[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 167 (Thursday, November 21, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8437-S8440]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014--Continued

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding cloture having been invoked on the Millett nomination, 
the Senate resume legislative session and consideration of S. 1197; 
that the time until 4 p.m. be equally divided and controlled between 
Chairman Levin and Ranking Member Inhofe or their designees, with the 
chairman controlling the last half of the time; that at 4 p.m., the 
Senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on S. 1197, the 
Department of Defense authorization bill; that if cloture is invoked, 
notwithstanding cloture having been invoked, the Senate proceed to vote 
on S. Con. Res. 28; further, if cloture is invoked on S. 1197, the 
second-degree amendment filing deadline be 5 p.m. today; finally, that 
if cloture is not invoked on S. 1197, the Senate proceed to vote on 
adoption of S. Con. Res. 28.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1197) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2014 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid (for Levin/Inhofe) Amendment No. 2123, to increase to 
     $5,000,000,000 the ceiling on the general transfer authority 
     of the Department of Defense.
       Reid (for Levin/Inhofe) Amendment No. 2124 (to Amendment 
     No. 2123), of a perfecting nature.
       Reid motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Armed 
     Services, with instructions, Reid Amendment No. 2305, to 
     change the enactment date.
       Reid Amendment No. 2306 (to (the instructions) Amendment 
     No. 2305), of a perfecting nature.
       Reid Amendment No. 2307 (to Amendment No. 2306), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, let me first repeat, as I have many 
times, I have never worked with a manager more closely than the 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee Senator Levin. We worked very 
hard through a lot of issues. On the few where we disagreed with each 
other, we have handled it in a very civil way. We both want a bill and 
we will have one.
  The problem we have on the Republican side is we have not had a 
chance to have amendments. I don't have the charts in here, but earlier 
this morning I had charts here to show historically every time this 
comes up, we have a number of amendments that the minority has--whether 
the minority happens to be the Democrats or Republicans. All we want to 
do is to consider these amendments.
  Yesterday I said I don't think we will be able to do it, but I am 
going to attempt to come today--or yesterday, I said tomorrow--with 25 
amendments that all of the Republicans have said they would not object 
to and we would say these are the ones we would like to have 
considered. Of those, assuming the Democrats had 25 also, the most we 
would have up for consideration would be maybe 20, probably less than 
that, because historically that is the way it is.
  I have given the majority the 25 amendments we would like to have 
considered, and I made the statement yesterday--and I want to repeat it 
today--that now that we have agreed on a list, if we can have these 
amendments considered on the floor, then I would be a very strong 
supporter of this bill.
  However, after going through the work of coming down to these 
amendments--and that is not an easy thing to do--if we are rejected and 
we are not going to be able to have consideration of these 25 
amendments, I would vote in opposition to cloture to go to the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, we will soon vote on whether to invoke 
cloture on S. 1197, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2014. This bill was reported out of the Armed Services Committee 
with a strong bipartisan vote of 23 to 3. We have enacted a National 
Defense Authorization Act every year for more than 50 years, and it is 
critically important that we do so again this year.
  We spent all day yesterday debating two amendments addressing sexual 
assault in the military, but we have not been allowed to vote on them. 
There was opposition on the other side to voting even on those two 
amendments which have now been fully debated. We were told that 
Senators wouldn't let us vote on the sexual assault amendments because 
they were afraid those would be the only votes. We offered to lock in 
additional amendments, six for Democrats, six for Republicans. That got 
an objection. Staff had built up a cleared amendment package of 39 
additional amendments on a bipartisan basis, about half for each side, 
that were all agreed to on the merits. Again, we got thwarted.
  So over and over, we had objections to considering amendments, based 
on the accusation that we were not considering enough amendments. But 
how on earth does blocking the consideration of amendments that we can 
all agree on advance the cause of considering amendments?
  I am going to continue to work with my friend from Oklahoma--and we 
are good friends and we work together well. He is right. I am going to 
continue to work toward an agreement that will enable us to proceed 
with additional amendments on this bill.
  This would not be the first time this kind of a problem has happened 
on a Defense authorization bill. In 2008, one Senator objected to 
cleared amendment packages and to bringing up amendments. As a result, 
we were able to have only two rollcall votes and adopted only 9 
amendments--all of which were agreed to before the objection was 
raised. Then, as now, the objection did not result in more amendments 
being adopted but, rather, in almost no amendments being adopted at 
all. In 2008, we invoked cloture and proceeded with the bill with 
virtually no Senate amendments--a result which was less than ideal, but 
at least it enabled us to enact a National Defense Authorization Act 
that year.
  We must pass a national defense authorization bill. If we fail to do 
so, we will be letting down our men and women in uniform and failing to 
perform one of Congress' most basic duties--providing for the national 
defense.
  As is the case every year, if we fail to enact this bill, our troops 
will not get the full amount of compensation to which they are 
entitled. If we fail to act, the Department's authority to pay out 
combat pay, hardship duty pay, special pay for nuclear-qualified 
servicemembers, enlistment and reenlistment bonuses, incentive pay for 
critical specialties, assignment incentive pay, and accession and 
retention bonuses for critical specialties will expire on December 31.
  After that date, we will have troops in combat who will not get 
combat pay. We will lose some of our most highly skilled men and women 
with specialties that we vitally need. Not only will we be 
shortchanging our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, but we will 
be denying our military services critical authorities they need to 
recruit and retain high-quality servicemembers, and to achieve their 
force-

[[Page S8438]]

shaping objectives as they draw down their end strengths.
  That is not all. If we fail to enact this bill, school districts all 
over the United States that rely on supplemental impact aid to help 
them educate military children will no longer receive that money. If we 
fail to enact this bill, the Department of Defense will not be able to 
begin construction on any new military construction projects in the 
coming year. That means our troops won't get the barracks, ranges, 
hospitals, laboratories, and other support facilities they need to 
support operational requirements, conduct training, and maintain 
equipment. It means that military family housing will not receive 
needed upgrades.
  If we fail to enact this bill, the existing military land withdrawals 
will expire at China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station and Chocolate 
Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range. That means our military will have to 
cease operations on those vital test and training ranges, losing 
critical testing and training capabilities that they relied on for the 
last 25 years.
  If we fail to enact this bill, the Department of Defense will run out 
of money for the construction of the first ship of the Navy's new class 
of aircraft carriers, the Gerald R. Ford. That means the Navy will have 
to issue a stop work order on the construction of the Ford, requiring 
them to lay off workers and requiring a break in production that will 
add hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars not only to the 
cost of the Ford, but also to the cost of follow-on aircraft carriers.
  It goes on and on. If we fail to enact this bill, we will enact none 
of the far-reaching reforms we need to address on the problem of sexual 
assault in the military. Already we have been blocked in our effort to 
clear a package of manager's amendments, including Senator Boxer's 
amendment reforming the article 32 process.
  Now, we are not only going to lose important reforms, but there are 
two dozen measures that are in the bill which address the problem of 
sexual assault. If we don't adopt this bill, we won't be providing a 
Special Victims' Counsel for victims of sexual assault. We won't make 
retaliation for reporting a sexual assault a crime under the Uniform 
Code of Military Justice. If we don't adopt this bill, we won't require 
commanders to immediately refer all allegations of sexual assault to 
professional criminal investigators. We won't restrict the authority of 
senior officers to modify the findings and sentence of court-martial 
convictions, and we won't require higher level review of any decision 
not to prosecute allegations of sexual assault.
  We have already failed our men and women in uniform by failing to end 
sequestration. We should not fail them again by failing to enact the 
many critical measures included in the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2014.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, the Gillibrand amendment would address an 
issue that is fundamental to who we are as Americans: ensuring justice 
for the men and women who serve in our military.
  When brave young men and women enlist in the armed services, they do 
so to defend our country and our values. Yet those values are being 
undermined by the problem of sexual assault in the military.
  Over the past decades, our military has expanded equality. I am proud 
that all of our services recognize that women have a vital role to play 
in the military, including in combat. I wholeheartedly endorse, after 
years of debate, the recognition that being openly gay or lesbian has 
no bearing on one's ability to serve.
  These advances in equality in our military are vitally important--
they make our military stronger and all of us safer--but they are an 
empty promise without access to justice. And when men and women are the 
victims of sexual assault in the military, they are often deprived of 
justice.
  We all know the shameful numbers. An estimated 26,000 cases of 
unwanted sexual contact and sexual assaults occurred in 2012--a 37 
percent increase from 2011. But the statistics that trouble me most are 
that 50 percent of female victims did not report the crime because they 
believed that nothing would be done. And 62 percent of victims who did 
report a sexual assault perceived some form of professional, social, or 
administrative retaliation as a result.
  And the tragedy is--they're right. The Defense Advisory Committee on 
Women in the Services spoke to this same problem and found: 
``Unfortunately, recent events have shown these fears to be justified, 
and may also have communicated to perpetrators that they need not fear 
being held accountable for their actions.''
  No wonder then, that the advisory committee voted in favor of 
removing the decision whether to prosecute sexual assaults and other 
serious crimes from the chain of command.
  The United States was founded on twin ideals: equality and justice. 
And much of our history has involved the struggle to expand equal 
treatment under the law and access to justice. When we expand equality, 
we also provide access to justice.
  I think of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which made it unlawful for 
employers to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion, or 
national origin and created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
to enforce the law. Congress recognized that there is no equality 
without justice. I think back to the days when white male juries were 
the rule in virtually every courthouse in this country. Yet finally, 
the Supreme Court in Norris v. Alabama and Taylor v. Louisiana said 
that no one could be assured of a fair trial unless women and African 
Americans served on their juries.
  Equality and Justice--they are two sides of the same coin. They walk 
hand in hand.
  In the United States, one of the fundamental precepts of our criminal 
justice system is an independent prosecutor. The authority to charge 
someone with a crime is an awesome power. Exercised improperly, an 
innocent person can be forced to endure a trial or a criminal can go 
unpunished, free to harm their next victim. Under the Code of Military 
Justice, that critical prosecutorial decision is made by a commanding 
officer--someone often in both the victim's and the alleged 
perpetrator's chain of command--and, typically, not someone trained in 
the law. If----and statistically in sexual assault cases it is rare--if 
the commanding officer determines to try a charge by court-martial, the 
same commander also picks the jurors who will decide the case. I have 
no doubt that most commanders try their best to evaluate charges of 
sexual assault but they are inherently conflicted and compromised when 
we force them to make the call. We do these commanders a disservice by 
requiring them to solve this inexorable conflict.
  As an impressive group of law professors, many of whom are veterans, 
and all of whom are experts in military justice wrote:

       Commanders play a decisive role in military operations and 
     must likewise play a central role in reducing sexual assault 
     and maintaining good order and discipline generally. That 
     role, however, need not extend to the relatively narrow and 
     thoroughly legal arena of criminal prosecution. Contemporary 
     norms of procedural justice require that attorneys, not 
     commanding officers, make decisions to prosecute. As a 
     result, we recommend that the decision to prosecute a member 
     of the armed forces for criminal conduct . . . be made by an 
     independent prosecutor outside the chain of command.

  And, they added, personnel who serve as court-martial jurors should 
be chosen by a court-martial administrator rather than a commander, 
``to avoid concerns about jury-stacking and unlawful command 
influence.''
  That is precisely what the Gillibrand amendment does. It vests the 
authority to prosecute serious criminal charges with experienced judge 
advocate general officers who can evaluate the evidence with a clear, 
cold eye and determine whether charges should be tried. That 
independence is the only way we can assure both the victim and the 
alleged perpetrator of justice--equal justice under the law. That's 
what this country is all about. That's why so many young men and women 
volunteer to serve. And we owe them nothing less.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, today I rise in support of the fiscal 
year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act and to address significant 
challenges facing the Department of Defense.
  The bill approved by the Armed Services Committee includes necessary 
provisions to take care of our troops, such

[[Page S8439]]

as a 1-percent pay raise and the maintenance of affordable health care 
fees to avoid a detrimental effect on military retirees and their 
families.
  I thank Chairman Levin and Ranking Member Inhofe for increasing 
authorizations for the shipbuilding budget, including an additional 
$100 million to support the procurement of a tenth DDG-51 destroyer 
under the current multiyear procurement contract. I am pleased that the 
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee on which I serve has also included 
this critical $100 million.
  This ship is needed in the fleet to maintain the robust forward 
presence our Nation requires to protect trade routes, keep the peace, 
and assist when tragedy strikes.
  When tensions flared in Syria, it was Navy destroyers that were 
positioned off the coast. Following the devastation of Typhoon Haiyan 
in the Philippines, two U.S. Navy destroyers were among the first ships 
on station.
  Taking advantage of the opportunity to procure this ship will lock 
additional savings on a multiyear procurement that has already saved 
taxpayers $1.5 billion compared to procuring the ships individually.
  I am also pleased the Armed Services Committee incorporated many 
provisions I support to combat sexual assault, which is one of the 
greatest challenges faced by the Department of Defense for a decade.
  I first raised my concern about sexual assaults in the military with 
General George Casey in 2004. To say his response was disappointing 
would be an understatement. I am convinced that if the military had 
heeded the concern I raised then, this terrible problem would have been 
addressed much sooner, saving many individuals the trauma, pain, and 
injustice they endured.
  While I will address this issue at greater length during 
consideration of this bill, I want to highlight three of the most 
important changes included in the bill.
  First, the bill limits the authority of a convening authority to 
overturn or modify the findings of a court-martial in sexual assault 
cases. Second, the bill requires the military to provide an attorney 
dedicated to the interests of survivors of sexual assaults to provide 
legal advice and assistance when survivors need such assistance the 
most. Third, a servicemember convicted of sexual assault would be 
discharged from the military.
  I also support the provisions in the bill to maintain the readiness 
of our military services by authorizing $1.8 billion to address 
readiness problems caused by fiscal year 2013 sequestration. This bill 
also directs the Pentagon to rein in unnecessary or wasteful spending 
while rejecting proposals that purport to save money but that actually 
cause more harm than good.
  Two important provisions require DOD to develop a plan to reduce the 
number of General and Flag officer billets and to streamline management 
headquarters in an effort to save $100 billion over 10 years. Reducing 
unnecessary overhead is something we must insist upon in these fiscally 
constrained times.
  Increasing the authorization for the Department of Defense Inspector 
General by $36 million will allow the office to perform additional 
oversight and help identify waste, fraud, and abuse in DOD programs. 
Historically, DOD IG reviews have resulted in a return on investment of 
nearly $11 dollars for every $1 appropriated.
  The bill wisely rejects the President's proposal to authorize a new 
Base Realignment and Closure round in 2015 and prohibits the 
authorization of another BRAC round at least until the Department 
submits a review of excess overseas military facilities.
  This is the right way to proceed because the GAO has found that the 
previous BRAC round has never produced the amount of savings that were 
promised when it was originally sold to Congress.
  While this is an excellent bill, I hope to offer several amendments 
to make this important bill even stronger in addressing the national 
security challenges facing our country.
  The first amendment I intend to offer, with my colleague Senator 
King, has been requested by the Navy to support the final settlement of 
the A-12 case. The Navy has reached an agreement with Boeing and 
General Dynamics to settle a decades-old lawsuit concerning the 
cancellation of the A-12 aircraft.
  Our amendment would allow the Navy to accept $400 million in in-kind 
payments from industry to satisfy outstanding Navy claims related to 
the A-12 legal dispute between the Navy and two contractors, Boeing and 
General Dynamics. All parties--the Navy, the Department of Justice, 
Boeing, and General Dynamics--support the settlement.
  If this amendment is adopted, the Navy will receive $400 million 
worth of needed military hardware effectively for free at a time when 
it is facing incredible fiscal challenges from sequestration.
  In addition, taxpayers benefit because there is no guarantee the 
government will ultimately prevail in the ongoing litigation. If the 
government does not prevail, taxpayers may not get anything.
  The second amendment I intend to file would require athletic footwear 
purchased for new military recruits to be domestically manufactured. 
Currently, DOD is circumventing the intent of the law known as the 
Berry Amendment through the use of cash allowances that provide no 
preference for domestically manufactured footwear. This amendment, 
which is also cosponsored by Senator King, would align the procurement 
policy for athletic footwear with other footwear and clothing provided 
to servicemembers.
  In the last year, the Defense Logistics Agency has awarded more than 
$36 million in contracts for combat boots and dress shoes made in 
America. In contrast, the military services have provided cash vouchers 
totaling more than $15 million per year to new recruits to purchase 
athletic footwear, without any preference for domestically manufactured 
products. Why should DOD single out athletic footwear to be treated 
differently from dress shoes or combat boots?
  Another amendment with Senator Blumenthal would require the Attorney 
General to jointly prescribe regulations to implement prescription drug 
take-back programs with the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans 
Affairs.
  We know prescription drug abuse is a major factor in military and 
veteran suicides, which are occurring at an alarming rate. 
Unfortunately, 349 servicemembers died from suicide in 2012--more than 
the number of servicemembers who lost their lives in combat in 
Afghanistan last year. According to the VA, 22 veterans commit suicide 
each day based on data collected from more than 21 States.
  Last year, the Senate adopted this amendment by unanimous consent. 
Regrettably, the provision was eliminated at the urging of the Drug 
Enforcement Agency with assurances that the agency was nearing 
completion of regulations that would address the concern.
  One year later, we are still receiving written assurances from the 
DEA that they are ``almost ready'' to complete these regulations. In 
the meantime, prescription drug abuse continues to afflict our service 
men and women and our veterans. We cannot sit idly by for another year 
waiting for the bureaucracy to address this matter of life and death.
  Finally, Senator King and I will offer an amendment to allow 
businesses that are located on a closed military base to draw employees 
from the local community to meet the 35-percent requirement for the 
purposes of qualifying as a HUBZone.
  Congress previously passed a law to assist communities affected by 
previous BRAC rounds by allowing former bases to be eligible for 
HUBZone status, which provides preferences for certain Federal 
contracting opportunities.
  Unfortunately, the law limits the geographic boundaries of a BRAC-
related HUBZone to be the same as the boundaries of the base that was 
closed, which makes it difficult or impossible for businesses to 
qualify for the HUBZone program.
  Our amendment would allow employees that live in nearby census tracts 
to count toward the 35 percent requirement and extend the period of 
eligibility from 5 years to 10 years so Congress' original intent can 
be fulfilled.
  In addition to these amendments, I intend to cosponsor several others 
to further improve the bill.
  Once again, I will support Senator Feinstein's amendment to make 
clear that a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident arrested in the 
U.S. cannot be

[[Page S8440]]

detained indefinitely without charge or trial.
  I am also cosponsoring an amendment with Senator Pryor to make sure 
that our dual status National Guard technicians are treated on an equal 
footing as our Active-Duty personnel. If our Active-Duty personnel are 
exempted from sequestration, then the National Guard dual status 
technicians--who are effectively the equivalent of Active-Duty military 
in the National Guard--should be exempt as well.
  Let me close by thanking Chairman Levin and Ranking Member Inhofe for 
their hard work in putting together a bipartisan bill that addresses 
the needs of our military and our national security.
  Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I strongly oppose efforts to close down 
debate on the National Defense Authorization Act.
  It is a shame that despite being on this bill for four days, we have 
only had two rollcall votes for amendments. Over 400 amendments have 
been filed and we only found time to vote twice.
  This is unacceptable. While I voted against this legislation in 
committee because it clearly and significantly ignored the budget caps 
put in place by sequestration, there are significant provisions worthy 
of support.
  The Senate worked in a bipartisan manner with leadership from the 
junior Senator from New York to consider an amendment to reform and 
modernize our military justice system. This amendment was carefully 
crafted in anticipation that it would receive a roll call vote on the 
Senate floor and I proudly cosponsored and supported this amendment.
  The junior Senator from Indiana had an amendment to help military 
reservists and the National Guard be recognized for their service and 
qualify for veterans' preference in hiring for federal jobs. His 
amendment deserves consideration and a vote.
  Democrats and Republicans in the Armed Services Committee adopted 
several of my amendments to this bill to protect the religious liberty 
of our troops serving here in the United States and overseas. The Armed 
Services Committee also accepted my proposals to prohibit a base 
realignment and closure commission until after the Department of 
Defense conducts an exhaustive review of our overseas bases, and to 
study how the entire United States should be protected against threats 
from a missile launch.
  Also, I am seeking an up-or-down vote or an acceptance of an 
amendment I filed to authorize up to a $10 million reward for any 
information regarding the terrorist attacks against Americans in 
Benghazi, Libya. I have been very flexible in accepting edits and 
changes from the majority in order to speed this process along.
  The same goes for my amendment to protect the Mount Soledad veterans' 
memorial in California. In fact, the senior Senator from California 
filed the exact same legislation. So this is not a political or 
partisan amendment but yet it is still being denied consideration.
  For these reasons and for the obstruction by the Senate majority 
leader who accuses the minority of being obstructionist, I oppose 
ending debate on the National Defense Authorization Act.
  Mr. INHOFE. Would the Chairman yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. I would be happy to yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. INHOFE. Parliamentary inquiry? We were to be given equal time for 
the last 10 minutes. I had 3 minutes. All I want to do is ask a 
question. Am I entitled to do that?
  Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that be allowed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Everything my Chairman has said I agree with. He is 
making my speech for me. It is critical we get the bill. All I am 
saying is I made the statement yesterday that Republicans are entitled 
to some amendments. I am asking now--we were able to get it down to 25 
amendments to be considered. Will the majority consider these 25 
amendments which can be done in half a day? Would he consider that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, there are no Democrat amendments on his 
list.
  Mr. INHOFE. I said 25 amendments. This is our list. You come up with 
your list.
  Mr. LEVIN. We cannot agree with a list of amendments, many of which 
are not agreed to on this side, many of which would be filibustered on 
this side, which would result in just making it impossible for us to 
get to a Defense authorization bill conclusion.
  I ask unanimous consent that a unanimous consent request--which I was 
going to make but I will withhold--that lists 26 amendments, half 
Democratic, half Republican, that I was going to ask consent be adopted 
because they have been cleared--which I understand will be objected to 
so I will not make the unanimous consent request--be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  Levin Amendments on DoD Auth Request

       I ask unanimous consent that prior to the vote on the 
     motion to invoke cloture on S. 1197, the motion to recommit 
     be withdrawn; the pending Levin amendment #2123 be set aside 
     for Senator Gillibrand, or designee, to offer amendment #2099 
     relative to sexual assault; that the amendment be subject to 
     a relevant side-by-side amendment from Senators McCaskill and 
     Ayotte, amendment #2170; that no second degree amendments be 
     in order to either of the sexual assault amendments; that 
     each of these amendments be subject to a 60 affirmative vote 
     threshold; the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the 
     Gillibrand amendment #2099; that upon disposition of the 
     Gillibrand amendment, the Senate proceed to vote in relation 
     to the McCaskill-Ayotte amendment #2170; that there be two 
     minutes equally divided in between the votes; upon 
     disposition of the McCaskill-Ayotte amendment and prior to 
     the cloture vote, the following amendments be in order to the 
     bill and called up, en bloc:
     Inhofe #2031
     Chambliss #2038
     Graham #2062
     Collins #2064
     Thune #2093
     Flake #2263
     Kirk #2287
     Johanns #2348
     Moran #2365
     McCain #2489
     Lee #2453
     Portman #2461
     Cruz #2511
     Gillibrand #2283
     Warner #2415
     Heinrich #2243
     Durbin #2278
     Kaine #2424
     Boxer #2081
     Hagan #2391
     Wyden #2282
     Blumenthal #2121
     Manchin #2251
     Coons #2442
     McCaskill #2171; and
     Levin #2204
       That these amendments be agreed to, en bloc; and the motion 
     to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with 
     no intervening action or debate; that upon disposition of 
     these amendments, the Senate proceed to the cloture vote as 
     provided under the previous order.

                          ____________________