[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 160 (Wednesday, December 14, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13524-S13531]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              PATRIOT ACT

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, if other matters come up, I would be 
pleased to conclude my remarks and yield to others who may be speaking 
relative to the reconciliation matter. But I want to talk at this time 
about the PATRIOT Act, and I want to go straight to the heart of the 
complaint that we have had against it by first observing that most of 
the complaints that we have heard, from my perspective, are emotive. 
They are not specific. Generally, they boil down to say we can't allow 
our liberties to be eroded out of fear that the terrorists would win--
words to that effect. Certainly, that is true. There is no doubt about 
that.
  Some contend that we have rushed into the PATRIOT Act, that all facts 
were not considered, that the bill was moved rapidly, and they suggest 
that provisions dangerous to our liberties were placed in the PATRIOT 
Act as a result of the emotions that arose after 9/11. But that is not 
true. I was on the Judiciary Committee when all of this occurred. I 
remember the debate that occurred. This legislation was carefully 
drafted. The best minds in our country participated. The Judiciary 
chairman, Orrin Hatch, and his ranking member, Senator Patrick Leahy, 
deserve great credit for that. The U.S. Department of Justice was 
engaged, groups from the left and the right, civil liberties groups, 
the American Civil Liberties Union. All of those groups knew what was 
being considered. They had an opportunity to and did comment on the 
language.
  The Senate gave it careful attention, and the legislation moved. But 
it took some time for it to move. We spent a great deal of time 
considering the language. Anything that raised the slightest 
possibility of being abused, or even some theoretical fear that it 
could somehow be abused, was considered carefully. Every line was 
examined. Every word was examined. Words and lines and provisions were 
altered continually to address the concerns and fears some people had.
  Law enforcement procedures long used and long approved by the Supreme 
Court were attacked during this process as somehow violating the 
fundamental liberties of Americans.
  It was breathtaking to me as a prosecutor of over 15 years to hear 
some of the charges being raised against practices that amount to 
nothing more than standard police procedure which are done in every 
State and every county in America. It was attacked as something that 
was somehow going to destroy the liberties that this country takes so 
seriously.
  It is OK, I would say. That is good debate. It is a free country, and 
maybe it is good that our watchdogs are ever ready to point out any 
error. And perhaps some of the changes we made were better as a result 
of complaints that were raised. I don't dispute that. Some changes, 
however, I think were probably not good. But at any rate, great efforts 
were made to allay the fears and concerns and make sure this bill did 
not go too far.
  Yes, it is good to have watchdogs, but you don't want the watchdogs 
biting the house owner. I want to have a bill that protects the owner 
of the house.
  We discussed these issues and addressed them line by line. Senator 
Leahy, ranking member, civil libertarian for sure, made certain that 
the process was open. So did Senator Hatch. Even the most arcane fears 
were addressed. It was a good process.
  We left out things in this legislation that I would liked to have 
seen. But those things eroded some support, and people were concerned 
about it, and we left that out. But surely we have not forgotten that 
this debate just occurred 4 years ago. It was full and vigorous, and 
the legislation we passed was certainly not something that was rushed 
through without consideration.
  Most importantly, we took down the wall that prohibited our Central 
Intelligence Agency and Defense agencies to gather intelligence around 
the world that might be relevant to attacks on our homeland.
  This wall--this legal barrier--prevented them from sharing that 
information with the investigative forces in the United States, the 
FBI, and the local police, so that they could use it to protect the 
citizens of America. There was a wall created by the Church committee--
an overreaction, frankly, to the Watergate problems that arose during 
that period of time. And they created this wall. So the data and the 
information couldn't be shared with the FBI, and the FBI couldn't share 
information with them. This wall perhaps even prevented the FBI from 
finding more information that would validate information they already 
had, and therefore left us less able to defend America and to 
effectively utilize information about criminal elements that would be 
important to us. This was an unbelievable situation. But it was the law 
of the United States.
  Some people say surely the agents are not going to do that. Surely, 
if Defense agencies or the CIA found information that a terrorist 
organization may be threatening America, they would pass it to the FBI. 
No. They were

[[Page S13525]]

not. It was against the law that Congress passed. I think there were 
bits of evidence proved that indicated that had that wall not be there 
we might possibly have stopped 9/11. But it is easy to see after the 
fact that there are circumstances in which that wall would have allowed 
another 9/11 to happen when, and if it had not existed, we could have 
stopped it. There is no doubt about that. It is easy to see scenarios 
where that would happen.
  So that is one of the most important things that was part of this 
act. It was important.
  This bill is expiring. If we don't extend it now, that wall will go 
back up.
  I say to my colleagues, this legislation is critical to national 
security. It is extremely critical to our national security. We are 
thankful and most pleased that we have gone now 4 years since 9/11 
without another major attack on our homeland. It is something that I 
would not have thought possible. I can tell you that one reason it has 
not occurred and that we have not had another attack is our local law 
enforcement, our FBI, and our intelligence agencies which are working 
together effectively, and with a focus we have never had before on 
these kind of issues. It is remarkable what they are doing. They have 
given their heart and soul to it. Frankly, it amazes me to hear people 
on the floor of the Senate and outside of the Senate often suggesting 
that the FBI and our investigative agencies are threats to us. There is 
a paranoia that is not helpful.
  I was a Federal prosecutor. I worked with the FBI for many years. 
These individuals are patriots. They are working night and day to 
protect our country. We have created many hurdles for them that are 
difficult for them to overcome and which can actually impair their 
ability to identify and prosecute terrorist cells that may be operating 
in our country today. It is not a theoretical matter. This is a matter 
of tremendous importance. We need to focus on it.
  I will go straight to the areas raised as concerns and that have 
formed the basis of objections from many of our colleagues--some of our 
colleagues, not many--and from outside groups.
  I recall the Senate PATRIOT Act bill cleared the Senate Judiciary 
Committee 18 to 0. It passed the Senate unanimously by unanimous 
consent. The legislation then went to conference committee. Much 
discussion and debate went on with regard to the House version and the 
Senate version. Frankly, they were not that much apart. Compromises 
were reached. The Senate bill did rather well as these things go in 
terms of our side prevailing. We came out with a pretty good bill. I 
was excited about it.
  I am disappointed now we have Members of this Senate filibustering 
the PATRIOT Act, alleging that there is some sort of big change that 
has occurred that threatens the liberties of Americans and that we do 
not need to extend it. It is beyond my comprehension.
  Let's talk about some of the issues. I will do it the best I can, 
fairly and objectively. I will try to say what I think the provisions 
mean. I will try to give a historical context for these provisions and 
make some comments with regard to why they are important tools for our 
law enforcement.
  Our investigators are American heroes. They are working in every 
community. Before September 11, we had, I believe in Arizona, people 
learning to fly an airplane. They did not want to learn how to land it; 
they just wanted to learn how to fly it. In Wisconsin, Minnesota, we 
had other information that came up which was not properly assimilated 
and not properly evaluated. We had information from Florida that a 
number of terrorist groups had been stopped for speeding and other 
activities. The dots were not connected at that time. We know those 
stories. We were not as focused at that time as we are today post-
September 11. We are more focused today.
  Some of the problems we had at that time were a result of inadequate 
laws and procedures that made it even more difficult for investigators 
to investigate national security threats and terrorist threats, than it 
is to investigate dope dealers and tax evaders--unbelievable, but it is 
so.
  There has also been a lot of discussion about national security 
letters, what they are and how they operate. I would like to have seen 
terrorist investigators given administrative subpoena power. That is 
something other agencies have. The Drug Enforcement Administration can 
issue subpoenas for financial records, telephone toll records, motel 
records, and bank records. They just issue a subpoena, and they give 
them a record. The IRS can get records like that in the same way. The 
Customs Service and many other agencies have the ability to obtain 
records administratively.
  But people were concerned about this and said this would be abused. 
We worked and worked on it. This is what we came up with. It is a very 
modest proposal. It is a proposal and a legislative enactment which is 
fair, which is restrained, which is consistent with our history as a 
nation and consistent with approved criminal justice procedures by the 
Supreme Court of the United States.
  For example, the national security letter is a procedure by which the 
Federal investigative agent can request information from a third party 
to obtain financial records, telephone toll records, credit reporting 
records, and a limited number of records like that. You cannot get 
medical records. You cannot get library records with a national 
security letter. But these are the routine things often critical to 
investigating a terrorist organization. It is extremely important. 
These cases can move very fast. If you have to have a court order to 
get it and you need the information on Friday night but cannot get a 
judge somewhere, death can result. It can be a matter of life and 
death. It can be a matter of whether an investigation breaks your way 
and you get the key information necessary to penetrate a terrorist cell 
or not. This is absolutely consistent with what other agencies have as 
a matter of their legitimate power. We ought to be able to do that in 
terrorist investigations, for heavens' sake. There is no doubt about 
that. This is extremely important.
  Looking at the perspective, it is very important--and I know the 
Presiding Officer is a lawyer--to understand the principles of privacy 
and search and seizures that are at stake. These subpoenas are not 
subpoenas to an individual's personal, private records; these are 
subpoenas issued to third parties. A defendant does not own the 
telephone toll records. If he does not want the telephone company to 
know whom he has called, he should not use the phone company. Everyone 
in the phone company can access the phone numbers he calls--not the 
contents of the conversation--and can find out whom that person has 
called. When you go to the bank and use it, the bank maintains records 
on your account. Those are not your records; they are the bank's 
records. If you have a credit reporting agency that has collected 
public data on your payments, they can examine it; why can't an 
investigator investigating a terrorist have access to that, pray tell? 
In these areas, there is not the same expectation of privacy.
  The U.S. Supreme Court has said repeatedly for the last 100 years or 
more that you do not have the same expectation of privacy you have in 
those records because they are not yours. They are somebody else's 
records. You have an expectation of privacy and the search and seizure 
laws and search warrants apply to matters in your house, matters in 
your car, matters at your office desk, any location in which you have 
exclusive control and dominion. If it is yours, you have a right to it, 
and the Government cannot come into your house, cannot come into your 
business and take those kinds of records without a search warrant 
approved by a Federal judge based on probable cause. They have to file 
affidavits under oath stating what facts are there to justify the entry 
into an individual's home or business to obtain those personal records.
  This national security letter has nothing to do with the records 
people own. It in no way changes that historic right that your private 
property cannot be taken or searched without a warrant approved by a 
Federal judge in a Federal case. These are records belonging to third 
parties, and they are subpoenaed every day. Every district attorney in 
America can subpoena your telephone toll records if he believes they 
are relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation. That is the 
standard. That is the standard for Federal prosecutors. The U.S. 
attorney--which I

[[Page S13526]]

was for 12 years--issued tens of thousands of subpoenas for those kinds 
of records routinely on the simple test of whether it is relevant to an 
ongoing criminal investigation. If you are investigating a drug dealer, 
a drug deal goes down, and the dealer says, I don't know John Jones, 
and you subpoena his telephone toll records and see that he made 8 
phone calls or 25 phone calls to John Jones in the hours leading up to 
the dope deal, you have pretty good proof to use at trial. That is the 
way you make cases. That is the way investigations are done. If they 
say, I didn't make any money off that, you check his bank record, and 
see that he deposited $10,000 in cash. That is proof that goes toward 
whether this person was engaged in selling dope for cash. That is the 
way you prove cases every day. This is the way you have to prove cases 
against terrorists. I make that big point.
  I have heard people on national television say they can go into your 
house and search your house without a warrant. Absolutely not true. The 
great protections to your home and property were changed not one whit 
by the PATRIOT Act.
  It simply allowed the Federal investigators in terrorist 
investigations to have a much improved ability to timely obtain 
records. I am telling you, when you are investigating one of these 
groups and you get a call, a tip, from someone who says, there is a 
group over here that is pretty dangerous, and we just heard one of the 
terrorists is coming in from out of the country to meet with them, and 
you need to check their telephone toll records or check the motel to 
see if they have been at this motel, to verify whether this occurred, 
subpoenas can be issued like that. But you do not need to have to go to 
the FISA court, a Federal court, to get approval any more than a local 
district attorney would have to do that. As I have indicated, other 
agencies have these requirements, have these abilities today. It is no 
big deal, in my view.
  Now, what else did we require here? We required that the individual 
issuing this national security letter, the Federal agency that approves 
it, certify that it is a national security matter. That is an important 
certification. They have to do that under oath. Some people may think: 
Well, they may not comply with that. They could go and break in your 
house without any warrant. But that is not the way Federal agencies 
operate. I have worked with them for the biggest part of my career. 
They do not violate the law. They do not violate this wall between the 
CIA and the FBI. We have seen that to be true. They do what they are 
told according to the law. Congress makes these laws, and we need to 
make sure that laws make sense and do not undermine the ability of 
those out there working every day to be successful in their work. So it 
has to be certified, and if an agent lies about that, he or she can 
lose his or her job, trust me.
  They also have to certify that it is a matter that endangers the 
national security. I think that is too high a burden, frankly. Maybe 
you do not have that much proof right now that it actually endangers 
national security, but it is a terrorist organization that you need to 
dig into and watch more closely. But we have to certify to that. That 
was part of what it took to get the bill passed, and we just have to 
live with that. It is something I am not happy with.
  Remember, the recipients of these national security letters are third 
parties who have records--the phone company, the bank, and those kinds 
of agencies. They can object. They said: Well, they can't object. Yes, 
they can object. They can file a motion to quash under this bill if 
there is any abusiveness there, and they can object to the secrecy 
requirement, and it then requires, if they object, the Attorney General 
of the United States or one designee of his--the Deputy Attorney 
General probably--to personally certify that this is a need in which 
the national security is implicated. That is what you can do.
  Let me just pause for a second. Nothing is more important in this act 
than the fact that we have a system by which our investigators, in 
terrorist cases, can obtain information from entities that have records 
relating to these terrorist organizations without those entities 
telling the terrorists we are investigating them. The last thing you 
want them to know is that you are onto them. That is so basic in law 
enforcement. I have been there. I have seen the investigations of drug 
organizations and things of that kind. You do not want them to know you 
are onto them. Once they know that, they will scatter like a covey of 
quail and not be around. They will regroup somewhere else to carry on 
their evil deeds. Now, you can do that today, but let me tell you the 
history of it.
  When I became an assistant U.S. attorney in the 1970s, if you 
subpoenaed bank records, you would ask the bank or their agents not to 
report it to the customer, and they would not do it. But in the years 
that have gone by, the banks have been sued, so they have gotten 
lawyers and feel they have an obligation to their customers. Almost all 
of them have a policy that if a customer's records are subpoenaed, they 
notify the customer. So that has been a change in policy, and it can be 
devastating. Sometimes, you desperately need some of those records, but 
you do not need to tip off the organization you are investigating them. 
Most of the time, these companies have no real objection, because this 
eliminates their legal responsibility that lawyers say they may have, 
and this allows them to reveal it. They are satisfied. You get the 
records, and they do not tell the terrorist that you are getting them. 
That is one of the most important things in this whole legislation.
  So, as I said, they can object. They can object to the fundamentals 
through a motion to quash a national security letter, and they can 
object to the secrecy requirement and require the Attorney General of 
the United States to certify that it is appropriate to be maintained 
secret.
  Further, the bill says the Department must issue an annual public 
report to the Nation on how many of these have been issued and under 
what category.
  Also, as part of the conference, we dropped legislation that made it 
a misdemeanor, with up to 1 year in jail, for a business to violate the 
court order and reveal the subpoena to the terrorist. I am amazed we 
did that. But people objected, and to make people happy, we removed the 
criminal misdemeanor penalty for somebody who tips off the terrorist 
that the Government has obtained information on them. I think that is 
terrible, but it is part of it, so it is one of the things I have to 
accept. If some of my colleagues have concern on the other side, they 
have to realize no bill is perfect, and we take what we can get.
  I see our Budget Committee chairman, Senator Gregg. I was prepared to 
talk about some of the issues relating to section 215. We can do that 
later at another time, and I would be pleased to yield to Chairman 
Gregg if he has some matters he wishes to discuss at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator from New 
Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I would actually like to get a 
clarification from the Senator from Alabama because I know he is an 
expert on this issue, having been a U.S. attorney and having been one 
of the leading authorities on legal activity here in our country. 
Because earlier in the day the assistant leader from the Democratic 
side of the aisle came to the Senate floor and made an extensive 
statement about how abusive the present bill, which is being moved 
forward, is, and specifically toward libraries, and how, as he 
represented it, somebody's records could be subpoenaed from a library, 
basically carte blanche, and then the library would be gagged from 
disclosing that information.
  As I understood it, the bill, as it has worked its way through 
conference, has actually put in place stronger protections for 
libraries, and actually a terrorist gets more protection than, say, 
somebody who is in the Mafia; is that correct?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I think the Senator is fundamentally 
correct. Sometimes investigators need to know which books have you 
checked out. I prosecuted an individual one time who was a doctor. They 
made a TV movie out of it. He had a book, a death dealer's manual in 
his possession and another one on deadly poisons. But when you are 
trying to prosecute a case, the fact is that this covers even book 
sales, for example.
  Any district attorney in America today can subpoena the book store 
and

[[Page S13527]]

find out what you or I bought, if it is relevant to a criminal 
investigation. In this case, not only must it be relevant to any 
investigation, it must be relevant to a national security investigation 
in which the issuer of the subpoena must certify that it endangers the 
United States. It is a very rare occurrence. The only difference is 
that there is an automatic ability for the Government to request that 
it not be revealed to the person investigated on an immediate basis.
  These records are available today. The library association, in my 
view, has misunderstood the principle of law enforcement. Yes, you do 
not want people willy-nilly probing library records to see what people 
are reading. Of course, that is not legitimate. But when you certify it 
is a national security investigation, important to the safety of the 
United States, when you issue one of these subpoenas, I can't imagine 
anybody would object to that. It is certainly consistent with the 
generalized principle of subpoenaing records. I thank the Senator for 
raising that. I do believe this is out of sync with reality and the 
complaints are not justified.
  If we were to find out that people, agents were probing, going around 
the country willy-nilly inspecting people's reading habits, this 
Congress would react just like that, and we would pass laws to stop it. 
We would get people fired if they were doing those kinds of things. 
That is in violation of Department of Justice procedures and policies. 
Anybody caught doing that would be fired on the spot. That is 
absolutely improper. But when you are investigating a terrorist 
organization, this is a modest proposal that requires the Government to 
have a high standard of proof, to support how they have done it, and is 
otherwise constrained in a way that the Senate Judiciary Committee 
agreed to by unanimous vote of 18 to nothing.
  I would like a little later to talk about section 215 which requires 
a higher standard, and library records are part of that. With regard to 
library records in particular, along with medical records, you must 
present that to a Federal court, a FISA court, and get an approval in 
advance before you can get library records. It requires advance 
approval.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding the previous order, the first vote be on the Carper 
motion to instruct, followed by the Baucus motion, and then the Harkin 
motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Iowa.


                      Motion to Instruct Conferees

  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, on behalf of myself and Senator Smith of 
Oregon, I call up the motion at the desk to instruct conferees 
regarding cuts to Federal food assistance programs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] (for himself and Mr. 
     Smith) moves that the managers on the part of the Senate at 
     the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on 
     the House amendment to the bill S. 1932 be instructed to 
     insist that any reconciliation conference report agreed to 
     jointly by the House and the Senate does not contain any cuts 
     to Federal food assistance programs, including the food stamp 
     program established under the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 
     U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), for the following reasons:
       (1) The Federal food stamp program is the first-line of 
     defense in the United States against hunger and food 
     insecurity, providing nutrition assistance for over 
     25,000,000 people in the United States.
       (2) 80 percent of benefits under the food stamp program, 
     over $23,000,000,000 in 2005, are provided to families with 
     children, making the program the most important form of 
     nutrition assistance for children in the United States.
       (3) Hunger and food insecurity in the United States are 
     rising, with a recent study by the Department of Agriculture 
     finding that--
       (A) 38,200,000 people in the United States live in 
     households that were food insecure in 2004;
       (B) the number of food insecure individuals increased by 
     nearly 2,000,000 between 2003 and 2004; and
       (C) since 2000, the number of individuals classified by 
     Department of Agriculture as food insecure rose by 7,000,000.
       (4) The food stamp program plays an important role during 
     natural disasters and has provided emergency food assistance 
     to approximately 2,200,000 individuals affected by Hurricanes 
     Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, allowing disaster victims to obtain 
     critical food within days.
       (5) The food stamp program operates efficiently and 
     effectively, with its error rate at an all-time low.
       (6) Reductions in funding for the food stamp program would 
     constitute cuts in or loss of benefits to currently eligible 
     individuals and families and would not come out of fraud, 
     waste, or abuse.

  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I understand that under the order, I 
have a couple minutes to speak about this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute.
  Mr. HARKIN. I was told I had 2 minutes and then 1 minute before the 
vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The order was 2 minutes evenly divided 
preceding the vote.
  Mr. HARKIN. I apologize. Then is there another minute before the 
vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, there is not.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, the Senate has considered cuts to food 
assistance programs this year on a bipartisan basis. It rejected such 
cuts. I commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, especially 
Chairman Chambliss for his leadership. This motion is simple. It 
instructs the Senate conferees to insist upon the underlying Senate 
position of no cuts to Federal food assistance.
  First, we are at a time when hunger and food insecurity in the United 
States is increasing rapidly. The number of Americans experiencing food 
insecurity has increased by approximately 7 million people. This is no 
time to cut the food stamp program.
  Secondly, with all of the emergencies this year with the hurricanes, 
we have been reminded again of how the food stamp program works in 
emergencies. There were 2.2 million individuals affected by these 
hurricanes who got critical food assistance within days.
  Finally, again, this has nothing to do with waste, fraud, and abuse. 
The error rate is at an all-time low in the food stamp program. We have 
worked on this for over 20 some years to bring it that low. It is 
working very effectively. The fact is, the House reconciliation bill 
does not go after fraud, waste, and abuse, but they cut 250,000 people 
off the food stamp program. That is the wrong way to go.
  I thank my colleagues for standing up for hungry families earlier 
this year. Especially at this Christmas season, let's stand up for them 
once again and say we are not going to take the food out of the 
children's mouths.
  I urge my colleagues to agree to the motion, and I ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.


                      Motion to Instruct Conferees

  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I call up a motion to instruct which is 
at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus] moves that the 
     managers on the part of the Senate at the conference on the 
     disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the House amendment to 
     the bill S. 1932 be instructed to not report a conference 
     report that would impair access to, undermine eligibility 
     for, make unaffordable by increasing beneficiary cost-
     sharing, adversely affect Medicaid services, or in any way 
     undermine Medicaid's Federal guarantee of health insurance 
     coverage with respect to low-income children, pregnant women, 
     disabled individuals, elderly individuals, individuals with 
     chronic illnesses like HIV/AIDS, cancer, and diabetes, 
     individuals with mental illnesses, and other Medicaid 
     beneficiaries.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, this motion instructs the Senate 
conferees on the spending reconciliation bill not to bring back a 
conference report that hurts Medicaid beneficiaries.
  Last month, the House passed a spending reconciliation bill that 
would increase health costs and cut benefits for millions of seniors 
and lower-income Americans who depend on Medicaid.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, three-quarters of the 
Medicaid savings in the House bill came

[[Page S13528]]

from the these cuts. The bill would increase costs for 17 million 
people, cut benefits for 5 million people, and force tens of thousands 
off of Medicaid.
  We know the damage that increasing health costs can cause. We have 
seen it happen. Oregon imposed just a nominal premium for some on 
Medicaid--from $6 to $20 a month. Within 10 months, nearly half of the 
people forced to pay had been dropped from coverage. Three-quarters of 
those who were dropped became uninsured.
  These changes impose a tax on our poorest citizens.
  And these changes also burden doctors, hospitals, and clinics that 
treat Medicaid patients. States will deduct the fees regardless of 
whether providers ever get paid. Healthcare providers will pass these 
uncompensated costs along through higher rates for all patients in the 
private market.
  Many poor people will pay more, but get less. The House bill allows 
States to cut Medicaid benefits. Although the bill would protect the 
poorest children, millions of children would no longer get the medical 
care that they need. People with disabilities and chronic conditions 
would also be at risk.
  Some say we need to look at Medicaid's rising costs, and I agree. We 
need to get a handle on spending and make this program sustainable. But 
shifting costs and cutting benefits for our poorest and least able to 
pay is not the smart way to do it.
  This motion instructs Senate conferees on the reconciliation bill to 
reject the House changes to Medicaid that would hurt Medicaid 
beneficiaries or undermine Medicaid's guarantee. The Senate must take a 
stand in support of the neediest among us.
  Let us ensure that we do no harm to the vulnerable people whom 
Medicaid serves.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 
minutes on the Baucus motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, there is general feeling that the Baucus 
proposal is--I don't use this in a pejorative sense--benign enough so 
that everybody can agree to it.
  But I do think it is important to understand, relative to the 
Medicaid issue, that Governors, in a bipartisan way, have come forward 
and put down some proposals that are really creative, where they feel 
they can dramatically expand coverage and significantly save money. 
Some of those do involve using copays of some sort relative to higher 
income individuals. Having been a Governor--and I know there are other 
former Governors in this Chamber--I think the flexibility the Governors 
want is reasonable.
  I hope we will come back from conference with language that will give 
Governors the flexibility necessary to allow them to do creative things 
in the Medicaid accounts which will save us money, save the States 
money, and end up with more coverage. That should be our game plan--
more people being covered. I think it is doable because a creative 
Governor who has energy and guts and staff people who are effective--
and most Governors do--can do a lot if they are given flexibility and 
the ability to move forward without being straitjacketed by Federal 
regulations. So that will be our goal in conference. I don't think it 
is inconsistent with what the Senator from Montana has proposed.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, what is the regular order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is to be recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.


                      Motion to Instruct Conferees

  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Senate for 2 minutes on a motion I have at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Carper] moves that the 
     managers on the part of the Senate at the conference on the 
     disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the House amendment to 
     the bill S. 1932 be instructed to insist that any conference 
     report shall not include the provisions in the House 
     amendment relating to the reauthorization of the Temporary 
     Assistance for Needy Families Program, including those which 
     would increase work hours for single mothers with young 
     children, impose new cuts on already inadequate child care 
     funding and other proven work supports such as child support, 
     restrict education and training, and reduce State 
     flexibility, and insist that Congress enact free standing 
     legislation that builds on the bipartisan Senate Committee on 
     Finance's reported version of the Personal Responsibility and 
     Individual Development for Everyone Act (the PRIDE Act, S. 
     667) to reauthorize the Nation's welfare-to-work laws.

  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, for the last 3 years that we have been 
in the Senate, I have been pushing my colleagues, Democrats and 
Republicans, and pushing the administration and my colleagues in the 
House of Representatives to reauthorize Temporary Assistance for Needy 
Families. We first authorized it in 1996. There was a 5- or 6-year 
authorization that had lapsed, and we need to renew it and establish a 
path forward for welfare programs in my State, your State, and all 
other States across this country.
  The Senate Finance Committee has approved unanimously, without 
dissent, legislation to reauthorize it for another 5 years. It is out 
of committee and ready to come to the floor. We should take it up, 
debate it, amend it, if we see fit, pass it, and go to conference with 
the House.
  The House passed their own reauthorization measure, which is 
imperfect in my view. I will mention a couple of problems I have with 
it. As the Governor of Delaware and lead Governor of the National 
Governors Association on welfare reform, it occurred to me that if you 
want people to get off welfare and go to work, they need help with 
taking care of their kids, and we needed to make sure they had decent 
health care for the children. If they don't have that, they are not 
going to be successful in going to work. The measure reported out of 
the Committee provided extra money for childcare support. It is needed.
  There is another problem. Under current law, if you are on welfare, 
you have to work 30 hours a week. However, if you have young kids under 
the age of 6, you can work as little as 20 hours a week, not 30 or 40 
hours. The House measure says everybody has to work 40 hours a week if 
you are on welfare. That may sound good at the outset, but if you don't 
have money for childcare to help with the extra time people are going 
to be working, it is not going to work. Say somebody has a week-old or 
month-old or year-old child. They are going to have to work 40 hours a 
week.
  I ask for support on the motion. Let the committee bring the bill 
forward and debate it and vote and go to conference.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. OBAMA. Madam President, I support Senator Carper's motion to 
instruct reconciliation conferees to reject the House TANF provisions. 
Assisting needy families is too important an issue for this Chamber to 
cede its legislative authority to the House of Representatives. The 
TANF Program affects millions of American children and families. It 
deserves a full and fair debate.
  The reconciliation process does not permit that debate. 
Reconciliation is not the place for policy changes.
  The right starting point for Senate debate is the PRIDE bill. PRIDE 
is not a perfect bill. But it is a reasonable bipartisan effort that 
addresses childcare, transitional medical assistance, and certain 
educational opportunities.
  Mr. President, we should have a full debate on the PRIDE bill. We 
should consider what the evidence actually says about moving people 
from welfare to work, from dependence to independence, from poverty to 
prosperity. We should have a full debate about what is really required 
to provide all Americans with equal opportunity.
  Unfortunately, reconciliation does not permit that debate. Worse yet, 
the House provisions are based not on evidence and experience but on 
ideology.
  The cynical increase in the work hour requirement, for example, is a 
Federal mandate with no basis in the

[[Page S13529]]

reality of what works to promote work and reduce poverty. The data 
shows that people meeting the current 30-hour requirement work about 35 
hours now. That is a bit more than the national average for ``full 
time'' work for all employees, whether they receive TANF or not. 
Indeed, among all mothers with children under the age of 6, only 43 
percent work as much as 35 hours.
  People who don't meet the 30-hour TANF requirement now--for whatever 
reason--are not going to work more just because the requirement has 
been increased. What will happen is that Congress will punish the 
States and reduce State flexibility to do what works.
  In my own State of Illinois, we are committed to moving people off 
welfare and into work. And Illinois is not cynical about it. This isn't 
about pinching pennies but about providing opportunity.
  Illinois is serious about the need for work. Tens of thousands of 
families have worked their way off assistance. But we understand why 
people find themselves in need of assistance. We have adopted flexible 
rules to accommodate families where the wage earner was medically 
unable to work, where a spouse or child was disabled, where the worker 
was finishing up a training program.
  Illinois requires work but allows people to work part time while they 
take care of their obligations. And to get mothers out of their homes 
and into the workforce in a productive way, we have improved the child 
care subsidy system. We have invested in it.
  And you know what? People in Illinois have not lingered on TANF. If 
they could work their way off the program, they have done so.
  Unfortunately, the House TANF provisions which raise participation 
rates to 75 percent will make it harder for States to deal with family 
sickness, the realities of raising children, and natural disasters. To 
avoid penalties, States will have to find make-work activities even for 
TANF recipients who are working full time.
  Another problem is that raising work hours and participation rates 
will increase the need for childcare well beyond the funding provided 
in the House bill. Childcare funding makes work possible for many 
women. If we want people to work and be responsible parents, we have to 
worry about who will care for their kids. Under the House proposal, 
States will be forced to fund other activities that will leave them 
with less money for childcare. That makes no sense.
  The House TANF provisions make it harder for States to support 
working families. I urge my colleagues to reject those provisions in 
reconciliation, and I look forward to an honest debate about TANF and 
the PRIDE bill here on the Senate floor.
  I also rise today to speak in favor of the motion to instruct offered 
by Senator Kohl. This motion expresses the Senate's view that the 
Senate conferees should not accept the cuts to the child support 
program that have been proposed by the Committee on Ways and Means in 
the House of Representatives.
  The child support program is an effective and efficient way to 
enforce the responsibility of noncustodial parents to support their 
children. For every public dollar that is spent on collection, more 
than four dollars are collected to support children. That is a good 
return on our investment in families. Moreover, these families are then 
less likely to require public assistance and more likely to avoid or 
escape poverty. This is a program that works.
  The evidence is compelling. For example, in 2004, enforcement efforts 
helped collect almost $22 billion in child support. Our aggressive 
State and Federal efforts have translated into $1 billion in collected 
child support payments in Illinois alone this year. That means 386,000 
Illinois families will be better equipped to provide for their 
children.
  Preliminary budget estimates suggest the cuts proposed by the Ways 
and Means Committee will translate into $7.9 billion in lost 
collections within 5 years, increasing to a loss of over $24 billion 
within 10 years. This proposal is not even penny-wise, and it is 
certainly pound-foolish.
  Today, the State of Illinois reports a 32 percent child support 
collection rate. Let's not take a step backward in the progress that 
has been made by stripping the States of necessary Federal support. The 
welfare of too many is at stake.
  Child support is the second largest income source for qualifying low-
income families. We should not balance our budget on the backs of 
families that rely on child support to remain out of poverty.
  I urge my colleagues to support this motion as well. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, we yield back the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having been yielded back, the 
question is on agreeing to the motion to instruct conferees offered by 
the Senator from Delaware.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. 
Domenici), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), and the 
Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Washington 
(Ms. Cantwell), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), and the 
Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  If present and voting, the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) would 
vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 64, nays 27, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 351 Leg.]

                                YEAS--64

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Burns
     Byrd
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thune
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--27

     Allard
     Allen
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Lott
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Biden
     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Chambliss
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Graham
     Lieberman
     McCain
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that on the next 
two votes they be 10-minute votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, what is the regular order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes evenly divided prior to 
the vote on the Baucus motion.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, the Senate is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. The Senator from 
Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, this motion instructs the Senate 
conferees on the pending reconciliation bill not to bring back a 
conference report that hurts Medicaid beneficiaries. In fact, these 
changes amount to a tax on our poorest citizens. They also burden 
doctors, hospitals, other providers who will pass on the costs to them. 
More poor people will pay more, but they will get less. It does not 
make sense. We are cutting Medicaid to take it out of the hide of the 
poorest people of our country, and that is Medicaid recipients.

[[Page S13530]]

  May I also say I am supported by a strong letter from a number of 
Senators on the other side of the aisle. This letter asks the same; 
that we do not adopt these harsh House Medicaid cuts. I ask unanimous 
consent it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                Washington, DC, December 13, 2005.
     Hon. William H. Frist,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader Frist: Throughout the budget process 
     we have been concerned about the impact to America's lowest 
     income and most vulnerable from policies implemented to 
     secure budget savings. We were heartened by the Senate's 
     effort to protect these Americans by utilizing system 
     efficiencies and eliminating waste and abuse from the 
     Medicaid program. Unfortunately, the House of Representatives 
     did not take a similar path. Therefore, as the Senate begins 
     its work to reconcile the two budget reconciliation bills, we 
     urge you to hold firm in defending the Senate's policies 
     regarding Medicaid.
       Medicaid is a vitally important program that serves almost 
     54 million poor, disabled, chronically ill and elderly 
     Americans. It provides a range of benefits from screenings 
     and vaccinations for the young, to home health and long term 
     care for the elderly. Given the breadth and diversity of the 
     people it helps, Congress must remain committed to the 
     strength and viability of Medicaid.
       As indicated by the strong support from beneficiary groups, 
     advocates and providers, the Senate bill ensures that the 
     most vulnerable among us are not called upon to carry the 
     burden of balancing the budget. This was accomplished by 
     adhering to a few key principles. First, the Senate bill 
     limits the cuts to a total of $10 billion, the savings level 
     which the Finance Committee was instructed to achieve. The 
     bill utilizes both Medicare and Medicaid to reach the 
     required $10 billion in budget savings, and holds the net 
     level of Medicaid cuts to under $5 billion. Most importantly, 
     the Senate bill does not achieve any savings through policies 
     that would negatively impact beneficiaries. We strongly urge 
     you to continue to defend these principles and preserve the 
     Senate's policies on Medicaid in the final budget 
     reconciliation agreement.
       In particular, we are concerned with policies included in 
     the House bill that would impose new cost-sharing 
     requirements on beneficiaries, alter eligibility policies for 
     long term care that impact the middle-c1ass, and provide 
     unlimited flexibility to states to change benefits. These 
     proposals were debated within the Senate and soundly 
     rejected.
       We look forward to working with you on developing a 
     conference report that can garner wide support among Senators 
     and supporters of the Medicaid program.
           Sincerely,
     Gordon Smith.
     Norm Coleman.
     Arlen Specter.
     Lincoln Chafee.
     Susan Collins.
     Olympia Snowe.
     Mike DeWine.

  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, this will be a 10-minute vote, as well as 
the following vote, so I hope Senators will stay around to accomplish 
those votes promptly.
  Second, we intend in conference, should we be successful in going to 
conference under the leadership of Senator Grassley, to bring back a 
bill which will effectively address the issues of Medicaid, and we see 
the opportunity here to follow very closely, hopefully, the proposals 
of the Governors, which are bipartisan in nature.
  Mr. BAUCUS. The Senate is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. GREGG. I believe we hope to follow closely the proposals of the 
Governors, which are bipartisan in nature, and give the Governors the 
flexibility they need in order to accomplish significant Medicaid 
reform, which will mean extending Medicaid to more people but doing it 
in a more efficient way, which will save us more money. We actually 
don't see that this language impairs that effort, and we think we can 
report a very effective bill with or without this language.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The 
yeas and nays have been previously ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. 
Domenici), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), and the 
Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Washington 
(Ms. Cantwell), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), and the 
Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  If present and voting, the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) would 
vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 75, nays 16, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 352 Leg.]

                                YEAS--75

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Byrd
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--16

     Allard
     Allen
     Bunning
     Burr
     Coburn
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Hagel
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Lott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sununu
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Biden
     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Chambliss
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Graham
     Lieberman
     McCain
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. 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. There are 2 minutes equally divided in 
relation to the motion by Senator Harkin to instruct conferees.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we are now going to vote on a motion to 
instruct conferees. Stick with the Senate's position dealing with cuts 
in the Food Stamp Program. I know arguments have been made about waste, 
fraud, and abuse. What the House does does not cut waste, fraud, and 
abuse but cuts 200,000 people off the food stamp rolls. They are 
working poor. They work every day. They have children. This sends them 
back on welfare rolls.
  I point out there was a letter sent to Senator Chambliss on December 
8 from 15 Republican Senators saying, please stick with the Senate 
position. I compliment those Senators. I publicly thank Senator 
Chambliss for his great leadership both on the Agriculture Committee 
and in the full Senate on this issue.
  This is not the time to cut food stamps from people who are working 
and struggling with their children.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, first, I also wish to compliment the 
Senator from Georgia, Mr. Chambliss, who brought to us reconciliation 
instructions out of his committee which did not cut food stamps. But I 
do think it would be a mistake for us to tie Senator Chambliss's or 
anybody's hands as they move forward in conference.
  The language which I have concern about in this proposal is the last 
paragraph. Everything up to the last paragraph is OK, but that last 
paragraph catches you because he says:

       Reductions in funding for the food stamp program would 
     constitute cuts in or loss of benefits to currently eligible 
     individuals and families and would not come out of fraud, 
     waste, or abuse.

  Well, it represents the fact that we cannot save any money from food 
stamps out of fraud, waste, and abuse. That is just wrong. There are 
ways to save money in food stamps by addressing fraud, waste, and 
abuse. There are a lot of ways. Anybody who has been exposed to the 
program knows that.

[[Page S13531]]

  I believe this instruction would be counterproductive to the 
flexibility that Senator Chambliss and others would like as they move 
forward in this conference, and I intend to vote no on it.
  Mr. President, I believe the yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent. The 
Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from South Carolina 
(Mr. Graham), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Washington 
(Ms. Cantwell), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) and the Senator 
from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  If present and voting, the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) would 
vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 66, nays 26, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 353 Leg.]

                                YEAS--66

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Brownback
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thune
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--26

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bond
     Bunning
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Gregg
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     McConnell
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Biden
     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Chambliss
     Dodd
     Graham
     Lieberman
     McCain
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay 
that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________