[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 48 (Thursday, March 22, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1977-S1981]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STOP TRADING ON CONGRESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE ACT OF 2012

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the motion to concur in the House amendment to 
S. 2038, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to concur in the House amendment to S. 2038, an 
     original bill to prohibit Members of Congress and employees 
     of Congress from using nonpublic information derived from 
     their official positions for personal benefit, and for other 
     purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 4 
minutes of debate, equally divided in the usual form.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. I urge my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle to support this bipartisan and now bicameral congressional 
ethics measure. This started as a response to stories and allegations 
that Members of Congress would not be held liable for insider trading. 
It then developed into what I think is the most significant 
congressional ethics legislation we have adopted in at least 5 years. 
It has been in a lot of other public disclosure and good government 
measures.
  I wish to give particular thanks to Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and 
Scott Brown, who led the effort and took the initiative that got this 
ball rolling.
  I yield the rest of my time to Senator Gillibrand.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. I thank the Chairman.
  We are certainly taking a significant step forward, on behalf of the 
American people, toward restoring some faith our country has in their 
government. I wish to thank Leader Reid for his leadership, Chairman 
Lieberman, Ranking Member Collins, Senator Brown, and all our 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle who worked so hard to pass this 
legislation.
  I wish to thank my colleague from New York, Louise Slaughter, who 
fought so hard and so long toward this effort.
  This legislation was a rare instance where 96 Senators came together 
to deliver results for the American people. We passed a strong bill 
with teeth that will clearly and expressly make it illegal for Members 
of Congress, their staff, and their families to gain personal profits 
from nonpublic information gained through their service.
  I strongly believe we have to make it clear no one is above the law 
and that Members of Congress need to play by the exact same rules as 
every other American. It is simply the right thing to do.
  This is a commonsense bill and Americans can be assured our only 
interest is in their interest. When President Obama signs the STOCK 
Act, we will have begun to restore the public's faith in Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask that I be notified after 1 
minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be notified.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the STOCK 
Act, which we will be voting on very shortly. This legislation is based 
on a bill that was first introduced in the Senate last fall by Senator 
Scott Brown, and a similar one introduced by Senator Gillibrand. I wish 
to commend them both for their work on this legislation. As a cosponsor 
of Senator Brown's bill, I especially want to recognize his leadership 
on this issue.
  I also wish to recognize Chairman Lieberman for all the work he has 
done in moving this important bill through our committee, through a 
robust debate here on the Senate floor, and to final passage today.
  Last fall, press reports on ``60 Minutes'' and elsewhere raised the 
question of whether lawmakers are exempt, either legally or 
practically, from the insider trading laws.
  The STOCK Act is intended to affirm that Members of Congress are not 
exempt from our laws prohibiting insider trading. As we saw when we 
first considered this legislation, despite reassurances from legal 
experts and the SEC that no so such exemption exists, there has been 
persistent disagreement about the issue. That's why we feel it is 
important to send a very clear message that Members of Congress are not 
exempt from the insider trading laws, and that is exactly what this 
bill does.
  Last month the Senate passed its version of the STOCK Act by an 
overwhelming bipartisan margin of 96 to 3. That bill had, at its heart, 
the affirmation of a duty arising from the relationship of trust and 
confidence already owed by Members and their staff

[[Page S1978]]

to the Congress, the U.S. Government, and the citizens we serve.
  As I explained when we considered the Senate version, this is not a 
new fiduciary duty, in the traditional sense, but the recognition of an 
existing duty. The bill we passed also affirmed that the employees of 
the executive and judicial branches owe a similar duty, and must also 
comply with the insider trading laws.
  There are differences, of course, between the bill we passed last 
month and the House version before us today. I believe we could have 
quickly resolved those differences in conference, and would have 
preferred that route. Still, this is a strong bill that has received 
overwhelming bipartisan support. It preserves the core of the bill 
passed by the Senate: to make absolutely clear that elective office is 
a place for public service, not for private gain. Underscoring that 
important message is the chief purpose of the STOCK Act, and that is 
why I support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute.
  Ms. COLLINS. We need to send a strong message that elective office is 
the place for public service and not private gain.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I, again, filed a carefully drafted version 
of the bipartisan Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act as an 
amendment to the STOCK Act. Despite near unanimous approval for this 
amendment just a few short weeks ago, there was an objection by the 
House Republican leadership to the anti-corruption measure and Senate 
Republicans objected to going to conference to restore this important 
anti-corruption provision which had been stripped out of the bill. I am 
deeply disappointed that the Senate is taking up the House version of 
the bill that stripped out our bipartisan anti-corruption measure 
without consideration or a vote.
  My amendment reflects a bipartisan, bicameral agreement and would 
strengthen and clarify key aspects of Federal criminal law to help 
investigators and prosecutors attack public corruption Nationwide. The 
House stripped this amendment from the STOCK Act after a flurry of 
misinformation about what the amendment actually does. Senator Cornyn 
and I took concerns very seriously and addressed them effectively when 
we drafted the amendment. The amendment I seek to offer includes a 
further belt-and-suspenders modification to address any legitimate 
concern. It is carefully and narrowly drawn and will only reach clearly 
corrupt conduct.
  The Senate Judiciary Committee has now reported the Public Corruption 
Prosecution Improvements Act with bipartisan support in three 
successive Congresses and it has passed the Senate by voice vote. The 
House Judiciary Committee reported a companion bill unanimously. It is 
past time for Congress to act to pass serious anticorruption 
legislation. That is what the Public Corruption Prosecution 
Improvements Act amendment would be.
  Public corruption erodes the trust the American people have in those 
who are given the privilege of public service. Loopholes in existing 
laws have meant that corrupt conduct goes unchecked. The stain of 
corruption has spread to all levels of government and victimizes every 
American by chipping away at the foundations of our democracy. My 
amendment would help us to take real steps to restore confidence in 
government by rooting out criminal corruption.
  In Skilling v. United States, the Supreme Court sided with a former 
executive from Enron and greatly narrowed the honest services fraud 
statute, a law that had been appropriately used for decades as a 
crucial weapon to combat public corruption and self-dealing. The 
Court's decision leaves open the opportunity for State and Federal 
public officials to secretly act in their own financial self-interest, 
rather than in the interest of the public. This amendment, in a precise 
manner without ambiguity, closes this gaping hole in our anticorruption 
laws.
  If we are serious about addressing the kinds of egregious misconduct 
we have seen too often in recent years, Congress should enact 
meaningful legislation to give law enforcement the tools necessary to 
enforce our anticorruption law. The STOCK Act is much less meaningful 
without this important, substantive reform. I am deeply disappointed 
that the Senate apparently will not take the opportunity to support 
taking these modest steps to bring those who undermine the public trust 
to justice.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today the Senate has the opportunity to 
vote in support of the STOCK Act. If we vote for the House amendment to 
the Senate bill, we can send this legislation right to President Obama 
to be signed into law. That is exactly what we should do.
  The lifeblood of our democratic government is the contract between 
the people and their elected representatives, a contract that must be 
based on trust that elected officials will act for the good of our 
Nation and in the interests of their constituents, and not for personal 
gain. To ensure that we maintain that trust, our Nation has laws and 
our Congress has rules that establish clearly the responsibilities of 
government officials, Members of Congress and their staffs and provide 
for the enforcement of violations.
  The legislation before us is, in a way, preventative maintenance to 
protect that trust. It is a tightening up of our legal and ethical 
guidelines as part of what must be a constant effort to assure that the 
interests of our Nation and our constituents come first. Our 
constituents must have confidence that Members of Congress and our 
staffs will not use our positions for our personal financial benefit.
  To be clear, as it stands now, it is a violation of the trust our 
constituents place in us, a violation of the democratic process, a 
violation of the securities laws, and a violation of congressional 
ethics rules for Members of Congress or their employees to engage in 
insider trading--the use of information not available to the public to 
make investment decisions. But questions have been raised about insider 
trading by Members of Congress. The legislation before us today is 
designed to ensure that those questions are answered. It removes any 
doubt that insider trading by Members and employees of Congress is 
against the law and against Congressional rules. It is important to 
remove that doubt because any appearance of a breach in trust between 
Congress and our constituents is corrosive to honest, open and 
effective government.
  Back in December, the Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs 
Committee, of which I am a member, held extensive discussions on the 
need to preserve that trust, including a very productive hearing on 
December 1. Later in December, our committee held a markup and approved 
the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, or STOCK Act. I want 
to commend our chairman, Senator Lieberman, and our ranking member, 
Senator Collins, for their leadership, and the many members of the 
committee, Democratic and Republican, who made contributions to that 
process.
  Two things became clear during our hearings and our markup. The first 
is that there was consensus that we should remove any uncertainty about 
the prohibition against insider trading. The second thing that became 
clear was significant bipartisan desire to avoid any unintended 
consequences as we sought to remove any uncertainty. We reported out 
the legislation because of widespread agreement on our goals, but there 
remained concerns about the means, and it was understood that we would 
attempt to address those concerns before the bill came to the floor.
  And so a number of us worked in the weeks after the markup to make 
sure that our goals and our means were in concert. We met that 
objective, and our consensus was reflected in the language of the bill 
that passed the Senate by a vote of 96 to 3. The House amendment before 
us today retains the key language from the Senate bill that Senator 
Lieberman, Senator Collins and I, among others, worked so hard to get 
right. While some provisions that I supported have been removed by the 
House amendment, the central purpose of this bill remains the same. The 
House amendment, like the Senate bill it replaces, removes any 
uncertainty over the prohibition on insider trading, and it avoids 
unintended harmful consequences that concerned some of us.
  I would now like to discuss two critical provisions in the bill 
before us today. The first reassures the American people that there are 
no barriers to prosecuting Members and employees

[[Page S1979]]

of Congress for insider trading. It does so through language 
establishing that Members and employees of Congress have a duty arising 
from ``a relationship of trust and confidence'' with the Congress, the 
government, and most importantly, with the American people. 
Establishing such a duty removes any doubt as to whether insider 
trading prohibitions apply to Congress. It is also important that the 
bill's language makes clear that in offering this new language it does 
not in any way prevent enforcement of the anti-insider trading 
provisions contained in current law. Again, I am confident that under 
current law, Members of Congress and our staffs are prohibited from 
insider trading. This bill will ensure that the current prohibition is 
unambiguous, and thereby strengthened.
  The second major provision of the legislation instructs the Ethics 
Committees of both chambers to issue clear guidance to members and 
staffs regarding the prohibition on profiting from inside information. 
This guidance will clarify that existing rules in both chambers 
relative to gifts and conflicts of interest also prohibit the use of 
nonpublic information gained in the conduct of official duties for 
private profit.
  Let me briefly mention one other provision, unrelated to insider 
trading but nonetheless an important step forward in terms of gaining 
the confidence of our constituents. As one of the originators of the 
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, I am well aware of the value of 
transparency in government. The bill before us improves congressional 
transparency by requiring that personal financial disclosure filings 
required of members and certain staff are made available electronically 
to the public. But because this bill also significantly expands the 
number of officials required to file public disclosures, including law 
enforcement, military, and intelligence officers, it is critical that 
this provision be implemented in a way that is consistent with our 
national security interests. Care should be taken to ensure that public 
filers are not made unnecessarily vulnerable to malicious use of 
personal information.
  The House amendment also removes a provision of the Senate bill that 
would have required political intelligence consultants to register in a 
way similar to how lobbyists are required to register currently. 
Instead, the House amendment, like the version of the Senate bill that 
was reported by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 
Committee, requires the Comptroller General of the United States to 
study the role of political intelligence in financial markets and 
report back to Congress. It is corrosive of open government for 
political intelligence consultants to sell their access to officials. 
Before Congress acts to address this issue, we must learn more about 
it, which is why I support this study. I look forward to working with 
my colleagues to address this issue once we have the benefit of the 
Comptroller's report.
  In addition to the insider trading and disclosure provisions, this 
bill contains numerous other important improvements to our ethics laws. 
I urge my colleagues to join together today, to pass this legislation 
and send it to President Obama for his signature.
  I ask unanimous consent that my statement appear in the Record at the 
appropriate place before the vote on the STOCK Act.


                Cloture Motion on the STOCK Act, S. 2038

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise today to support cloture on 
the motion to concur in the House amendment to the ``Stop Trading on 
Congressional Knowledge Act,'' the ``STOCK Act''--S. 2038.
  We have come a long way in a short time in a bipartisan fashion on 
this bill, which does many good things.
  I want to start by thanking my colleagues, Ranking member Collins and 
Senators Gillibrand and Brown for all their work on this bill.
  And I want to thank Majority Leader Reid for making the STOCK Act the 
first bill the Senate debated after the winter recess.
  Mr. President, this problem received a jolt of momentum late last 
year when ``60 Minutes'' aired allegations that some Members of 
Congress and their staffs used information gained on their jobs to 
enrich themselves with time-sensitive investments in the stock market 
and nothing could be done because Congress had exempted itself from 
insider trading laws.
  We took the issue up at a hearing of the Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Committee in December and established that the 
charge that Congress had exempted itself from insider trading laws was 
just not true. However, it was also clear that existing laws needed to 
be clarified.
  At our committee hearing, several securities law experts told us that 
there was ambiguity in the law and they could not be sure how a court 
would rule if there was a challenge to the SEC's authority to bring an 
insider trading case against a Member of Congress.
  That is because, as the experts explained, a person may be found to 
have violated the insider trading laws only if he or she breaks a 
fiduciary duty, a duty of trust and confidence owed to somebody--to the 
shareholders of the company, or to the source of the nonpublic 
information, for example.
  The experts told us that it is possible that a judge looking at 
existing case law might conclude that Members of Congress owe no duty 
to anyone with respect to the nonpublic information they receive while 
carrying out their duties. Now, if I were a judge, I would not see it 
that way. It seems self-evident that public office is a public trust, 
and that Members of Congress have a duty to the institution of 
Congress, to the government as a whole, and to the American people not 
to use information gained during their time in Congress--and 
unavailable to the public--to make investments for personal profit.
  But the fact is that there are some very smart legal experts who are 
concerned that a judge would not see it that way. And this lack of 
clarity could in fact shield a Member of Congress from prosecution for 
insider trading.
  The STOCK Act clarifies this ambiguity in the Security Exchange Act 
of 1934 by explicitly stating that Members of Congress and our staffs 
have a duty of trust to the institution of Congress, to the U.S. 
Government, and to the American people--a duty that Members of Congress 
violate if they trade on non-public information they gain by virtue of 
their position.
  The bill also requires the Ethics Committees of both houses of 
Congress to issue guidance to clarify that Members and staff may not 
use non-public information derived from their position in Congress to 
make a private profit.
  Besides these changes aimed at insider trading, the STOCK Act 
includes other significant Congressional ethics legislation. For 
example, it requires Members of Congress and their staffs to file 
public reports on their purchases or sale of stocks, bonds, commodities 
futures or other financial transactions exceeding $1,000 within 30 days 
of the transaction. Currently these trades are reported once a year. 
Timelier reporting will allow the SEC and the public to assess whether 
there is anything suspicious about the timing of the trade.
  The bill also contains important language that requires financial 
disclosure forms filed by Members and staff be filed electronically 
and--perhaps even more significantly--be available online for public 
review.
  There really is no sensible reason to make someone come physically 
into the House or Senate to see a copy of one of these financial 
disclosure forms, which are public records.
  The bill will also require the Government Accountability Office to 
study and report back to Congress on so-called ``political 
intelligence'' consultants who sell information derived from government 
officials to investors.
  The STOCK Act also contains several provisions that were added in the 
Senate or House to strengthen the bill, including language offered by 
Senator Blumenthal related to the denial of Congressional benefits to 
Members who commit public corruption crimes; language offered by 
Senator Boxer that will, for the first time, require Members of 
Congress and senior Executive Branch officials to disclose their 
mortgages on their annual financial disclosure forms; and language 
offered by Senator McCain to prohibit executives of Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac from receiving bonuses while the firms remain in federal 
conservatorship.
  This is a very strong bill, in fact, the strongest Congressional 
ethics reform

[[Page S1980]]

bill that has been passed by Congress since we passed the Honest 
Leadership and Open Government Act in 2007.
  This bill was reported as an original bill out of the Committee on 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on December 13 by a vote of 
7 to 2. Then, after thorough debate on the Senate floor, including the 
consideration of 20 amendments, the bill passed the Senate on Feb. 2 by 
a vote of 96 to 3.
  The bill was sent to the House, which moved quickly and approved the 
STOCK Act just a week later by a lopsided majority of 417 to 2.
  This is Congress at its best. A problem was identified that cut 
directly to the public's faith in this institution and we dealt with it 
quickly and on a bipartisan basis in both Houses.
  This should not only be applauded but serve as a model as we take up 
other crucial legislation, such as Postal reform and cybersecurity. 
This shows we can work together rather than engage in a perpetual 
partisan tug of war.
  Mr. President, in his farewell address to the Nation, President 
Washington said that ``virtue or morality is a necessary spring of 
popular government'' and that we cannot ``look with indifference'' at 
anything that shakes that foundation.
  The STOCK Act offers us a chance to restore trust in our elected 
government and to show those who, with their votes, gave us the honor 
of representing them here, that the only business we do here is the 
people's business.


                            Duty Provisions

  Mr. REID. There are many important issues facing our country today 
and solutions will require bipartisan cooperation. The STOCK Act has 
enjoyed overwhelmingly bipartisan support because it addresses a key 
issue, namely government accountability to the American people.
  Members of Congress and those we employ must be held accountable to 
the same standards and laws as the citizens we represent. We owe a duty 
of trust and loyalty to the American people to conduct our private 
lives with the highest integrity and to never abuse our office to gain 
unfair or unethical financial advantages. I am pleased that we have 
voted overwhelmingly to pass a bill that closes any loopholes, real or 
perceived, in this regard.
  I would note specifically that the STOCK Act requires that Members of 
Congress and their staffs abstain from profiting on any nonpublic 
information derived from a person's position or gained in the 
performance of official responsibilities. The bill also makes 
absolutely clear that Members and staff are not exempt from the insider 
trading prohibitions arising under the securities laws, including 
section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 
thereunder.
  However, and I think my distinguished colleague from Connecticut will 
agree, the STOCK Act should not be interpreted as limiting government 
transparency in any way. Discourse with the public, whether privately 
or publicly, is vital to maintaining a healthy democratic society.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Senator from Nevada. I am happy about the 
reforms that Congress has adopted, and I agree that the STOCK Act is 
not intended to limit government transparency or hinder dissemination 
of information to interested parties regarding Congressional activities 
and deliberations.
  In the interest of clarity for the record, I would like to state that 
the STOCK Act does not turn information regarding Congressional 
activities and deliberations that was previously not material, into 
material information with respect to securities laws. I would also note 
that a Member or employee of Congress who, in the course of performing 
their duties, has a nonpublic conversation with a citizen or 
constituent does not automatically violate the duty imposed by Section 
4(b)(2) the STOCK Act.
  Mr. REID. I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his comments. With 
regard to the Chairman's last remark, I would like to point out that my 
office has fielded concerns from multiple sources that the duty 
language may be interpreted by the SEC as creating liability for public 
officials and their staff when communicating privately with 
constituents. There is concern that a threat of this would have a 
significant chilling effect on government transparency. I understand 
however that in conversations with my leadership staff the SEC has 
explicitly clarified that it does not view the STOCK Act as creating 
new limitations on the disclosure of Congressional information in 
conversations with constituents. I also understand that leadership 
staff has been assured by the SEC that any case brought under the 
insider trading prohibitions would still require the SEC to prove that 
a Member of Congress or their staff acted with scienter, which means 
acting corruptly, knowingly, recklessly or in bad faith.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. The Democratic leader is correct. As the Director of 
Enforcement at the SEC, Robert Khuzami, stated in his testimony before 
the House Financial Services Committee: ``You have to be acting with 
corrupt intent, knowledge, or recklessness. If you act in good faith, 
you're not going to be guilty.'' My staff had detailed conversations 
with the SEC while drafting the duty provisions and raised these 
concerns specifically. Our goal in drafting the duty provisions of the 
STOCK act was to ensure that insider trading restrictions apply to 
government officials no differently than they do to the rest of the 
public, but at the same time, avoid unintended consequences that could 
curtail interaction between Congress and the public.
  Mr. REID. Furthermore, it is my understanding that Section 11 of this 
bill is not intended to override the authority of the President to 
exempt from public availability the financial disclosure reports of 
individuals engaged in intelligence activities, which is contained in 
section 105(a)(1) of the Ethics in Government Act. As to the executive 
branch, section 105(a)(1) applies to all of the public availability 
requirements of this bill.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. That is correct. It is not the intent of the STOCK Act 
to override the President's authority for necessary exemptions for 
intelligence activities.
  Ms. COLLINS. I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Scott Brown.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Madam President, today, we put America 
first and we passed a bipartisan and now bicameral bill the President 
will sign, and we took a step to ending the deficit of trust hurting 
our democracy. I wish to thank Senator Gillibrand and the leadership of 
Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman for marking this up so quickly. 
Today is a good day.
  The STOCK Act will affirm that Members of Congress are not above the 
law and will increase transparency by requiring Members of Congress and 
highly compensated Federal employees to disclose all their trading 
activity within 45 days. Today, America is a government by the people 
and for the people, and that means our elected officials must follow 
the same laws as everybody. We have taken a step toward reestablishing 
trust, and today we are one step closer to making every seat the 
people's seat.
  I encourage everybody to support this passage.


                             Cloture Motion

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

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Reid motion to 
     concur in the House amendment to S. 2038, the Stop Trading on 
     Congressional Knowledge Act.
         Harry Reid, Jeff Bingaman, Daniel K. Inouye, Joseph I. 
           Lieberman, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Akaka, Richard J. 
           Durbin, Charles E. Schumer, John Barrasso, Scott P. 
           Brown, Mitch McConnell, Jon Kyl, Richard C. Shelby, Rob 
           Portman, John Cornyn, John Hoeven, Marco Rubio, Lisa 
           Murkowski, Jeff Sessions, Mike Johanns, Tom Coburn, 
           Susan M. Collins.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to concur on the House amendment to S. 2038, an act to prohibit 
Members of Congress and employees of Congress

[[Page S1981]]

from using nonpublic information derived from their official positions 
for personal benefit, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a 
close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 96, nays 3, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 56 Leg.]

                                YEAS--96

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lee
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--3

     Burr
     Coburn
     Grassley

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 96, the nays are 3. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Cloture having been invoked, the motion to refer falls as 
inconsistent with cloture.
  Under the previous order, all postcloture time is yielded back, the 
motion to concur in the House amendment with amendment No. 1940 is 
withdrawn, and the motion to concur in the House amendment is agreed 
to.
  Under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made 
and laid upon the table.

                          ____________________