[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 181 (Thursday, December 19, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9064-S9068]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014--Continued
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we all have various people from other
departments and agencies in our government on occasion who help us in
our offices. Being a member of the Armed Services Committee, I have had
the pleasure to have a number of fine defense fellows serve in my
office and help us prepare the Defense bill and deal with other issues
of importance.
Commander Joe Carrigan is another one of these very fine fellows. He
is one of the best we have ever had. He has a good strategic mind, he
works extremely hard, he is always thoughtful, and he is a delight to
have in the office.
We have been talking about our military personnel and their
retirement benefits. Remember, unlike other government employees, they
are on call anytime, any day, to be sent anyplace in the world at the
very risk to their lives and physical well-being. In addition, they
work long hours. They have no thought to object to being asked to work
a weekend or a night or 24 hours without sleep to do some task they are
called upon to do, and they get no overtime for it. It is just the way
it is done in the military because when a challenge is out there, they
act.
I know some point out the weaknesses in this large entity, the
Defense Department, and some of the management problems that arise. But
I have to say without any doubt whatsoever that the institution has
quality people--people of integrity, men and women who love their
country and serve their country and do whatever you ask them to do. I
see that every day when we work with people such as Commander Carrigan.
And he will be successful in whatever he does and in whatever his next
assignment will be.
So as we wrap up this Defense bill, I would like to thank him for his
service and to thank all of our men and women in uniform who do their
work, and I hope that we in the Congress can be worthy of their trust.
I yield the floor.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, saner heads have prevailed. I think the
news that we just received brought a much more reasonable way of moving
forward rather than two more all-nighters with votes every 4 hours or
so. It was not pleasing for anyone, particularly during the Christmas
season. It was totally unnecessary to do this, had there not been some
precipitating factors. I did not come down here to point fingers. There
is frustration on both sides, frustrations on the Democratic side with
Republicans--but I do not think it has been explained, what caused
Republicans to become so concerned and so frustrated and frankly so
angry over the way that the rules were broken to change the rules,
something that has been precious to this body for its more than 200
years, and that is the uniqueness of the ability of a minority to have
a say in legislation, to amend or at least to offer amendments. They
may succeed, they may not succeed, but to have a voice.
I think those who have not served here in the past and have never
been in the minority cannot begin to appreciate that right. I started
in the House of Representatives where the majority rules. That is the
way the Founding Fathers established that body. But they said they
wanted the Senate to be different, a place where the passions could be
cooled, where debate could be held, where amendments could be offered,
where laws could be changed or modified. Members were given a 6-year
term so they would not have the pressure of running for election in
just months out or a year out; so they could step back and simply say
let's look at the longer view, the larger view.
In my first time here in the Senate, that practice was led by the
Democratic leaders and Republican leaders. The majority changed. I came
here with a Democratic leader who was eminently fair to the minority
and insisted, as did many Members, none more vividly and with emotion
and commitment than did Robert Byrd, the Democrat from West Virginia,
who probably knew more about procedures and the history of the Senate
than all the other Senators combined. Read his volumes.
We would listen to Robert Byrd, respecting how he respected this
institution. I experienced under Robert Byrd, then Republican Bob Dole,
and then Tom Daschle, Democrat, Trent Lott, Republican--I experienced
respect for the rights of the minority even though I was in the
majority. They were sacrosanct. No one stood up and said let's take
those rights away. Those who did were shot down by their own party. Our
party made an attempt at that. Sense and reason prevailed. It was
imposed by those who had been here, saying you need to understand the
unique role of the Senate that has been created by our Founding
Fathers, enshrined in the Constitution, 225 years of tradition and
history.
To have the majority leader, the Senator from Nevada, come here and
say we are taking that away, what we had promised to do; that is, keep
the rules--we are going to break them and we are going to impose on you
because you are dragging out the time it takes to secure nominations.
We are going to impose on you. We are going to take away your minority
rights and we are going to rule by majority.
As I said, I understand the frustration that must have been felt on
the other side of the aisle when Members would delay the confirmation
of nominees. Why were Republicans doing that? They were doing that
because the majority leader was using a technique to deny us amendments
on any number of bills.
[[Page S9065]]
Everyone here has constituent interests, their own interests. They
come to the Senate, they want to move forward with an agenda. When you
are in the minority you know that the chances of passing that are slim
unless you get support from the other side. That is why we cosponsor
with Democrats when we want to try to move something, to see if they
can convince their Members to join us. That is the way this place has
always worked.
But under the process of the so-called filling of the tree--I know
people in the world say what in the world are you talking about,
filling the tree? It is a procedural method which denies the minority
the right to offer amendments. I do not have the statistics in front of
me, but the majority leader has imposed that time after time. So the
frustration just kept building here, day after day, week after week,
month after month, year after year, of Members who said: I came to the
Senate. I don't have a voice. I do not have the ability to even bring
up my amendment.
What are we afraid of, taking a vote? If you cannot take a vote and
go home and explain your vote to people, then you should not be here.
You vote for what you believe in. You vote for what you think your
State and your constituents who sent you here believe in. Some you win,
some you lose, but at least you have the opportunity to make your case.
So, month after month, year after year, under the leadership of
Senator Reid, increasingly that right has been taken away. The
frustration boils up from our feeling like--forget it. Forget 225 years
of history. Forget how the Founding Fathers decided to structure this
democratic function. Forget how past leaders, Republicans and
Democrats, held this as sacrosanct, a right for the minority, the
minority voice.
Here is the party that says we got elected by a majority and
therefore the minority has no say. Those who have not served in the
minority will not understand the denial of the right to express your
view and have it put before this body for a vote. You can get up and
talk about it but you cannot get it to a vote, so talk is cheap. Until
they experience that, I am afraid, they will not have an understanding
of how we need to get back to what this body was intended to be.
I want my colleagues who have imposed this in support of the majority
leader's tactics of denying Members the ability to offer an amendment
regardless of what it is for--I want my colleagues to understand that
is where the frustration came from. And that is why we are trying to
use whatever rules we have left to send the message that you are
stiffing us. You are denying us the very right that we worked so very
hard to come to have here.
I am making a plea, I guess, that we sit down and have an adult
conversation about how to make this place more efficient, how to make
it more effective but do so in a way that allows the minority the right
to participate in the process.
Going through the exercise we have gone through for the last few
weeks with votes every 2 hours, sleeping on cots in our office or
sleeping on the couch, coming down here in the middle of the night to
vote--if we are talking about something serious for the country that
needs that kind of debate, I am not saying we shouldn't do that. If it
is a defense bill or a critical issue, such as a fiscal issue or a
foreign policy issue, that is what this place is all about. If it takes
us well into the night on something substantive like that, then we want
to preserve that. But it is over the nomination of a district judge--
and the statistics show that the majority party has virtually gotten
every one they wanted.
Just recently the Republicans said that somehow we have to send a
message that we are being shut out, and we were shut out by a majority
vote of the Democratic Party which basically told Republicans: Forget
the history. Forget the past. Sit down. You have no role.
I hope we can get back from that because it is so important for the
future of this country to have a deliberative body that has the time
and opportunity to debate, to offer amendments, and to fashion
legislation in a bipartisan fashion. Maybe we have learned that lesson;
maybe we haven't. There is a lot of rancor here right now.
I am glad we came to an agreement to have two votes at 11:15 this
evening, and then we will move the process to six votes tomorrow
morning, and then we will be able to go home and enjoy Christmas with
our families.
I think the solution to this is not to throw daggers at each other
but to sit down and think things through. Maybe we need to reach back
to some of the writings of Robert Byrd. Maybe we need to reach back to
some of the stirring words that were spoken by the majority telling
their own Members: Don't go there. You are taking away the very essence
of the U.S. Senate.
One of the Members on the Democratic side who has many years of
experience here--many more than I--made that plea. Unfortunately, it
wasn't listened to by Members in his caucus. I think if we could step
back and we could look at the history of those in the majority doing
everything they could to protect the rights of those in the minority,
we would recognize that there is a better way to go forward than what
we have done here.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative
clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum be
rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Manufacturing Jobs
Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I come to the floor once again to talk
about manufacturing jobs. This week, under Senator Amy Klobuchar's
leadership, the Joint Economic Committee released a report that
thoroughly and thoughtfully lays out why manufacturing jobs have such
promise and how Congress can act to help spur manufacturing job
creation now and into the future.
The report shows that today manufacturing jobs are high-quality jobs,
that they pay better than jobs in any other sector in wages and
benefits, and that they help create more local service sector
jobs, that they contribute more to the local economy, and that
manufacturers invest the most in private sector R&D of any sector in
our country.
Manufacturing, as the Presiding Officer well knows, has long played
an important role in our Nation's economy, has served as our economic
backbone, and has built the American middle class. But over the past 60
years, manufacturing in our country has changed, gradually and then
dramatically. As our economy and the world have changed, so has the
nature of manufacturing and the playing field on which we can and must
compete.
Due to global competition and the worst recession since the Great
Depression, we lost 6 million manufacturing jobs in the United States
in the first decade of this century. We are now on our way back, but we
are well short of where we were in 2000. We have gained 550,000
manufacturing jobs over the last 3 years, and that gives me real hope.
In just the last 6 months, we have seen new signals that our
manufacturing sector continues to be on the rebound.
A new report from the Institute for Supply Management shows the U.S.
manufacturing sector grew last month at its fastest pace in 2\1/2\
years, and hiring has reached an 18-month high. The value of our
manufacturing exports has grown 38 percent in the last 4 years, and
those exports now account for nearly 3 million jobs on American shores.
But, as the Presiding Officer and I well know and as many of our
colleagues know, we need to invest more in that success and in that
growth, in the private sector and in the public sector.
Overall, this is great news, about the slow, but real, steady
recovery of our manufacturing sector. The reason we are coming back is
the United States is actually poised to compete in advanced
manufacturing, in the manufacturing economy of this century. In the
21st century, manufacturing is fundamentally different than it was in
our past. Rather than repeating the same simple tasks over and over,
workers must now carry out far more complex and varying tasks. They
need to be critical thinkers and problem solvers. They
[[Page S9066]]
have to do math and communicate with each other in writing and as a
team and work in ways simply not expected 20 or 30 years ago.
Crucially, they need to understand the entire manufacturing process in
a way that wasn't necessary before. Yes, there are machines doing a lot
of work, but we need workers who can oversee them and understand them
to keep our steady, growing benefits to increase productivity.
Manufacturers can't rely on someone from outside our country to fix a
problem every time there is one. Today they rely on their workers to
troubleshoot on the fly. Our workers need to continue to be some of the
most productive in the world and, to do that, they need to be more
skilled than ever, particularly because they are overseeing highly
complex operations.
The manufacturing floor today, as this report reminds us, is no
longer the dirty, dingy, dangerous manufacturing workplace of 150 years
ago. Today it is clean, high tech, highly productive, and it needs a
highly skilled workforce. We can win by training our workers for these
jobs.
While some nations engage in a race to the bottom on environmental
labor and wage standards, this isn't the playing field we can or should
try to win. Fortunately, we already have the tools to lead the way in
manufacturing, in an innovation-centered economy.
This Joint Economic Committee report outlines how low-energy costs,
due to greatly expanded natural gas supplies, a highly skilled
workforce relative to much of the rest of the world, and having still
the world's best universities, all in combination give us a real
fighting chance. American manufacturing, I am convinced, is poised for
a takeoff.
Now we have this report from the Joint Economic Committee which shows
us just that. It shows why we should remain optimistic about American
manufacturing, if we can simply in this body harness the will to act.
This report frankly lays out a lot of why we have created Manufacturing
Jobs for America.
Manufacturing Jobs for America is a campaign. It is a campaign to
build support for good manufacturing legislation that Democrats and
Republicans can agree on. So far, 26 Democratic Senators have come
together to contribute 44 bills to a conversation; 31 of those bills
have already been introduced in this body, and almost half of them have
bipartisan cosponsors. We are actively seeking Republican cosponsors on
the rest.
Our goal overall is to generate more and work more closely with
Republicans to build consensus for bills that can pass the Senate, pass
the House, and go to the White House to become law. We want to see
manufacturing bills that can really help put Americans back to work.
I am grateful for the leadership of Senator Debbie Stabenow who,
along with her cochair, Senator Lindsey Graham, led the bipartisan
manufacturing caucus that is helping take great ideas and bills
generated through this initiative and turn them into solid, bipartisan
bills.
This Joint Economic Committee report emphasizes that there are four
key areas where we have to focus to create manufacturing jobs now and
in the future and they are exactly the areas that the Manufacturing
Jobs for America initiative centers on as well.
First, we have to strengthen America's workforce. Second, we have to
fight for a more level global playing field so we can open markets
abroad and compete successfully. Third, we need to make it easier for
manufacturers--especially new and small businesses--to access capital,
to invest in research and development as well as new equipment and
products. Fourth, we can and should do more to ensure a coordinated,
all-of-government effort in supporting manufacturing by insisting on a
stronger, clearer national manufacturing strategy. Together, across
these four areas, the bills in Manufacturing Jobs for America can have
a real and substantial impact if they become law.
I believe in the power of this initiative because I have seen the
potential of manufacturing up close. In my time in the private sector,
I developed a fierce belief in how we can and must act here in
Washington to support and spur American private sector manufacturing.
Before I came here, much of my work in the private sector was at a
manufacturing company, a materials-based science company that makes
hundreds of products. At one point I was part of a site location team
that had to decide where to locate a new state-of-the-art semiconductor
chip packaging manufacturing plant.
What made the difference? In the ultimate decision it was first and
foremost we needed a skilled and reliable workforce. Second, we wanted
the State, county, and city governments to be responsive and have made
investments in infrastructure. While we also of course considered tax
credits and training grants, the first two really were the main
factors--the skills and capabilities of the workforce at all levels and
the responsiveness of the local government, the State government, and
the Federal Government in investing in infrastructure.
This experience taught me two things: that the advanced manufacturing
sector can thrive in the United States--that facility was located in
America, not overseas; and there is a critical role for government to
play. So if this Congress makes a concerted, across-the-board push to
help create manufacturing jobs in America, I am convinced we can lay a
strong foundation for growth today and tomorrow. The opportunity is
there, just in front of us. We just need to stop the endless partisan
struggles that have dominated this Congress in the last few years and
seize the very real, very positive opportunity in front of us--to lay
out a bipartisan path forward to strengthen the manufacturing sector in
our country.
Together, we can keep our factories humming and lead the way in new
industries in the future. We just need the political will to try. That
is what this effort, Manufacturing Jobs for America, is all about.
I am so grateful to Senator Klobuchar and the Joint Economic
Committee for the Manufacturing Jobs for The Future report and for the
vision it lays out, and I appreciate the effort of all of my colleagues
who contributed great and strong and clear ideas to this Manufacturing
Jobs for America initiative.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence
of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the bill we are about to vote on is a good
bill. It is the product of an extensive bipartisan, bicameral agreement
between the Armed Services Committees of the Senate and the House of
Representatives. We have passed a defense bill every year for the last
51 years. This bill deserves to be the 52nd because, like our previous
bills, it does the right thing for our troops, their families, and our
Nation's security. It passed the House with a vote of 350 to 69, and it
deserves an equally strong bipartisan vote in the Senate tonight.
Yesterday I praised the members of our committee, and I also noted
the amazing work of our staff, and I am not going to repeat that.
This bill is not a Christmas gift to our troops and their families.
Authorizing funding for our troops, supporting our troops and their
families is what we owe them. It is the least we can do, for they are
the gift--they are the gift to this country, to this Nation, and to all
of its people.
I would like to describe some of the many important provisions in
this bill.
The bill includes numerous provisions to sustain the compensation and
quality of life that our service men and women and their families
deserve as they face the hardships imposed by continuing military
operations around the world. For example, our bill reauthorizes over 30
types of bonuses and special pays aimed at encouraging enlistment, re-
enlistment, and continued service by Active Duty and Reserve component
military personnel.
It authorizes $25 million in supplemental impact aid to local
educational agencies with military dependent children and $5 million in
impact aid for
[[Page S9067]]
schools with military dependent children with severe disabilities.
It enhances DOD programs to assist veterans in their transition to
civilian life and increase their opportunities for early employment by
improving access to credentialing programs for civilian occupational
specialties.
It requires the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs to ensure that the electronic health records systems of the two
Departments are interoperable and provide a single integrated display
of data.
The bill also includes funding needed to provide our troops the
equipment and support that they need for ongoing combat,
counterinsurgency, and stability operations around the world. For
example, our bill authorizes $9.9 billion for U.S. Special Operations
Command, including both base budget funding and OCO funding.
It authorizes nearly $1 billion for counter-IED efforts, beginning to
ramp down expenditures in this area, while ensuring that we make
investments needed to protect our forces from roadside bombs.
It provides $6.2 billion in funding to train and equip the Afghan
National Army and Afghan Police, as requested by the commander of U.S.
forces in Afghanistan, so that we can complete the transition of
security responsibility, as planned, by the end of 2014.
It authorizes the Secretary of Defense--upon a determination from the
President that it is in the national security interests of the United
States--to use up to $150 million of amounts authorized for the
Coalition Support Fund account in fiscal years 2013 and 2014 to support
the border security operations of the Jordanian Armed Forces.
It extends global train and equip--section ``1206''--authority
through 2017 to help build the capacity of foreign force partners to
conduct counterterrorism and stability operations.
The bill includes a compromise on Guantanamo, which eases the
transfer of Gitmo detainees overseas, while retaining prohibitions on
transfers to the United States. It includes 36 provisions to strengthen
DOD's response to the problem of sexual assault in our military.
The bill includes hundreds of other important provisions to ensure
that the Department can carry out its essential national defense
missions. For example, Section 121 of the bill increases the cost cap
for the Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier program as requested by the
Department of Defense and tightens cost controls on the program. In the
absence of this provision, DOD would have to stop work on the aircraft
carrier, resulting in the layoff of thousands of workers and an
additional cost of up to $1 billion dollars on the Ford and subsequent
ships.
Section 352 of the bill requires DOD to eliminate the development and
fielding of service-specific combat and camouflage utility uniforms and
instead move to combat and camouflage uniforms that are used by all
members of the Armed Forces. This provision addresses a finding by GAO
that identified DOD's fragmented approach to developing and acquiring
combat uniforms as a significant source of duplication and waste in the
Department.
Section 904 of the bill requires the Secretary of Defense to
streamline DOD management headquarters at all levels by changing or
reducing the size of staffs, eliminating tiers of management, cutting
functions that provide little or no added value, and consolidating
overlapping and duplicative programs and offices. We expect this
provision to save $40 billion or more over the next 10 years.
Section 1024 of the bill allows the Secretary of the Navy to settle
20-year old litigation arising from the default termination of the
contract for the production of the A-12 aircraft. Under the proposed
settlement authorized by this provision the Navy will receive ships and
aircraft worth almost $400 million at no cost to the government.
Section 1098 of the bill authorizes the Department of Defense to
transfer unneeded aircraft to the Forest Service, providing the Forest
Service with much-needed replacements for aging wildfire suppression
aircraft. This provision was based on a Senate floor amendment which we
were unable to adopt even though it had been cleared on both sides.
Section 1302 of the bill authorizes the use of funds available under
the Cooperative Threat Reduction--CTR--program to eliminate Syrian
chemical weapons. This provision will give DOD the funding flexibility
that it says it needs to carry out the destruction of these dangerous
weapons, as provided by our agreements with the Russians and others.
Section 2807 of the bill requires that all future military
construction projects funded using in-kind payments from partner
nations under an international agreement be submitted for congressional
authorization. That may not sound like a big deal, but this provision
is the result of a yearlong investigation by the committee staff, in
which we learned that DOD was using in-kind payments from our allies to
fund questionable military construction projects without appropriate
oversight.
Section 2941 through 2946 of the bill authorize a new land withdrawal
to expand the Marine Corps training range at 29 Palms in California.
This provision was the No. 1 legislative priority of the Marine Corps
this year. As the Commandant of the Marine Corps explained in an August
29 letter to the committee, the Marine Corps has spent more than 6
years analyzing and preparing for this expansion to ensure that the
Corps can meet its minimum training criteria for live fire and maneuver
training. The Commandant's letter explains:
Although Twentynine Palms has served the Marine Corps well
since the 1940s, it is currently inadequate to properly train
our Marine Palms is my top legislative priority. Successful
MEB training requires coordinated simultaneous air and ground
live fire in concert with ground maneuvers over a 48-72 hour
period involving 15,000 Marines. Although a MEB is our
principal fighting force, we currently lack sufficient
training space to train a MEB-sized unit. The Marine Corps
proposes to correct this training and readiness shortfall by
expanding Twentynine Palms through the withdrawal and
acquisition of 168,000 acres in the Johnson Valley area.
These are just a few examples drawn from hundreds of provisions in
this bill. As Gen Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, told us last week, the authorities included in this bill ``are
critical to the Nation's defense and urgently needed to ensure we all
keep faith with the men and women, military and civilian, selflessly
serving in our Armed Forces.''
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. REID. Has all time expired?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. It has.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the motion to concur
with the amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The motion is withdrawn.
The question is on agreeing to the motion to concur.
Mr. VITTER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 84, nays 15, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 284 Leg.]
YEAS--84
Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Fischer
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kaine
[[Page S9068]]
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Rubio
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
NAYS--15
Barrasso
Coburn
Corker
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Flake
Lee
Merkley
Paul
Risch
Sanders
Sessions
Shelby
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Nelson
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The motion to concur in the House
amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3304 is agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay
that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
____________________