[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.
____________________