[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 154 (Friday, November 18, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13287-S13292]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair lay before the Senate
a message from the House to accompany H. R. 3010, the Labor-HHS
appropriations bill; provided further, that the Senate request a
conference with the House, and that the Chair be authorized to appoint
conferees. I further ask that prior to the Chair appointing the
conferees, Senator Specter be recognized in order to make a motion to
instruct the conferees on the issue of LIHEAP; provided further, that
there be debate divided with Senators as follows: 10 minutes for
Senator Reed, 7 minutes for Senator Harkin, 5 minutes for Senator
Specter, 5 minutes for Senator Cochran. I further ask that following
that time, the motion be temporarily set aside and Senator Durbin be
recognized to make a motion to instruct relating to NIH, and there be
15 minutes for debate for Senator Durbin on that motion, and that
following the use or
[[Page S13288]]
yielding back of debate time, the Senate vote on the motions to
instruct in the order offered, and following those votes, the Chair
then immediately appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask for one modification, that Chairman
Specter be given 5 minutes to speak on the motion to instruct relating
to NIH following Senator Durbin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Isakson) laid before the Senate a message
from the House of Representatives, having had under consideration the
report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 3010)
entitled ``An Act making appropriations for the Departments of Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.''
Resolved, That the House insist upon its disagreement to the
amendment of the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Motion to Instruct
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move that the managers, on the part of
the Senate to the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses
on the Senate amendments to the bill, H. R. 3010, be instructed to
insist that $2,183,000,000 be available for the Low-Income Home Energy
Heating Assistance Program and that such funds shall be designated as
an emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95, of
the 109th Congress, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal
year 2006.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is pending. Who yields time?
The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, the instructions that the Senator from
Pennsylvania sent to the Chair, in my understanding, would designate
the full amount of LIHEAP funding that is currently in the
appropriations bill as emergency spending.
I understand the motivation. This bill is underfunded. There are
valuable programs that need additional resources. Both the Senator from
Pennsylvania and the Senator from Iowa strove mightily to try to
provide those resources. They are attempting today to try to free up
about $2 billion to classify some money as emergency spending, LIHEAP
money. I understand the motivation, but I think it is extremely poor
policy.
This LIHEAP program is composed of two components. There is a regular
formula program which each and every year every State in this country
depends upon to provide heating and cooling assistance to its citizens.
The application process begins before the heating and cooling season.
It is usually conducted from community action centers. This whole
infrastructure suddenly now is going to be declared an emergency
process. That would send a terrible signal throughout this country
about our commitment to low-income heating assistance. It would open a
situation of uncertainty and a situation that would be
counterproductive to helping poor people struggling with heating bills
in the winter and cooling bills in the summer.
This would, again, in my view, create a terrible precedent. We have
over the last several weeks in this Chamber supported funding of
LIHEAP, not on an emergency basis, but on a full authorization basis of
$5.1 billion. We did it last evening. Unfortunately, because of
procedural obstacles, we needed 60 votes. Last evening, a majority of
this Senate voted to increase LIHEAP funding to $5.1 billion,
offsetting it by a temporary windfall profits tax. Previously, even a
larger majority of the Senate voted simply to appropriate $5.1 billion.
Today we are on this floor saying not only are we not talking about
$5.1 billion, we are talking about the regular formula money in the
regular program suddenly is an emergency. That is not the emergency
funding that LIHEAP sometimes gets. This funding supports year in and
year out the needs of people who we know have low income. They are
seniors, they are disabled, and they are low-income working families,
and they will anticipate heating and cooling bills. There is no
emergency here.
One of the real problems is, because we call it an emergency, no
funds can be disbursed until the President declares an emergency. When
will that declaration take place? Will it take place in August so these
community action agencies can start requesting applications, processing
applications, or will it take place in October or November or January?
If it does, then this is going to cause chaos.
We were looking weeks ago at the chaos caused in the wake of Katrina
because Federal programs were not realistically grounded in what was
happening. This policy is going to throw a monkey wrench into the
normal operations of the LIHEAP program.
It also sends a terrible signal, if it is adopted, because we are
saying that no longer do we have a regular program committed to helping
poor people--seniors, the disabled--with their heating and cooling
bills. What we have is something that may or may not exist every year.
I know people will stand up and say, Oh, come on, the reality is they
are going to have to declare it this year as an emergency. I do not
entirely agree. But more importantly, when next year we are looking,
under excruciating budget pressure, for additional resources, there
will be the susceptibility to taking this approach, saying we will use
this gimmick again. I suspect the administration--I am not the expert
in budgets, but I expect the administration will say: This is a great
deal they have handed us. We can send up the programs we like in the
regular budget and say all of this LIHEAP is just emergency.
I am terribly concerned about this. Again, we have spent the last
several weeks in this body, on a bipartisan basis, a majority of our
colleagues saying not only is this not an emergency program, this is a
program that should be funded even more than $2.1 billion.
So I must express my deep opposition to this proposal. I immensely
respect Senator Harkin and Senator Specter. I know they are laboring
under excruciating budget constraints that are squeezing out money for
programs that are necessary for America's families, America's children,
America's health care, America's future. But in this desperate moment,
it is not a time to undercut a program that serves every State in this
country well and serves people who need help, particularly as this
winter approaches. I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague from Rhode
Island for pointing this out. I cannot find anything about which I
disagree with him. I think he is right. This is not the way to do
business, normally.
These are not normal times, however. We have a small space in which
we might be able to get something done, and we have to take advantage
of it. I say to my friend from Rhode Island, I think it is instructive
for all of us that there is only one appropriations bill cut from last
year's level--one. Not Commerce, State, Justice, not Transportation,
not the Housing and Urban Development, not all of the rest--only one
appropriations was cut. Guess what it deals with: health; human
services; education; labor. That has been cut. What kind of message are
we sending to Americans?
We had a vote on whether to continue the Community Services Block
Grant program at last year's level. I pointed out a week and a half
ago, 58 Senators signed a letter--please keep it at last year's levels.
A week and a half ago they vote to cut it, in some cases 75 percent.
That is why I put the letter in the Record right after the vote. I want
people to see the vote and read the letter and see how people signed
the letter and then how they voted. It is one thing to sign the letter
around here and I guess another thing to vote.
I guess what I am expressing is this is a terrible appropriations
bill that we have for the needs of the American people, for education,
basic structure of health care and public health, for NIH, for basic
medical research. This is the first time since 1970 that we have flat-
lined funding for the National Institutes of Health--35 years. That is
the bill that Senator Specter and I are faced with.
What we are trying to do is find some way of getting some money for
health,
[[Page S13289]]
trauma care, rural emergencies--rural emergency medical services was
completely eliminated--health community access program, community
health centers--we will not be able to open one new community health
center next year under the bill that we go to conference with. No Child
Left Behind is underfunded; Pell grants are kept at the same level for
the fourth year in a row. For kids with disabilities, IDEA, we are
going backward. How many times have we heard, on both sides of the
aisle, Republicans and Democrats get out here and say we have to fully
fund IDEA. This bill actually goes backward, from 18.6 percent to 18
percent.
That is why Senator Specter and I decided to take this step of having
a motion to instruct the conferees to take the slightly less than $2.1
billion in LIHEAP and designate it as an emergency for this one time
only in order for us to get to conference, to put pressure on the House
to come up with some more money.
I am not saying this will stay as an emergency in the final bill. My
hope is we will be able to find the money and come up with something so
it does not. But if it does, it is only for 1 year. I tell my friend
from Rhode Island, I will do everything I can, everything humanly
possible in the Senate to ensure that when it comes up next year, we do
not have it as an emergency, that we get a better budget allocation.
But again I have to say I do not want anybody around here hiding
behind the skirts of the Budget Committee. They say the reason we got a
bad bill, the reason our bill, the one that funds Health and Human
Services and Education and Labor--the reason it is cut is because the
Budget Committee gave us a bad budget.
Fine. But did you vote for it? Did you vote for the budget? If you
voted for the budget, you own this bill. Don't hide behind the skirts
of the Budget Committee. If you voted for the budget, you own it. You
bought it. So anyone who voted for the budget, this is what you got.
I share a little frustration on this, also, as you can probably tell.
But I think in this one case we desperately, drastically need to meet
the human needs of the people of our country. We are up against almost
an intransigent House and an administration I think, quite frankly,
that does not care. If they cared, they wouldn't be treating us like
this. To them, this is nothing. Community action agencies, LIHEAP? That
is just poor people. They don't count because they probably don't vote
anyway, and they certainly don't contribute any money, so therefore why
even pay attention to them.
I share the frustration of my friend from Rhode Island. Normally,
this would not be the way to do it, but as I said, this is an abnormal
situation in which we find ourselves. If we have to, as a one-shot
deal, push this into the emergency column so we can help kids with
disabilities, if we can help getting more health care up for rural
emergency medical services, if we can help with Head Start, if we can
help with community health centers--then, for one time, I think we
ought to do it. That is why I support the Specter motion to instruct
the conferees to put LIHEAP on an emergency basis for this one time
only.
With that, I yield the floor. I think I had 7 minutes, if I am not
mistaken?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed his time.
Mr. HARKIN. I yield the floor then.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. REED. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remains 5 minutes 42 seconds for the
Senator from Rhode Island. Who yields time? Time will be charged
proportionately against all Senators controlling time.
The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. I understand, under the unanimous consent agreement,
there are Senators who have been given time prior to the vote. I ask
those Senators to come over. Otherwise, under the rules of the Senate,
the time is running as we speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Parliamentary inquiry: Can the Chair state how much time is
remaining on all sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will attempt to determine that
number.
At the outset of the subtraction of the proportional time, the
Senator from Rhode Island controlled 5 minutes 42 seconds; the Senators
from Mississippi and Pennsylvania each controlled 5 minutes;
approximately 4 minutes have been consumed, of which 2 will be charged
against the Senator from Rhode Island and 1 each to the Senators from
Pennsylvania and Mississippi. And the clock continues to run.
The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 2
minutes prior to the completion of the time so I could respond to the
comments of the Senator from Pennsylvania and Senator Harkin. I think
it appropriate that I be able to respond to his comments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the appropriations bill on Labor, Health,
Human Services and Education, in my judgment, as I have said
repeatedly, is vastly underfunded. The Senate passed a bill within the
context of our allocation. Working with my colleague, Senator Harkin,
and our very energetic and devoted staff, we did the very best we could
with the limited funding. But there simply wasn't enough money to do
the job.
Health is our major capital asset. Without health, we can't function.
Education is our major capital asset for the future, to give
opportunity for labor and worker training.
We made the allocations as best we could, but the bill was
underfunded. I made an effort, joined by Senator Harkin and by the
subcommittee, to put LIHEAP in an emergency classification for $2.83
billion.
I said in the conference that it would enable us to improve the
bill--not where it ought to be but improve it substantially.
I conferred with Chairman Regula and considered the projects--or so-
called earmarks--which are $1 billion, where, as a matter of
longstanding tradition, the Members in both the House and Senate,
Democrats and Republicans, are enabled with an allocation to make
designations within their districts or States because we know more
about our States and our districts than, in many instances, do the
officials who run the bureaucracy of the U.S. Government.
I said if we could not get the $2.83 billion emergency declaration
for LIHEAP that it was going to be my position that we ought not to
include the earmarks for the projects. When we could not get that
emergency declaration, we struck the earmarked projects.
That was a very tough decision. We are paid to make tough decisions
around here. I can't think of one in the time I have been here more
disappointing to a lot of people in America who are relying on these
projects. Although, the $1 billion spread around the country, here and
there, is not unsubstantial--a lot of people were disappointed. Many
Members were disappointed that the traditional allocations were not
made.
It is my hope that we can put the $2.83 billion into LIHEAP. We are
facing a drastic situation with fuel costs, as we all know, and as
significantly occasioned by Hurricane Katrina, which is an emergency.
If there ever was a clear-cut emergency, it is what the consequences of
Hurricane Katrina are. The fuel costs are a direct result of that. This
is a classical, quintessential emergency.
I think we have the 51 votes to pass it here in the Senate. The
difficulty is going to be in getting our House colleagues to agree to
it.
But I hope we work our way out of this morass and impasse with
approval of this resolution and ultimate approval by both bodies.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I respect immensely the Senator from
Pennsylvania and the Senator from Iowa who tried to take a budget that
is inadequate and fulfill many programs. But
[[Page S13290]]
I strenuously object to the classification of LIHEAP in this way as an
emergency program.
There are two components of LIHEAP. This is a program that has been
appropriated for years and years and has built up a locked-in structure
in every State to go ahead and solicit applications and to process the
applications. They have to have some sense that this program is going
to be in place, not depending upon our Presidential emergency
declaration at some time in the year.
There is another component which is emergency. That is additional
funds. But we are creating bad policy and bad precedent.
There are a number of programs in this Labor-HHS bill that could also
been declared emergencies.
We have a children's vaccination program that provides vaccines. The
States have offices that have to deal with it. They have to predictably
know they are going to have these funds.
This is bad policy and bad precedent. It is being forced because the
budget is inaccurate. I think it is a desperate moment to do this. It
would send a terrible signal to people throughout this country and
State and local community agencies that are dedicated to this program
that they can no longer depend upon the formula for LIHEAP funds which
they have been now for almost 20 years.
I hope my colleagues will reject this proposal.
I yield the floor.
motion to instruct conferees
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
motion be set aside and that I may be permitted to file a motion at the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Mr. Durbin moves that the managers on the part of the
Senate at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the bill H.R. 3010 (making appropriations for the
Departments of Labor, Health, and Human Services, and
Education, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2006, and for other purposes) be instructed to
insist on retaining the Senate-passed provisions relating to
funding for the National Institutes of Health.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, what I am doing with this motion is making
a statement of policy that I think most American families would
support. It is this:
In this troubled time, when we are having difficulties with our
budget, the one area we absolutely must protect is medical research at
the National Institutes of Health.
Over the last 10 years or more, we have made a concerted effort in
America to invest more money in medical research, to ultimately double
the amount of money going into medical research. It is a heroic effort,
and it is the right thing to do under Presidents of both political
parties because we understand how vulnerable each and every one of us
and every member of our family could be with one diagnosis from a
doctor.
I salute the chairman of the committee, Senator Specter, and Ranking
Member Harkin of Iowa. I can't find any stronger advocates for medical
research than these two Senators.
The bill that we are considering that came to us from conference is a
bill which turns its back on all the progress we have made by putting
money into medical research. Unfortunately, this bill would result in
our funding the National Institutes of Health at a level inconsistent
with the pattern of growth that we have seen over the last several
years.
Let me be as specific as I can. I have heard from people across
Illinois about how important medical research is to them and their
families. My family knows that, and the families of everyone watching
know it, too.
Eight-year-old Claire Livingston, who is living with type II
diabetes, came by my office. More and more children are affected by
diabetes. Claire checks her blood glucose level several times a day and
adjusts her medication, her diet, her activity levels. She is bright
and happy. Her mother wakes her up in the middle of the night to make
sure she is going to be alive in the morning.
That is the reality. They only ask one thing of me. Please make sure
that we continue the research into diabetes at the National Institutes
of Health.
Autism: Are you aware of the fact that 1 out of every 165 children in
America now suffers from autism? I don't know why. We are not certain
why.
Do we want to stop asking the important questions? You know the
struggle these children go through and their families go through to
cope with their terrible disease. Why in the world would we step away
from medical research funding in this area?
The autism research NIH supports is looking at biological factors
that cause autism but also looking at interventions--what works and
what doesn't work. We owe it to the NIH to allow them to continue their
work. The list goes on and on.
Members of the Senate and the House are visited on a regular basis by
individuals and families who are suffering from diseases and maladies.
They ask us to do something, please--whether it is cancer or heart
research or diabetes or asthma. Please make sure the funding levels
continue.
NIH-supported research into muscular dystrophy is promising. Children
are living longer. We cannot back off. We cannot lose sight of the
enormous role that NIH research plays in the discovery of treatments
and cures for the life-threatening illnesses that afflict millions of
Americans each year--such as heart disease, cancer, and stroke.
NIH research grants have moved us to the forefront of the world's
scientific community. We take a backseat to no one when it comes to
medical research. If we pass budgets such as the ones sent to us by the
NIH, we will be weakening our commitment.
The bill the House rejected just yesterday includes only a $150
million increase in National Institutes of Health funding, the lowest
increase in 36 years. You say to yourself, well, $150 million more in
these times cannot hurt. Considering the rate of biomedical inflation,
what it costs to do research, this increase represents a cut in
funding. Assuming no change in committed resources, it means there will
be 505 fewer research projects next year at the National Institutes of
Health than there were this year.
Could one of those important projects, projects that have been
carefully evaluated, be that critical project for you, your family,
your children, or someone you love? If it is, is this not a false
economy, to cut this budget at this moment in our history? Can we
really afford to shortchange our Nation's premier research institution
when illnesses such as heart disease and stroke continue to be leading
causes of death? When so many people are afflicted with so many forms
of cancer? These diseases will cost our country $394 billion in medical
expenses and lost productivity in this your alone.
In simple dollar terms, the amount of money we are alleging we will
save by cutting medical research just means more people afflicted with
disease, more medical expenses for them and for our Nation.
Increased investment in NIH research can yield extraordinary
breakthroughs. We can maintain our leadership role in the world in
medical research. We can further the missions we have started at the
National Institutes of Health. We need to significantly increase
medical research funding, not back off. We need to support our Nation's
researchers. They need to know we stand behind them. These men and
women working in the laboratories, as I stand and speak in the Senate,
need to know this budget process is not going to move from left to
right and up and down. They need to know there is continuity and
commitment from our Government so they can dedicate their lives to this
important work.
I urge my colleagues to join me in charging the conferees to retain
the Senate language, which increases the budget of the National
Institutes of Health by $1 billion. A billion could not be better spent
in this economy. Any who have had the misfortune of learning of a
serious illness in the family say a little prayer to God, then try to
find the best doctor and hospital we can find. We walk into that
doctor's office, frightened with what we are about to hear, hoping that
doctor will say there is something we can do. If the doctor says they
are not quite there yet, this illness that we are concerned about is
one that they do not have a
[[Page S13291]]
grip on yet, we pray to God that someone somewhere in a laboratory
connected with medical research is trying to find that cure to save
that person we love so much.
Unlike most people who can just pray for that outcome, we can do
something about it in the Senate. We can say that a national priority
will be medical research come hell or high water. We can say that we
are not going to back out of a 36-year commitment to increase the
funding for the National Institutes of Health.
Some will argue there are higher priorities. There are some who
believe tax cuts for wealthy Americans are much more important than
dealing with medical research. Those ranks do not include this Senator.
I believe medical research should be the highest priority. It has no
partisan side to it. Republican and Democrats, people who do not vote,
we all get sick. We all pray there will be a commitment by this Senate
and by this Nation for premier medical research to find cures for those
illnesses.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. I yield back all remaining time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending motions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to requesting the yeas and
nays on two motions concurrently?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. Parliamentary inquiry: Do I have 5 minutes on the Durbin
motion?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time was just yielded back.
Mr. SPECTER. The time was yielded back?
Senator Durbin did not have the authority to yield back my time.
I understand he did not have that authority. I am obliged it was not
Senator Durbin. It was unnamed conspirators that I will deal with
later.
I support the amendment of the Senator from Illinois to reinstate the
Senate mark on the National Institutes of Health because the money is
needed. When you take in the inflation factor, NIH will be funded at a
lower rate this year than last year.
The Senate has taken the lead, initiated by Senator Harkin and myself
and our subcommittee, the full Committee of Appropriations, to more
than double NIH funding from $12 billion to $28 billion. The results
have been remarkable. We are on the vanguard of enormous advances on
some classifications of cancer, on the research on many maladies which
confront America.
It is something of sharper focus this year to me than in the past,
although I have steadfastly supported NIH during my entire tenure in
the Senate. This is a modest addition. I believe this Senate will
instruct the conferees, and we will have more than 50 votes. The
difficult part is getting it done in conjunction with the House. It is
a good amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it.
I yield the floor and yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion made
by the Senator from Pennsylvania.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the
Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr.
Inouye), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson), and the Senator from
Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Nebraska (Mr. Nelson) and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow)
would vote ``aye.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 66, nays 28, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 349 Leg.]
YEAS--66
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Clinton
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Grassley
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Martinez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thune
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NAYS--28
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Brownback
Bunning
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Graham
Gregg
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lincoln
Lott
McCain
McConnell
Pryor
Reed
Roberts
Sessions
Thomas
Vitter
NOT VOTING--6
Biden
Corzine
Ensign
Inouye
Nelson (NE)
Stabenow
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the motion was agreed to and to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
instruct offered by the Senator from Illinois.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the
Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr.
Inouye), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson), the Senator from
Michigan (Ms. Stabenow), are necessarily absent. I further announce
that, if present and voting, the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson) and
the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) would each vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 36, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 350 Leg.]
YEAS--58
Akaka
Alexander
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bingaman
Boxer
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Hutchison
Isakson
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Talent
Warner
Wyden
NAYS--36
Allard
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Coburn
Cochran
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Enzi
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Stevens
Sununu
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
NOT VOTING--6
Biden
Corzine
Ensign
Inouye
Nelson (NE)
Stabenow
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Chair appoints
Mr. Specter, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Craig, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr.
Stevens, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Shelby, Mr.
[[Page S13292]]
Domenici, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Reid, Mr. Kohl, Mrs. Murray, Ms.
Landrieu, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Byrd conferees on the part of the Senate.
The Senator from Idaho.
____________________