[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 19 (Wednesday, February 4, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S755-S759]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2015--MOTION TO 
                           PROCEED--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
until 2:45 p.m. be equally divided in the usual form, with Senators 
permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I come to the floor in my position as 
the vice chair of the Appropriations Committee to urge the Senate to 
pass a clean Homeland Security appropriations bill.

[[Page S756]]

  Yesterday the Senate rejected a procedural vote to take up the House 
Homeland Security funding bill. This is not about debating the weeds 
over this bill versus that bill. There are two distinct differences. 
The House bill has the funding for fiscal year 2015 in it that would 
take care of every single agency under the Department of Homeland 
Security to defend and protect the Nation, but at the same time it is 
loaded with five immigration riders that we call poison pill riders 
because the President said if legislation to fund Homeland Security 
passes with these five immigration riders, he will veto the bill.
  The President wants to fund an appropriations bill, and so do I. The 
House Homeland Security bill, if taken up by the Senate, would simply 
be a delaying tactic. We would talk, we would debate, we would offer 
lots of amendments on immigration, and after we got lots of amendments 
on immigration it might go to the President. The President would veto 
it, and it would come back, and after all is said and done, more would 
get said than gets done. We have to pass the funding for the protecting 
of the homeland.
  Yesterday the entire world was gripped with poignancy and sorrow 
about the ghoulish murder of a Jordanian pilot. The threat of terrorism 
is in the world--attacks by ISIL on people, the possibility of a lone 
wolf in our own country, a cyber attack in retaliation because we dare 
fight back against ISIL or because we are willing to challenge some of 
the other international predators directed at us. We have to protect 
the United States of America. That is what the Department of Homeland 
Security does. The Department of Defense protects us over there; the 
Department of Homeland Security protects us here.
  After 9/11--one of the worst days in our country's history--the 
Congress came together, and we passed legislation to create the 
Department of Homeland Security so we could take every agency that was 
involved in protecting the homeland and put them under one umbrella so 
they could look out for us. Now we need to look out for them. Every day 
we ask men and women to serve in the Coast Guard, in the Secret 
Service, in the Border Patrol protecting our borders, in Customs making 
sure fraudulent products such as counterfeit drugs are not crossing our 
borders into our country. Now we need to pass that bill. We need to 
make sure we do not have a shutdown or a slamdown when the funding 
expires on February 27.
  In December when I chaired the committee, in the closing hours of the 
past Congress, I worked with my subcommittee chairman, Senator 
Landrieu, the vice chairman of homeland security, Senator Coats, and we 
put together a crucial funding bill that totalled $46 billion to invest 
in agencies that protect us. It was $1 billion more--$1 billion--than 
the continuing resolution. We could have taken up that bill then, but 
there was a desire, because of controversy over the President taking 
Executive actions on immigration, not to do it. So now here we are in 
February. Now it is our time to fund a clean Homeland Security bill.
  Immigration is a serious policy issue. I don't dispute that. It 
deserves serious debate. But don't add it as a series of riders on the 
funding bill; rather, let's take up immigration separately.
  I remind our colleagues that in the last Congress this Senate passed 
a comprehensive immigration bill, only to have it die in the House. So 
we say let's pass our bill again, let's have the House take it up, and 
let's have a real debate on it, but in the meantime, we will have 
funded the Homeland Security bill.
  This isn't Barb Mikulski talking about more government spending. 
Every past head of the Department of Homeland Security has urged the 
Senate to pass a separate bill. Tom Ridge, the original chief executive 
of this agency; Michael Chertoff, who also served under President Bush; 
and Janet Napolitano are calling for it, and so am I.
  Right now our Coast Guard is out there safeguarding our waterways. We 
in Maryland just love our Coast Guard. We love them because, No. 1, 
they are always there for search and rescue; No. 2, they are always 
there to protect our bay. Whether it is against a possible oilspill or 
drug dealers trying to sneak up the bay, they are there. We also know 
how brave they were. We all recall how, with helicopters, they went in 
and rescued people during the horrific Hurricane Katrina, and they do 
it every day.
  Then there is the Secret Service. The Secret Service is in the 
process of reforming itself. They need to protect the President, the 
Vice President, the First Families. But you know what--they are also 
out there being the government G-men, fighting things such as credit 
card fraud.
  Then there are the cyber warriors protecting our critical 
infrastructure--our banking, our power grid.
  Then there is FEMA, which right now is responding to disasters, 
whether it is a blizzard or a hurricane.
  Then there are State and local responders. One of the programs I am 
so proud of in the Department of Homeland Security is the Fire Grant 
Program. The Fire Grant Program is a competitive grant program--not an 
earmarked program, a competitive grant program--where local fire 
departments, particularly those in our rural communities, can apply for 
a grant to buy the necessary equipment they need to protect them so 
they can protect us.
  I know the Presiding Officer is familiar with this in Nebraska. 
Turnout gear for a firefighter--the respiratory equipment to protect 
their breathing, the telecommunications, the fire-retardant/repellent 
material--can cost as much as $1,000 to $2,000 per firefighter. They 
cannot do this with pancake breakfasts. They cannot do it with fish 
fries and chicken dinners. They need the help of their own government 
to help them.
  So I say let's pass a clean Homeland Security bill. Let's stop 
terrorist threats. Let's secure our borders. Let's safeguard our 
waterways. Let's make sure we are protecting our homeland and move to a 
clean bill.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and 
ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided between the 
parties.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Thank you, Madam President.
  I was very pleased to hear the ranking member of the Appropriations 
Committee, Senator Mikulski, who has done such great work on the 
committee in putting together the bipartisan agreement that was 
negotiated last December with the chairman of the House Appropriations 
Committee, Congressman Rogers. That was a bill which, as the Senator 
pointed out, funded the efforts of the Department of Homeland Security 
to keep people safe, to address emergencies, to try to protect us from 
cyber security threats--a whole range of efforts at the Department.
  I want Senator Mikulski to hear a comment that I understand was made 
by the House Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee chairman 
John Carter, who is a Republican from Texas. When he was asked about 
what the outcome of this debate would be on funding the Department of 
Homeland Security, his comment was, ``Ultimately, there may be a clean 
bill.''
  Well, I say to Senator Mikulski, if the House Republicans and the 
chair of the subcommittee in the House are acknowledging that 
ultimately there may be a clean bill to fund the Department to do what 
was negotiated by you and Congressman Rogers last December, doesn't it 
make sense that we should get a clean bill done as soon as possible so 
there is certainty for the Department of Homeland Security so they can 
continue the planning efforts and they can continue to address the 
threats to our national security? Shouldn't we just get this done now 
and stop this ideological fighting and putting at risk people of this 
country because somebody has an ideological concern about this bill?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. First of all, I thank the Senator for bringing 
Representative Carter's comments to my attention. I absolutely agree 
with the Senator's analysis and also with the comments by 
Representative Carter. We

[[Page S757]]

should have a sense of urgency in passing the Homeland Security bill. 
The terrorists and the bad guys--whether they are organized crime 
trying to get across our borders, whether they are the terrorists 
watching us--they are saying: Hey, they are so busy fighting each 
other, they don't have time to think about fighting us. They are 
watching us and laughing at us because while we squabble and quibble 
and dribble, they are out there plotting against us.
  I say to the ranking member of the subcommittee, I do think there is 
a sense of urgency.
  I also wish to comment on the House. When we were working in the 
closing hours on the actual money part of the bill, I found remarkable 
bipartisan consensus. Left to our own analysis about how to be wise 
stewards of the taxpayer dollars for important security investments, 
there was wide bipartisan agreement. There may have been a different 
priority here or there, but by and large we knew exactly which public 
investments to make. And you know what--we did it within the caps, we 
did it within the allocation, and we got the job done.
  We could do this job this afternoon. I feel a great sense of urgency 
because while the bad guys are plotting against us, we are busy 
plotting how we can fight each other.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I certainly agree with the ranking 
member of the Appropriations Committee. I will just point out that in 
the last 2 days, we have heard from the Conference of Mayors, which has 
urged us to pass a clean bill to fund the Department of Homeland 
Security. We have heard from the emergency managers across this country 
who are concerned about the risks of assistance for disaster relief and 
for FEMA, and today we got a letter from the National Association of 
Counties urging the passage of a clean bill to ensure that the safety 
of our communities can be maintained.
  As the Senator said, we should not put these communities at risk, the 
efforts that are going on across this country to keep the Nation safe, 
because there are those people who are angry at the President about an 
Executive action. We can have that debate, but we should have that 
debate separately. We need to fund the Department of Homeland Security 
now to ensure that there are no risks to our citizens.
  I thank Senator Mikulski and the Presiding Officer.
  I yield the floor.
  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. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, yesterday I spoke about the importance of 
voting yes to proceed to the Department of Homeland Security 
appropriations bill for 2015, H.R. 240. That motion was unsuccessful. 
Despite all the voices from the other side of the aisle expressing 
support for the Department of Homeland Security, they refused to 
actually proceed to debate the bill.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle have expressed concern that 
the bill is not 100 percent of what they want. In my experience, it is 
rare for anyone to get 100 percent of what they want when it comes to 
passing legislation, and that is certainly true when it comes to 
passing an appropriations bill. I am not talking about a vote on final 
passage or even a vote on amendments. I am talking about a vote to 
proceed to the debate on this bill. In addition to having the 
opportunity to offer amendments, an important part of the debate on a 
bill is the ability of any Senator to raise a budget point of order.
  My counterpart, the distinguished ranking member of the Homeland 
Security Appropriations Subcommittee, has pointed out that there are 
budget points of order against the bill. But the point I would make is 
that in order for her to raise the budget point of order, you have to 
actually proceed to the bill.
  I am certainly willing to acknowledge her budget points of order, 
which she brought up on the floor yesterday, but the point I am making 
is we have to proceed to the bill in order to debate those budget 
points of order and, in fact, vote on them.
  The minority refuses to move to the bill because they object to the 
amendments added by the House of Representatives. The House went 
through its process, and now it is time for the Senate to go through 
its process. That is how the system works. That is regular order.
  Last week, after the consideration of many amendments, we passed the 
Keystone XL Pipeline bill with a bipartisan vote of 62 Senators. There 
were rollcall votes on 41 amendments.
  Since I introduced the Keystone bill, I would have thought it would 
have been great if we could have just passed it with an up-or-down 
vote, but that is not how the Senate is designed to legislate. Instead, 
we vote to proceed to a bill so we can debate it, offer amendments, and 
work to develop consensus.
  I am aware that it has been a long time since we had regular order in 
the Senate. We are not used to bringing a bill to the floor and 
debating amendments. But instead of embracing regular order, something 
we were denied in the previous Congress, we can't even proceed to 
debate and offer amendments on this bill--an important bill that we 
need to take up and address.
  The contents of H.R. 240 represent the bipartisan prerogatives and 
priorities of Congress. Again, the House went through its process. What 
we are asking for now is for the Senate to do the same--to go through 
the process, go to the bill, and do the work we were sent here to do.
  I discussed the merits of the bill at length earlier, but I will go 
through some of the highlights again just to remind my colleagues what 
is in the bill and why we are here. This bill will support the economic 
prosperity, public safety, and security of the American people.
  This bill provides $39.67 billion in net discretionary 
appropriations, plus $6.4 billion in disaster funding. That includes 
$10.7 billion for Customs and Border Protection, CBP, and that is an 
increase of $119 million over fiscal year 2014. It supports record 
levels of personnel, tactical infrastructure technology, and air and 
marine assets.
  The bill provides $5.96 billion for Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement, ICE. It maintains a record 34,000 adult detention beds and 
3,828 family detention beds.
  The bill provides strong support for the Secret Service, an 
organization that requires congressional oversight, given some of the 
recent incidents, and is $81 million above fiscal year 2014 funding.
  The bill provides the funding necessary to construct the National Bio 
and Agro-Defense Facility, NBAF, in Manhattan, KS.
  It provides more than $10 billion for the Coast Guard, including the 
8th National Security Cutter, and takes a serious step to address the 
near-term, heavy-ice breaker needs with $8 million for preserving the 
ship Polar Ice.
  The bill supports our cyber security efforts, both protecting 
government operations and working with the private sector to share 
threat information and protective measures.
  Since homeland security is a national effort, the bill provides 
continued funding for grant programs to State and local firefighters, 
emergency managers, and law enforcement.
  The bill also provides for research and development, TSA's aviation 
security screening operations, the Federal Law Enforcement Training 
Center, and E-Verify, which supports businesses across the United 
States in hiring legal workers.
  Finally, the bill provides a requested $7 billion for the Disaster 
Relief Fund to assist with recovery costs for communities when they are 
hit by natural disasters.
  What the bill does not fund is the President's Executive actions. The 
House bill includes several amendments that are targeted at reversing 
the President's actions and articulating priorities for immigration 
enforcement. If that is concerning to my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle, then allow us to proceed to the bill so we can debate 
these important issues.
  We have returned to regular order in this Chamber, and with that 
comes the responsibility to debate, offer amendments, and vote on 
legislation. That is

[[Page S758]]

what we are asking to do, and that is what we are calling on our 
colleagues to do. That is what the American people want us to do. That 
is what we are here to do.

  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of proceeding to H.R. 240 so we 
can do our work.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, will my colleague from North Dakota, the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security, yield for a 
question?
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I will.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I appreciate the work my colleague has done on this 
funding bill, and I think we certainly agree on the funding that is in 
the bill. That is not what the debate we are having is about.
  I ask the Senator from North Dakota if he has heard the comments of 
Chairman John Carter of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Homeland Security, a Republican from Texas, who said: ``Ultimately, 
there may be a clean bill.''
  If the House is acknowledging that ultimately we may have a clean 
bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security, doesn't it make sense 
that we would move forward to get this funding done, and we would make 
sure there is certainty to address the risks facing this country?
  We can debate immigration. I don't think there is anybody on the 
Democratic side who doesn't want to have an immigration debate. We are 
happy to have it. But we should have that as a separate debate. As the 
Republican majority knows, they control the debate in the Senate. So 
they can decide to bring up an immigration bill as soon as we pass 
funding for the Department of Homeland Security. So I hope, as the 
House suggests, ultimately there is going to be a clean bill and that 
we would pass it as soon as possible to provide certainty and then move 
on to debate the other issues facing this country.
  I ask my colleague from North Dakota if he has spoken to the chairman 
of the House Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee, and does he 
share his view that ultimately there may be a clean bill?
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to respond to the question of 
my counterpart on the Subcommittee on Homeland Security in the Senate, 
and I want to begin by acknowledging and stating again that I enjoy 
working with her. We have worked together on other committees and other 
issues, and I think there will be other issues we will work on 
together.
  I am pleased to have this discussion with her because this is exactly 
the kind of debate we are asking for. We are asking to proceed to this 
bill so we can debate and, in fact, offer amendments. So what we are 
saying is--whether it is our colleagues on the House side or whether it 
is Members of the Senate--let's follow regular order, have the 
discussion, have the debate, offer amendments, and see where we end up.
  Now, I believe the President's actions exceeded his authority in 
regard to his Executive order regarding immigration. Let's have that 
debate. Let's go to the bill so we can actually do the work we were 
sent here to do, where we discuss, debate, and offer amendments. If my 
esteemed colleague feels there is an amendment she should offer that 
would change this bill to bring it in line with the opinions of House 
Members or other Members of the Senate, then she will have the 
opportunity to do that, as will her colleagues, as will we. That is the 
point.
  So the answer to the question is: We don't know where we end up if we 
don't get started. So let's get started. That is what we are saying. 
Please join with us. Just as in our committee, we will have many 
committee meetings where we will debate issues and where we will take 
amendments from our fellow Senators who are on that committee. But we 
can't do that if we don't bring the bill to the committee and get 
started. That is what we are asking to do on the Senate floor.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I point out to my colleague that Senator 
Mikulski and I have introduced a clean bill that addresses funding for 
the Department of Homeland Security.
  The fact is we find ourselves in this situation on the appropriations 
bill because of the riders that were attached by the House of 
Representatives. Those riders defund immigration directives that were 
issued by the President last year.
  Yesterday, the senior Senator from Texas suggested that Senate 
Democrats don't want to debate immigration. In fact, we are happy to 
debate immigration. In fact, this body, in 2013, passed a comprehensive 
immigration reform bill with a very strong bipartisan vote.
  The debate we are having today is about whether we are going to fund 
the Department of Homeland Security. The bill that is before us raises 
concerns about what is in the original clean bill that funds the 
Department of Homeland Security.
  As the Senator from North Dakota and I were just discussing, Senate 
Republicans control the Senate. If they want to vote on immigration 
measures, they can bring a bill that would do that to the floor by the 
end of this week because they control what we consider in the Senate. 
But the issue that is before us today is whether we are going to fund 
the Department of Homeland Security. This is an issue that is critical 
because right now our Nation faces serious national security and 
terrorism threats.
  This bill is not about the President's Executive action; it is about 
whether we are going to fund the Department of Homeland Security. Since 
we have heard from so many of our Republican colleagues that they want 
to discuss immigration and border security, I spent some time yesterday 
speaking about all of the important investments that a clean, full-year 
funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security would make in our 
border security. If we don't pass a clean funding bill, we will fail to 
make significant upgrades to technology on the border. We will fail to 
fund expanded enforcement activities for immigration officers. If we 
are serious about border security, we should support a clean full-year 
bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 3 more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I thank the Chair.
  I also think it is instructive at this time to note for the Record 
that included in the Executive actions that Republicans are trying to 
defund are provisions that increase border security, prioritize 
enforcement resources, and ensure accountability in our immigration 
system. The House bill that is before us today defunds--takes away the 
money--for the new policy of prioritizing criminals and national 
security threats for removal from the United States. So one of the 
orders that have been issued by DHS that Republicans want to defund 
directs law enforcement officers to place top priority on removing 
national security threats, convicted felons, gang members, and illegal 
entrants apprehended at the border.
  The House bill also defunds increased and strategic border security.
  Another one of the memos issued by DHS is on the Southern Border and 
Approaches Campaign, which establishes three joint task forces to 
reduce the terrorism risks to the Nation, combat transnational criminal 
organizations, and prevent the illegal flow of people and goods along 
our border. So that is another part of this legislation our colleagues 
want to defund.
  It doesn't make sense, if we are concerned about border security, 
that we would want to pass a bill that includes measures to defund 
these efforts.
  I understand my time has expired. I certainly hope everybody 
understands what the bill before us, which includes those five House 
riders, would actually do.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to respond to some 
of the points made by the Senator from New Hampshire. She indicated 
defunding provisions, but understand that this relates to Executive 
action undertaken by the President. The very same prioritization in 
terms of enforcement is funded in the underlying bill

[[Page S759]]

for enforcement of immigration law. Those prioritizations are there.
  The other point I wish to make is that the Senator speaks about 
funding the Department of Homeland Security and their desire to fund 
the Department of Homeland Security. That is exactly what this bill 
does. This bill fully funds the Department of Homeland Security. There 
really is consensus between the House and the Senate that it does it 
very well. That is what this bill does. It funds the Department of 
Homeland Security.
  So they are saying they want to fund the Department of Homeland 
Security. That is what this bill does, and that is why we have to 
proceed to it in order to accomplish full-year funding for DHS.
  The third point I will make briefly is that the Senator referred to a 
bill that she is sponsoring with the Senator from Maryland to fund 
DHS--to fund the Department of Homeland Security--and she wants to 
proceed to that bill. Well, the way to do that is to vote with us to 
get on the bill before us--H.R. 240--and then they can offer that as an 
amendment, and we will debate it and we will have the vote.
  So if the Senator from New Hampshire wishes to have the opportunity 
to debate her legislation and vote on her legislation, then let's vote 
to invoke cloture on this motion to proceed, let's proceed to the bill, 
and we will allow our colleagues to offer amendments which we can 
debate and vote on. We are offering the other side the opportunity to 
do exactly what they have asked to do.
  Most importantly, again, I wish to go back to the point I just made. 
This bill fully funds the Department of Homeland Security for the full 
year, and we are being blocked from going to the bill, debating the 
bill, allowing amendments on the bill, and getting to the final product 
for the American people, while working with the House. Remember, we 
have to produce a product that passes the House, too, to fund the 
Department of Homeland Security for this country.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to the motion to 
reconsider the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to 
H.R. 240.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the motion to 
invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 240.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The motion was agreed to.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to H.R. 240, making appropriations for the Department 
     of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2015.
         Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Richard Burr, Jerry Moran, 
           John Thune, Johnny Isakson, Marco Rubio, Roy Blunt, Pat 
           Roberts, Deb Fischer, John Boozman, David Vitter, Tim 
           Scott, Roger F. Wicker, Richard C. Shelby, Michael B. 
           Enzi, Rand Paul.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to H.R. 240, an act making appropriations for the 
Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 2015, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close, upon 
reconsideration?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 52 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kirk
     Lankford
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--47

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). On this vote, the yeas are 53, 
the nays are 47.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The Senator from Indiana.

                          ____________________