[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 94 (Tuesday, June 28, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4144-S4148]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTMENT EFFICIENCY AND STREAMLINING ACT OF 2011

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 679, which the clerk will report by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 679) to reduce the number of executive positions 
     subject to Senate confirmation.

  Pending:

       DeMint amendment No. 501, to repeal the authority to 
     provide certain loans to the International Monetary Fund, the 
     increase in the United States quota to the Fund, and certain 
     other related authorities, and rescind related appropriated 
     amounts.
       DeMint amendment No. 511, to enhance accountability and 
     transparency among various Executive agencies.
       Portman amendment No. 509, to provide that the provisions 
     relating to the Assistant Secretary (Comptroller) of the 
     Navy, the Assistant Secretary (Comptroller) of the Army, and 
     the Assistant Secretary (Comptroller) of the Air Force, the 
     chief financial officer positions, and the Controller of the 
     Office of Management and Budget shall not take effect.

[[Page S4145]]

       Cornyn amendment No. 504, to strike the provisions relating 
     to the Comptroller of the Army, the Comptroller of the Navy, 
     and the Comptroller of the Air Force.
       Toomey/Vitter amendment No. 514, to strike the provision 
     relating to the Governors and alternate governors of the 
     International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for 
     Reconstruction and Development.
       Carper amendment No. 517, to provide that the Government 
     Accountability Office shall conduct a study and submit a 
     report on presidentially appointed positions to Congress and 
     the President.
       Kirk (for McCain) amendment No. 493, to preserve 
     congressional oversight into the budget overruns of the 
     Office of Navajo and Hopi Relocation.
       Sanders (for Akaka) amendment No. 512, to preserve Senate 
     confirmation of the Commissioner of the Administration for 
     Native Americans.
       Sessions (for Paul) amendment No. 502, to strike the 
     provision relating to the Treasurer of the United States.
       Sessions (for Paul) amendment No. 503, to strike the 
     provision relating to the Director of the Mint.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I will be happy to be interrupted by the 
managers of the bill if they decide to come.


                              imf bailout

  Madam President, there have been several recent warnings of large and 
growing risks in global markets from the European debt crisis.
  If Greece defaults, which investors see as likely, and European 
officials are unable to agree on how to restructure Greece's debt, lack 
of confidence in sovereign debt could spread.
  Investors could run away from liabilities issued by other highly 
indebted Eurozone countries or even the debt of the United States.
  Unfortunately, the President continues his disengagement in our debt 
problems.
  The administration continues to advocate more runaway deficit 
spending, continuing down the path toward European-style big 
government.
  Our debt-financed unsustainable debt is pushing us toward our own 
fiscal crisis. Yet the President has failed to lead us to a sound 
fiscal solution.
  My concern about the European debt crisis is about the possible 
exposure of the U.S. to a European-led contagion that could lead to 
catastrophe in the global market for U.S. Treasury securities.
  The U.S. financial system has exposures to liabilities of the public 
sectors, the banks, and the private sectors of Greece, Portugal, 
Ireland, and Spain, four highly indebted Eurozone countries.
  The extent of the exposure is unclear but is potentially greater than 
half a trillion dollars. Given the interconnectedness in global 
financial markets, ultimate risk exposure is difficult to disentangle.
  Most importantly, I am concerned about what all of this means for 
American taxpayers. Americans have made it crystal clear, they do not 
want more bailouts.
  Let me remind everyone of President Obama's pledge when he signed the 
Dodd-Frank banking act into law last year, an act which, by the way, is 
turning out to be a job-killer and is itself a threat to our financial 
markets. The President clearly stated, ``[t]here will be no more tax-
funded bailouts--period.''
  Unfortunately, that promise has proven hollow. Recall that a 
Democrat-led Congress, urged on by President Obama, upped the U.S. ante 
with the International Monetary Fund in 2009. Additional funding of up 
to $108 billion was provided to the IMF which can now be used to bail 
out profligate European governments. Make no mistake, bailouts are 
continuing and there are threats of even more on the horizon.
  Let me be clear now, before any crisis hits. There can be no further 
bailouts, of banks or foreign countries or private companies or unions 
or states that are funded by innocent American taxpayers.
  The people of Utah, whom I represent, and the vast majority of 
Americans want to hold the President to his promise. They are done with 
taxpayer-funded bailouts.
  The administration and the agencies responsible for oversight of our 
financial system need to bring some sunshine to this situation, and 
make clear to the American people just what the bailout risk is from 
the Eurozone or anywhere else.
  I am proud to cosponsor with Senator DeMint and several of my 
colleagues an amendment that will roll back the funding provided to the 
IMF in 2009. To make the President's pledge of no more tax-funded 
bailouts meaningful, and to do what the American people are clearly 
demanding of Congress, it is imperative to protect taxpayers from 
bailouts of profligate European countries through the IMF.
  American taxpayers deserve assurance now that they will not be again 
forced to assume risks and losses that they did not create. Taxpayers 
deserve to know that they will be protected from future bailouts.
  That is precisely what the amendment that I am cosponsoring will do. 
It is a simple amendment and its message is clear.
  No more taxpayer bailouts.
  If the President is unwilling to fulfill his pledge on his own, there 
are those of us in Congress who are happy to hold him to his word.
  I urge my colleagues to stand up for taxpayers and vote for this 
critical amendment.
  So far I have been speaking about this administration's abuse of 
power with regard to the IMF. I would like to switch gears for a few 
minutes and talk about another series of abuses that are no less 
outrageous. I am speaking about the Obama administration's labor 
agenda.
  Over the last month or so, many in this Chamber have expressed 
concern about the National Labor Relations Board's complaint against 
Boeing. That complaint has been almost universally criticized, if not 
outright condemned, from all corners of the country. Just last week, 
the Washington Post, not exactly known for having an anti-union bias, 
had some harsh words for the board's case against Boeing. I ask 
unanimous consent to have the Post's editorial printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, June 19, 2011]

                         Flight Risk for Boeing

       The opening of a manufacturing plant with nearly 1,000 jobs 
     should be cause for celebration. But Boeing Co.'s $1 billion 
     facility in South Carolina has met a different, less welcome 
     response.
       The National Labor Relations Board, spurred by the 
     International Association of Machinists and Aerospace 
     Workers, hit Boeing with a complaint of unfair labor 
     practices. The board charges that Boeing illegally shipped 
     jobs to South Carolina from the company's Washington state 
     facility in retaliation for past strikes by unionized workers 
     in Puget Sound. Both facilities will have a hand in building 
     the company's new and mammoth 787 Dreamliner.
       The NLRB pegged its case to ``coercive'' threats by Boeing 
     executives who told the media that disruptions caused by the 
     strikes played a role in deciding to build in South Carolina. 
     They also spoke of the need to ``geographically diversify'' 
     to avoid shutdowns caused by natural or man-made disasters 
     and to control costs, which would be easier to do in a 
     ``right-to-work'' state through lower labor costs.
       As punishment, the NLRB is seeking to compel Boeing to move 
     the Dreamliner jobs in South Carolina to Washington state--
     which the company says would essentially force it to shut the 
     plant. Boeing calls the proposed punishment ``indisputably 
     the most consequential--and destructive--remedy ever sought 
     by an officer of the NLRB.''
       The law forbids employers from discriminating or 
     retaliating against employees for lawful union activity. To 
     prevail, an aggrieved party typically must show that the 
     retaliation resulted in demotions, dismissals, wage 
     reductions or other punitive measures. In Boeing's case, 
     these reprisals are absent; the company also claims its 
     collective bargaining agreement gives it the explicit and 
     exclusive right to locate work where it wishes.
       The allegation that the company ``transferred'' jobs out of 
     state is unconvincing because the jobs in South Carolina are 
     new. The company has not cut jobs in Washington, nor has it 
     demoted or slashed the wages of union workers. Boeing has 
     added about 3,000--albeit temporary--jobs in Washington since 
     it announced its South Carolina plans and says it is likely 
     to add more to keep up with demand for its commercial 
     airliners.
       Employers who engage in unfair labor practices should be 
     penalized. But the NLRB's move goes too far and would 
     undermine a company's ability to consider all legitimate 
     factors--including potential work disruptions--when making 
     plans. It also substitutes the government's judgment for that 
     of the company. This is neither good law nor good business.

  Mr. HATCH. Also last week, the NLRB released a notice of proposed 
rulemaking, aiming to drastically reduce the time between the filing of 
a union election petition and the vote to

[[Page S4146]]

certify the union. The motivation behind this proposal is simple, the 
less notice the employers have regarding a union election, the less 
time they will have to make their case to the workforce.
  Unions and their democratic allies have sought these kinds of so-
called reforms for decades. I want to be clear. For all of their talk 
about representing the little guy, and standing for the people, these 
reforms are an affront to the spirit of democracy. They show disrespect 
for employees by attempting to deny them critical information that 
could inform their choices in these elections. Their genesis is not in 
a concern for the common man but in the unholy alliance between union 
apparatchiks who want to grow their power and union dues, and the latte 
left that depend on those dues to elect representatives who have little 
in common with the workers whose paychecks get docked to elect them.
  Unfortunately, now that President Obama has packed the NLRB with 
former union lawyers, they look poised to get these rules. Let us be 
clear. This is a win for union bosses. But it is a big loss for the 
workers they purport to represent.
  I will have much more to say about the NLRB in the coming days. But, 
today, I want to focus on another runaway Obama agency that is setting 
aside established rules and procedures in order to pay back the 
President's union supporters.
  The National Mediation Board, which has jurisdiction over labor 
relations in the railroad and airline industries, has, like the NLRB, 
aggressively pursued a unionization-at-all-costs agenda. While the 
NMB's activities have not received the same attention as those of the 
NLRB, their actions are every bit as egregious.
  Last summer, the NMB, at the behest of big labor, changed the voting 
procedures for all union elections under its jurisdiction. For 75 
years, an airline or railroad union had to win the support of a 
majority of the entire workforce in order to be certified as the 
representative. Under that system, workers who did not vote in an 
election were counted as no votes.
  The logic of this rule was sound. Unions do not seek to represent 
just the workers that vote in an election. A union claims to represent 
the entire workforce. The established rule ensured that the results of 
an election accurately reflected the will of a true majority of a given 
workforce.
  Unfortunately, logic and common sense often stand in the way of the 
big labor agenda.
  So in 2010 the NMB unilaterally changed the rule to lower the bar. 
Now these elections are decided by a majority of those voting in an 
election, regardless of how many workers actually voted. In other 
words, under the new rule a union could be certified even if a majority 
of the workers did not support it.
  Given the timing of this decision, one can only conclude that the 
pro-union appointees on the NMB were specifically targeting Delta 
Airlines for unionization after its merger with Northwest Airlines. I 
think it would be naive to assume otherwise.
  But here is the remarkable thing.
  The stage was set for a union cakewalk. Shortly after the NMB fixed 
the rules to secure a pro-union outcome, there was an election among 
Delta's flight attendants to determine if they wanted to be represented 
by the Association of Flight Attendants or AFA.

  All the rails were greased for the union.
  And the union still lost.
  The result was a triumph of employees over the union bosses.
  The employees had three options.
  One, voting yes to certify AFA representation; two, voting no to 
reject certification or, three, writing in an alternative choice for 
representation.
  The NMB did its best to fix this for the union. They counted the 
write-in votes, votes clearly supporting an option other than the AFA, 
as votes in favor of the union.
  But when the dust settled, with 94 percent of Delta's flight 
attendants voting in the election, the union still lost. Of course, the 
unions cried foul and have challenged those results. The NMB, which has 
shown little desire thus far to vindicate the rights of non-union 
workers, let alone those of employers, is currently investigating the 
AFA's claims that Delta interfered in the vote.
  I think we can guess how this investigation will turn out.
  This recent election was not the only setback the unions have 
received at the hands of Delta employees. Last fall, three other Delta 
workforces, the ticket agents, the bagging agents, and the reservation 
agents, all held separate union elections, all of which ended with 
similar results. The NMB is also investigating claims of interference 
in those elections, even though no substantive evidence has been 
presented.
  With these latter three elections, the union suitor was the 
International Association of Machinists, the same union whose interests 
the NLRB is serving with its absurd complaint against Boeing. If the 
Obama administration's commitment to serving IAM is consistent between 
agencies, and there is absolutely no reason to assume otherwise, I 
think we can predict just how those investigations will turn out.
  There is no time limit on the NMB's investigations. Delta has no way 
of knowing whether it is in the clear or whether it needs to prepare 
for more elections. More importantly, Delta's workers, who have 
repeatedly rejected unionization, will likely see no end to the 
bothersome pressure that comes with a union election campaigns.
  I think it is safe to say that, with the Obama NMB in charge, the 
number of union elections among Delta employees will be limited only by 
the time it takes for the unions to finally win one.
  The NMB is behaving like the bureaucratic equivalent of the scorer's 
table at the 1972 men's basketball gold medal game.
  They are going to give the unions as many chances as they need to win 
this fight.
  Labor law and policy plays an important role in our economy. In many 
respects, it determines which businesses will succeed and which will 
fail. It plays a significant role in decisions as to whether companies 
should invest in the U.S. or somewhere else.
  Sadly, it has become customary to expect pendulum swings in labor law 
each time the White House changes hands and appoints new government 
officials to lead the Federal executive branch and independent 
agencies. While this should not be the case, I do not think we've ever 
seen the pendulum swing as far as it has under the Obama 
administration.
  Unions represent less than 8 percent of the private sector workforce. 
Yet with President Obama in office, the union influence has been 
virtually immeasurable. This should not be surprising. During the 2008 
campaign, President Obama addressed a gathering of the SEIU, probably 
the most politically powerful union in the country. During his speech, 
the President told the crowd if he were elected, ``we are going to 
paint the Nation purple with SEIU.''
  Apparently, Madam President, this is the one campaign promise 
President Obama intends to keep.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to 
speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           A Broken Wasington

  Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Madam President, I have been here for 
almost 6 months now, but I have been carefully watching Washington for 
the last 32 years while I have been running my manufacturing business 
in Oshkosh, WI--watching how increasingly broken Washington has become 
over the years. Nothing I have seen in the last 6 months has changed 
that evaluation.
  Washington is broken and America is going broke. Our economy is in a 
coma and people are suffering. America hungers for leadership, and it 
is not getting any--not from President Obama and not from the Senate. 
We can't afford to have a broken political process--not now, not while 
America is hurtling toward a financial crisis.
  Under Democratic leadership, it has been over 2 years since the 
Senate passed a budget, and there is currently no markup going on in 
the Budget Committee to produce one. America is going bankrupt. Yet the 
Senate refuses to pass a budget.
  The President's budget that he presented several months ago to great 
fanfare--remember that--4\1/4\ inches thick,

[[Page S4147]]

2,400 pages long, and who knows how many thousands of man hours that 
document took to produce--was going to be the solution to our fiscal 
problems. But it was so unserious it would have added over $12 trillion 
to our Nation's debt. It was so unserious that when it was voted on in 
the Senate, it lost by a vote of 0 to 97. It was so unserious that not 
a single member of the President's own party voted for it.
  Instead of rolling up his shirt sleeves and personally tackling the 
No. 1 problem facing this Nation right from the beginning, President 
Obama delegated his role in sporadic negotiations to Vice President 
Biden. Now that those talks have broken down, the President is finally 
getting personally involved in this process.
  But what kind of process is this? A few people talking behind closed 
doors, far from the view of the American public, is that the process 
that is going to decide the fate of America's financial situation, of 
our financial future? Is this how the U.S. Government is supposed to 
work? I don't think so. Of course not.
  Unfortunately, this has become business as usual in Washington. As a 
manufacturer, I know if the process is bad the product will be bad. 
Business as usual in Washington is a bad process. Business as usual is 
bankrupting America. It must stop. America is simply too precious to 
subject our financial future to Washington's business as usual.
  I am pretty new here. I don't pretend to understand everything that 
makes the Senate work, or maybe more accurately what doesn't allow the 
Senate to work. But I do know the Senate runs on something called 
unanimous consent. So unless we receive some assurance from the 
Democratic leadership that we will actually start addressing our budget 
out in the open, in the bright light of day, I will begin to object. I 
will begin to withhold my consent.
  The Senate needs to pass a budget. It shouldn't be that difficult. 
Families do it every day. A husband earns $40,000; a wife earns 
$40,000. The total family income is $80,000. That is their budget. That 
is what they can afford to spend. American families figure out how to 
live within their means. The Federal Government should be no different. 
A budget is a number. We should first pick one number and then a set of 
numbers that will not let America go bankrupt.
  Let me start the process by throwing out a number--$2.6 trillion. 
That is $800 billion more than we spent just 10 years ago. The $2.6 
trillion is the amount President Obama, in his budget, said the Federal 
Government would receive in revenue next year. If we only spent that 
amount of money we would be living within our means. What a concept.
  If we want to spend more than $2.6 trillion, Members of Congress, 
members of this administration, should go before congressional 
committees and openly justify what they want to spend, how much they 
want to borrow, and how much debt they are willing to pile on the backs 
of our children, our grandchildren, and our great-grandchildren. They 
should explain just how much of our children's future they are willing 
to mortgage.
  The American people deserve to be told the truth. Unless that 
happens, I will begin to withhold my consent. Unless there is some 
assurance the Senate will take up its budget responsibilities in an 
open process, I will begin to object.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). Objection is heard.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair.
  The assistant bill clerk continued with the call of the roll, and the 
following Senators entered the Chamber and answered to their names:

                             [Quorum No. 2]

     Alexander
     Begich
     Bennet
     Casey
     Collins
     Johnson (WI)
     Reid
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. A quorum is not present. The clerk 
will call the names of absent Senators.
  The bill clerk resumed the call of the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I move that the Sergeant at Arms be 
instructed to request the attendance of absent Senators, and I ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). Is there a sufficient second? 
There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Nevada. 
The yeas and nays are ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), the 
Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. 
Inouye), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl), the Senator from 
Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson), the 
Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Pryor), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), the Senator from 
Virginia (Mr. Webb), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) 
are necessarily absent.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. 
Chambliss), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from 
Illinois (Mr. Kirk), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 98 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Coons
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--40

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Boozman
     Burr
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Snowe
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Blunt
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kirk
     Kohl
     Kyl
     McCaskill
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Rockefeller
     Udall (NM)
     Webb
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. With the addition of Senators voting who did 
not answer the quorum call, a quorum is present.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
pending amendments be agreed to: Akaka No. 512, as modified with the 
changes at the desk, Carper No. 517, and Paul No. 503; that a managers' 
amendment which is at the desk be agreed to; that at 11 a.m. on 
Wednesday, June 29, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the 
remaining amendments to S. 679 in the following order: DeMint No. 501, 
Portman-Udall of New Mexico-Cornyn--that is three Senators--No. 509, as 
modified, with the changes that are at the desk, DeMint No. 511, and 
Toomey No. 514; further, that the Cornyn amendment No. 504, McCain 
amendment No. 493, and Paul amendment No. 502 be withdrawn; that no 
amendments be in order to any of the amendments prior to the votes; 
that upon disposition of the amendments, the bill be read a third time 
and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as amended; that 
there be no motions or points of order in order to the bill or any of 
the amendments other than budget points of order and the applicable 
motions to waive; finally, that all other provisions of previous orders 
with respect to S. 679 remain in effect.

[[Page S4148]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from 
Wisconsin.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Mr. President, reserving my right to 
object, I may not object to this request. It certainly is not 
addressing the primary problem facing our Nation; that is, the fact 
that we are bankrupting this Nation. We need to start actually 
addressing that in the Senate. But I realize the managers worked hard 
on this bill. I realize there are some good amendments the Senate 
really needs to debate and we should vote on. That is the way the 
Senate should work.
  I also ask that I be allowed to speak for 10 minutes following the 
agreement here.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I accept the modification of the request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 503 and 517) were agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 512), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:

       On page 48, strike lines 4 through 8.

  The amendment (No. 520) was agreed to.
  (The text of the amendment (No. 520) is printed in today's Record 
under ``Text of Amendments.'')
  The amendment (No. 509), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 38, line 19, strike all through page 45, line 16.
       On page 59, strike lines 11 through 15.
       On page 66, strike lines 1 through 16.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank everybody for their cooperation. 
We worked long and hard on this bill. I thank the Senator from 
Wisconsin. He raises an excellent point. I thank the majority leader. I 
thank Senator Alexander and Senator Schumer, who are the chief sponsors 
of this bill, and Senator Lieberman. I am very glad we were able to 
work out this agreement and that we will be able to have final votes on 
the amendments and final passage tomorrow.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request, as modified, is agreed to.
 Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I was unavoidably absent for vote 
No. 98, a motion to instruct the Sergeant At Arms to request the 
attendance of absent Senators. Had I been present, I would have voted 
in favor of the motion. It is important for the Senate to respect 
bipartisan agreements and work towards completion of its legislative 
business.

                          ____________________