[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.
____________________