57 percent. This year 
with President George W. Bush, we have confirmed 8 out of 60--only 13 
percent. So we are way behind compared to the three previous 
Presidents. We have a lot of catching up to do.
  Those are the facts. We are way behind on circuit court nominees. We 
have had more circuit court nominees submitted this time than in the 
past. We have only confirmed 4, but we have had 25 submitted. So we 
have only confirmed 16 percent of the circuit court nominees. I just 
mention that.
  For the district court, 35 have been submitted, and we have only 
confirmed 4. We have a few more in the pipeline, and hopefully we will 
get those through, but we still have a lot.
  My point is, out of 60 judges submitted by President Bush this year, 
we have confirmed 8. That is only 13 percent. That is far behind the 57 
percent for President Clinton's judges. Sixty-two percent of President 
Bush's judges and 91 percent of President Reagan's judges were 
confirmed in the first year. So we are moving very slowly. We need to 
accelerate. That is the reason why some of us are saying wait a minute 
before we agree to move forward on all the appropriations bills. Let us 
try to see if we cannot come up with an agreement where we can have 
expeditious consideration of these judges. They should not be 
penalized.
  This Congress should confirm the judges. I know Senator Daschle and 
Senator Reid have told me they concur with that. So I hope in the very 
near future we come up with an agreement on how to proceed that all 
would say is a fair way of dealing with these judges.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Am I in control of the time on this side? If so, how 
much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three and a half minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have been a longtime friend of the 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee. In fact, he and I have worked 
together for some 9 years on the foreign operations bill, the bill that 
will at some point in the future be before the Senate. Sometimes he has 
been chairman and sometimes I have been chairman. Right now he is 
chairman.
  As an appropriator, I am mindful of the need to complete 
appropriations bills in a timely fashion. This year, the Foreign 
Operations Subcommittee has put together what I believe to be a good 
bill, and I certainly support that bill and want to see it become law 
at the earliest possible time. Nevertheless, I do intend to vote 
against cloture on the motion to proceed because regretfully this seems 
to be the only tool with which we are left to try to advance the 
President's judicial nominations.
  While I am aware of the importance of the timely completion of 
appropriations bills, I am also cognizant of the need to make sure that 
our Federal judiciary is adequately staffed. It is because I am 
concerned that some of my colleagues do not fully appreciate the crisis 
facing the Federal judiciary that I feel it is necessary to object 
proceeding to this bill. I hope that by doing so, we can get a concrete 
agreement on timely confirming the President's nominees and remedying 
the situation facing the judiciary.
  I have great respect for the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who 
is also chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, but the cold, 
hard fact is there are 108 judicial vacancies, almost 13 percent of the 
Federal bench, which means that the Federal judiciary is woefully 
understaffed. And we are running out of time in this fall session.
  It will do us precious little good to pass important counter-
terrorism legislation, for example, if there are not enough judges to 
review search warrants and to try cases in a timely fashion. We are 
engaged in a massive war on terrorism with, as we have seen today, new 
fronts emerging each and every day. With such a massive law enforcement 
operation, we need U.S. Attorneys, and we need Federal judges.
  I am particularly puzzled that my colleagues across the aisle, who 
have cried for adequate judicial safeguards in our counter-terrorism 
package, would not support our request for the expeditious 
consideration of the President's judicial nominees.
  If we look at the first year of the last three administrations, all 
but one of the judges nominated before the August recess were 
confirmed. Clearly, for whatever reason, we are not getting the job 
done in the Judiciary Committee.
  We need to have an adequate complement of Federal judges on the 
bench. Given the sorry state of the vacancy situation, timely 
consideration is certainly needed. It is the middle of October, and the 
President has only eight judicial nominees confirmed. By contrast, at 
the end of his first year in office, President Clinton had 27 or 28 
judges confirmed.
  This is not President Bush's fault. He submitted 44 nominees before 
the August recess. Indeed, President Bush submitted his first batch of 
nominees back in May. This, again, is another record, at least for the 
last couple of decades.
  Rather, the reason for this delay is that while we have had some 
hearings, we have not come close to getting the most out of these 
hearings. I expect this afternoon there has been a lot of talk about 
hearings, but the fact is we have gotten the least out of the most.

  Specifically, while from 1998 to 2000 the Judiciary Committee 
averaged 4.2 judicial nominees per hearing, this year we have averaged 
only 1.4 judicial nominees per hearing. That is a pace that is three 
times as slow as was the case from 1998 to 2000.
  We can do better than that. We must do better than that. The chairman 
of the Judiciary Committee and my friend, Senator Leahy, was constantly 
complaining prior to this year about the slow pace of the previous 
Senate. The fact is, it was moving a lot more rapidly than we are at 
the moment.
  Now, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will say, 
``McConnell, you got it all wrong. You need to look at `this.' And you 
need to look at `that.' And you need to look at the other.' '' Well, I 
and my colleagues are not going to be distracted by ``this, that, and 
the other,'' and we are going to make sure the American public is not 
either. We are going to keep our eyes fixed on the bottom line, and the 
bottom line is that President Bush's 8 judicial nominees is woefully 
inadequate when compared to his predecessors, and particularly 
President Clinton who got 28 judges confirmed in his first year.
  So I urge my colleagues to support the President, the Federal 
judiciary, and the law enforcement community, which is on the front 
lines of our nation's war against terrorism. Vote no on this motion.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator controls 15 minutes.

[[Page S10684]]

  Mr. LEAHY. Then do we vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At 5:30, by agreement, there will be a cloture 
vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the distinguished Chair. The former Governor of 
Nebraska has spent an enormous amount of time in that chair. I know he 
is now giving up the chair, but he has done the Senate a great service 
with the amount of time he has spent there. I have a feeling the 
Senator from Nebraska, when he came from the executive branch, never 
thought he would be presiding as much, but he has done the Senate a 
great service.
  I love to hear quotes, especially those taken out of context. Back 
when the Republicans controlled the Senate I urged that they move 
quicker on judicial nominations. I think it is because they left an 
extraordinary number of President Clinton's nominees at the end of his 
term on which they never even allowed a vote. He had women, Hispanics, 
others who would wait 3, 4, 5 years and never even get a hearing. That 
created a real problem. Now, having created all of those vacancies, 
they come in and say, oh, my gosh, we have judicial vacancies.
  President Clinton tried to fill those judicial vacancies, as my 
colleagues may recall, and the Republican-controlled Senate refused to 
allow him. Time and time again, they would hold them up. They would 
keep sending more questions to them. They would not allow them to come 
forward. They would not have a hearing. They would not have a vote, and 
finally the nominations died. So, of course, there were vacancies. All 
the vacancies would have been filled if they had even allowed votes on 
these because, when on the rare occasions they would allow a vote, the 
person would get 90 votes, 95 votes, sometimes 100 votes. They would go 
through easily, but they would not allow them to have a vote. So the 
vacancies occurred.
  It is a little bit like the young person who is before the court. He 
is there for murdering his parents and he says, Your Honor, you have to 
have mercy on me. I am an orphan. Well, this is the same thing. 
Republicans spent 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 years creating enormous judicial 
vacancies and then they come in and say we have to fill these judicial 
vacancies.
  We are going to have hearings for five judges on Thursday. We will 
have a hearing for them. So there are five judges on Thursday alone who 
are coming up. As we wait for them to finish their questionnaires, I 
think it is good if we can find out if they have criminal records or 
things such as that before we go forward. If they fit at least a basic 
level of competence before they go forward, we will continue to have 
those hearings. I am not going to do what the Republicans did and have 
34 months without having any hearings at all. We have been having 
hearings every month.
  It is an interesting complaint they make, when they had 6 months that 
they controlled the Senate and did not have any confirmation hearings 
of judges or votes. We started having them within a week after taking 
over the Senate.

  Be that as it may, maybe someone sits in a room somewhere and thinks 
we don't have enough work to do. After all, we spent 3 weeks putting 
together an antiterrorism bill--which did take up a little bit of time. 
I remember the number of times I was here late at night, and then to 
hear complaints we have not had Judiciary hearings--actually, we had a 
couple while we were working on the antiterrorism bill.
  Some things have happened in the last month in this country that have 
needed our attention. We have been trying to move U.S. attorneys as 
fast as they come up, but it is like pulling teeth to get them out of 
the White House so we can move them. I don't know if we have had any 
marshal nominations come up, but a week ago we had not had a single 
one. I have never known a President in my term to take that long.
  Holding up the foreign aid bill is an interesting tactic. I cannot 
figure out why. If Senators want to criticize me on judges, I am happy 
to make a commitment to move as fast as they moved the nominees of 
President Clinton, but I have a feeling no one would be happy if I, as 
chairman, were to treat President Bush's judicial nominees the way they 
treated President Clinton's. If I did that, we would hear screams. I 
think we would hear screams from Democrats, too, because it would be so 
patently unfair if we did to them what the Republicans did to President 
Clinton. I am not going to do that. I don't believe in doing that. When 
we get done, whatever time I am chairman of the Judiciary Committee, we 
will find President Bush's nominees were handled far more fairly than 
those of President Clinton.
  Having said that, I wonder what in Heaven's name is the masochistic 
attitude that is holding up this bill so they can make political points 
on the weekend talk shows. I cannot understand that. Secretary Powell 
is overseas now trying to solidify our antiterrorism coalition. 
Democrats have united behind the President and the Secretary of State 
in helping to bring together the support of leaders of other countries. 
The distinguished majority leader has pushed hard to get through money 
and authorization for President Bush to fight terrorism. We went the 
extra mile to get the antiterrorism bill completed.
  Having done that, we are now saying to the President: Look, Mr. 
President, you can call on all these people overseas, ask them to 
support us in our antiterrorism activities, but we are not going to 
give you your foreign aid bill. We will not give you the money you are 
now promising the foreign leaders for their help. We are not going to 
give you the money that goes to NATO allies. We will not give you the 
money that goes to the Middle East Camp David signers. We will not give 
you the money to fight AIDS in Africa. We are not going to give you the 
money to give child immunizations. We are not going to give you the 
money, apparently, to help feed the Afghanistan people after this war 
ends.
  It is a sad day when, for partisan reasons, an important 
appropriations bill is sabotaged. Even the ranking member of the 
foreign appropriations subcommittee will vote against proceeding to the 
appropriations bill. It is unfortunate, unjustified, especially after I 
have bent over backwards to work with him on this bill. Our economy is 
intricately intertwined with the global economy. Our health depends on 
our ability and the ability of countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin 
America to control the spread of deadly infectious diseases. Our 
security is linked to the spread of nuclear, biological, and chemical 
weapons and our ability to stop terrorism and narcotrafficking and 
organized crime. These threats are prevalent from as far away as China 
to our own cities.

  No less a threat but potentially the trigger that ignites many others 
is poverty. We are surrounded by a sea of desperate people. Two billion 
people, a third of the world's inhabitants, live on the edge of 
starvation. They barely survive on whatever scraps they can scavenge. 
Many children die before the age of 5. This grinding, hopeless, 
desperate existence is overladen with despair. That despair fuels 
hatred, fear, violence, and even the terrorism that hit this country a 
month ago. We see it on many continents, including today in Pakistan, 
where thousands of people are threatening to overthrow their own 
government if it gives American troops access to Pakistani territory. 
We see it across Africa and in Colombia and Indonesia. We see it in the 
form of refugees and people displaced from their homes who number in 
the tens of millions.
  The world is on fire in too many places to count, and in most of 
those flashpoints poverty and the injustice that perpetuates it are at 
the root of instability.
  Our foreign assistance programs provide economic support to poor 
countries, health care to the world's neediest women and children, food 
and shelter to refugees and victims of natural and manmade disasters, 
and technical expertise to promote democracy, free markets, human 
rights, and the rule of law. This is as it should be. But as important 
as this is, what we give is a pittance when considered in terms of our 
wealth and the seriousness of the threats we face. Even this pittance, 
the other side doesn't want us to even vote on. Stand up and say we are 
all against terrorism. Of course we are. Wave the flag and say you want 
to protect America. Of course we do. But to say we might do something 
to actually stop some of the root causes of terrorism--

[[Page S10685]]

well, not if it interferes with the partisan political agenda; we can't 
do that.
  The approximately $10 billion we provide in this type of assistance--
whether through the State Department and the Agency for International 
Development or as contributions to the World Bank, the U.N. Development 
Program, the World Food Program, and other organizations--amounts to 
less than $40 per person in this country.
  We are all willing to give far more money than that--we were in my 
family--for the victims of terrorism. But at least give something that 
maybe will stop the terrorism from happening in the first place. We are 
also trying to help people in our country because our economy is 
suffering. But we cannot bury our heads in the sand and protect our 
national interests, in today's complex and dangerous world, on a 
foreign assistance budget that is less in real terms than it was 15 
years ago.
  Our world is not simply our towns and our States and our country, it 
is the whole world. We live in a global economy. The Ebola virus is 
like a terrorist--the terrorists could get on a plane in one part of 
the world and could be in our backyard hours later. We can try our best 
to control our borders, but we cannot hide behind an impenetrable wall.
  We have to go to the source of the problem, to the countries that are 
failing from ignorance, poverty, and injustice.
  Almost 60 percent of the world's people live in Asia. That number is 
growing. Seventy percent of the world's people are nonwhite, 70 percent 
are non-Christian, 5 percent own more than half the world's wealth, 
half the world's people suffer from malnutrition, and 70 percent are 
illiterate.
  These people may not knock down skyscrapers that kill 6,000 Americans 
in a single day. But they pose immense long-term threats to our way of 
life: Extreme poverty on a massive scale in countries that cannot feed 
their people today, and the poisoning of our environment. All of these 
things should be attacked by us just as much as we attack the networks 
of Osama bin Laden.
  We give no credit to the Senate--the greatest parliamentary body--we 
give no credit to this great body if we block the foreign aid bill from 
going forward.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Feingold). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report the motion to invoke cloture.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:


                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 147, H.R. 2506, the foreign 
     operations appropriations bill, 2002:
         Harry Reid, Patrick Leahy, Richard J. Durbin, Ron Wyden, 
           Barbara A. Mikulski, Daniel K. Akaka, Russell D. 
           Feingold, Jack Reed, Zell Miller, Tim Johnson, Paul S. 
           Sarbanes, Jean Carnahan, Daniel K. Inouye, Barbara 
           Boxer, Ernest F. Hollings, Patty Murray, Edward M. 
           Kennedy.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call under the rule is waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to H.R. 2506, an act making appropriations for 
foreign operations, export financing, and related programs for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, shall be 
brought to a close.
  The yeas and nays are required under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Ms. Cantwell) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Lott), 
the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Inhofe) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cleland). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 50, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 303 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--46

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Kyl
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Cantwell
     Inhofe
     Lott
     McCain
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 50, the nays are 
46. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to 
     proceed to H.R. 2506, the Foreign Operations Appropriations 
     bill.
         Pat Leahy, Harry Reid, Tom Daschle, Ben Nelson of 
           Nebraska, Kent Conrad, Zell Miller, Byron L. Dorgan, 
           Russell D. Feingold, Paul Wellstone, Joseph Lieberman, 
           Debbie Stabenow, Bill Nelson of Florida, Max Cleland, 
           Patty Murray, Mark Dayton, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, 
           Barbara Mikulski, and Herb Kohl.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory 
quorum under rule XXII be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________