[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for the quorum call be rescinded.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.

                          ____________________