[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 20]
[Senate]
[Pages 27222-27227]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
        RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair lay before the Senate 
a message from the House to accompany H. R. 3010, the Labor-HHS 
appropriations bill; provided further, that the Senate request a 
conference with the House, and that the Chair be authorized to appoint 
conferees. I further ask that prior to the Chair appointing the 
conferees, Senator Specter be recognized in order to make a motion to 
instruct the conferees on the issue of LIHEAP; provided further, that 
there be debate divided with Senators as follows: 10 minutes for 
Senator Reed, 7 minutes for Senator Harkin, 5 minutes for Senator 
Specter, 5 minutes for Senator Cochran. I further ask that following 
that time, the motion be temporarily set aside and Senator Durbin be 
recognized to make a motion to instruct relating to NIH, and there be 
15 minutes for debate for Senator Durbin on that motion, and that 
following the use or yielding back of debate time, the Senate vote on 
the motions to instruct in the order offered, and following those 
votes, the Chair then immediately appoint conferees on the part of the 
Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask for one modification, that Chairman 
Specter be given 5 minutes to speak on the motion to instruct relating 
to NIH following Senator Durbin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Isakson) laid before the Senate a message 
from the House of Representatives, having had under consideration the 
report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 3010) 
entitled ``An Act making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, 
Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.''
  Resolved, That the House insist upon its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate.

[[Page 27223]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                           Motion to Instruct

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move that the managers, on the part of 
the Senate to the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the Senate amendments to the bill, H. R. 3010, be instructed to 
insist that $2,183,000,000 be available for the Low-Income Home Energy 
Heating Assistance Program and that such funds shall be designated as 
an emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95, of 
the 109th Congress, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal 
year 2006.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is pending. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, the instructions that the Senator from 
Pennsylvania sent to the Chair, in my understanding, would designate 
the full amount of LIHEAP funding that is currently in the 
appropriations bill as emergency spending.
  I understand the motivation. This bill is underfunded. There are 
valuable programs that need additional resources. Both the Senator from 
Pennsylvania and the Senator from Iowa strove mightily to try to 
provide those resources. They are attempting today to try to free up 
about $2 billion to classify some money as emergency spending, LIHEAP 
money. I understand the motivation, but I think it is extremely poor 
policy.
  This LIHEAP program is composed of two components. There is a regular 
formula program which each and every year every State in this country 
depends upon to provide heating and cooling assistance to its citizens.
  The application process begins before the heating and cooling season. 
It is usually conducted from community action centers. This whole 
infrastructure suddenly now is going to be declared an emergency 
process. That would send a terrible signal throughout this country 
about our commitment to low-income heating assistance. It would open a 
situation of uncertainty and a situation that would be 
counterproductive to helping poor people struggling with heating bills 
in the winter and cooling bills in the summer.
  This would, again, in my view, create a terrible precedent. We have 
over the last several weeks in this Chamber supported funding of 
LIHEAP, not on an emergency basis, but on a full authorization basis of 
$5.1 billion. We did it last evening. Unfortunately, because of 
procedural obstacles, we needed 60 votes. Last evening, a majority of 
this Senate voted to increase LIHEAP funding to $5.1 billion, 
offsetting it by a temporary windfall profits tax. Previously, even a 
larger majority of the Senate voted simply to appropriate $5.1 billion. 
Today we are on this floor saying not only are we not talking about 
$5.1 billion, we are talking about the regular formula money in the 
regular program suddenly is an emergency. That is not the emergency 
funding that LIHEAP sometimes gets. This funding supports year in and 
year out the needs of people who we know have low income. They are 
seniors, they are disabled, and they are low-income working families, 
and they will anticipate heating and cooling bills. There is no 
emergency here.
  One of the real problems is, because we call it an emergency, no 
funds can be disbursed until the President declares an emergency. When 
will that declaration take place? Will it take place in August so these 
community action agencies can start requesting applications, processing 
applications, or will it take place in October or November or January? 
If it does, then this is going to cause chaos.
  We were looking weeks ago at the chaos caused in the wake of Katrina 
because Federal programs were not realistically grounded in what was 
happening. This policy is going to throw a monkey wrench into the 
normal operations of the LIHEAP program.
  It also sends a terrible signal, if it is adopted, because we are 
saying that no longer do we have a regular program committed to helping 
poor people--seniors, the disabled--with their heating and cooling 
bills. What we have is something that may or may not exist every year.
  I know people will stand up and say, Oh, come on, the reality is they 
are going to have to declare it this year as an emergency. I do not 
entirely agree. But more importantly, when next year we are looking, 
under excruciating budget pressure, for additional resources, there 
will be the susceptibility to taking this approach, saying we will use 
this gimmick again. I suspect the administration--I am not the expert 
in budgets, but I expect the administration will say: This is a great 
deal they have handed us. We can send up the programs we like in the 
regular budget and say all of this LIHEAP is just emergency.
  I am terribly concerned about this. Again, we have spent the last 
several weeks in this body, on a bipartisan basis, a majority of our 
colleagues saying not only is this not an emergency program, this is a 
program that should be funded even more than $2.1 billion.
  So I must express my deep opposition to this proposal. I immensely 
respect Senator Harkin and Senator Specter. I know they are laboring 
under excruciating budget constraints that are squeezing out money for 
programs that are necessary for America's families, America's children, 
America's health care, America's future. But in this desperate moment, 
it is not a time to undercut a program that serves every State in this 
country well and serves people who need help, particularly as this 
winter approaches. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague from Rhode 
Island for pointing this out. I cannot find anything about which I 
disagree with him. I think he is right. This is not the way to do 
business, normally.
  These are not normal times, however. We have a small space in which 
we might be able to get something done, and we have to take advantage 
of it. I say to my friend from Rhode Island, I think it is instructive 
for all of us that there is only one appropriations bill cut from last 
year's level--one. Not Commerce, State, Justice, not Transportation, 
not the Housing and Urban Development, not all of the rest--only one 
appropriations was cut. Guess what it deals with: health; human 
services; education; labor. That has been cut. What kind of message are 
we sending to Americans?
  We had a vote on whether to continue the Community Services Block 
Grant program at last year's level. I pointed out a week and a half 
ago, 58 Senators signed a letter--please keep it at last year's levels. 
A week and a half ago they vote to cut it, in some cases 75 percent. 
That is why I put the letter in the Record right after the vote. I want 
people to see the vote and read the letter and see how people signed 
the letter and then how they voted. It is one thing to sign the letter 
around here and I guess another thing to vote.
  I guess what I am expressing is this is a terrible appropriations 
bill that we have for the needs of the American people, for education, 
basic structure of health care and public health, for NIH, for basic 
medical research. This is the first time since 1970 that we have flat-
lined funding for the National Institutes of Health--35 years. That is 
the bill that Senator Specter and I are faced with.
  What we are trying to do is find some way of getting some money for 
health, trauma care, rural emergencies--rural emergency medical 
services was completely eliminated--health community access program, 
community health centers--we will not be able to open one new community 
health center next year under the bill that we go to conference with. 
No Child Left Behind is underfunded; Pell grants are kept at the same 
level for the fourth year in a row. For kids with disabilities, IDEA, 
we are going backward. How many times have we heard, on both sides of 
the aisle, Republicans and Democrats get out here and say we have to 
fully fund IDEA. This bill actually goes backward, from 18.6 percent to 
18 percent.
  That is why Senator Specter and I decided to take this step of having 
a motion to instruct the conferees to take the slightly less than $2.1 
billion

[[Page 27224]]

in LIHEAP and designate it as an emergency for this one time only in 
order for us to get to conference, to put pressure on the House to come 
up with some more money.
  I am not saying this will stay as an emergency in the final bill. My 
hope is we will be able to find the money and come up with something so 
it does not. But if it does, it is only for 1 year. I tell my friend 
from Rhode Island, I will do everything I can, everything humanly 
possible in the Senate to ensure that when it comes up next year, we do 
not have it as an emergency, that we get a better budget allocation.
  But again I have to say I do not want anybody around here hiding 
behind the skirts of the Budget Committee. They say the reason we got a 
bad bill, the reason our bill, the one that funds Health and Human 
Services and Education and Labor--the reason it is cut is because the 
Budget Committee gave us a bad budget.
  Fine. But did you vote for it? Did you vote for the budget? If you 
voted for the budget, you own this bill. Don't hide behind the skirts 
of the Budget Committee. If you voted for the budget, you own it. You 
bought it. So anyone who voted for the budget, this is what you got.
  I share a little frustration on this, also, as you can probably tell. 
But I think in this one case we desperately, drastically need to meet 
the human needs of the people of our country. We are up against almost 
an intransigent House and an administration I think, quite frankly, 
that does not care. If they cared, they wouldn't be treating us like 
this. To them, this is nothing. Community action agencies, LIHEAP? That 
is just poor people. They don't count because they probably don't vote 
anyway, and they certainly don't contribute any money, so therefore why 
even pay attention to them.
  I share the frustration of my friend from Rhode Island. Normally, 
this would not be the way to do it, but as I said, this is an abnormal 
situation in which we find ourselves. If we have to, as a one-shot 
deal, push this into the emergency column so we can help kids with 
disabilities, if we can help getting more health care up for rural 
emergency medical services, if we can help with Head Start, if we can 
help with community health centers--then, for one time, I think we 
ought to do it. That is why I support the Specter motion to instruct 
the conferees to put LIHEAP on an emergency basis for this one time 
only.
  With that, I yield the floor. I think I had 7 minutes, if I am not 
mistaken?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed his time.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield the floor then.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remains 5 minutes 42 seconds for the 
Senator from Rhode Island. Who yields time? Time will be charged 
proportionately against all Senators controlling time.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I understand, under the unanimous consent agreement, 
there are Senators who have been given time prior to the vote. I ask 
those Senators to come over. Otherwise, under the rules of the Senate, 
the time is running as we speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Parliamentary inquiry: Can the Chair state how much time is 
remaining on all sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will attempt to determine that 
number.
  At the outset of the subtraction of the proportional time, the 
Senator from Rhode Island controlled 5 minutes 42 seconds; the Senators 
from Mississippi and Pennsylvania each controlled 5 minutes; 
approximately 4 minutes have been consumed, of which 2 will be charged 
against the Senator from Rhode Island and 1 each to the Senators from 
Pennsylvania and Mississippi. And the clock continues to run.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 2 
minutes prior to the completion of the time so I could respond to the 
comments of the Senator from Pennsylvania and Senator Harkin. I think 
it appropriate that I be able to respond to his comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the appropriations bill on Labor, Health, 
Human Services and Education, in my judgment, as I have said 
repeatedly, is vastly underfunded. The Senate passed a bill within the 
context of our allocation. Working with my colleague, Senator Harkin, 
and our very energetic and devoted staff, we did the very best we could 
with the limited funding. But there simply wasn't enough money to do 
the job.
  Health is our major capital asset. Without health, we can't function. 
Education is our major capital asset for the future, to give 
opportunity for labor and worker training.
  We made the allocations as best we could, but the bill was 
underfunded. I made an effort, joined by Senator Harkin and by the 
subcommittee, to put LIHEAP in an emergency classification for $2.183 
billion.
  I said in the conference that it would enable us to improve the 
bill--not where it ought to be but improve it substantially.
  I conferred with Chairman Regula and considered the projects--or so-
called earmarks--which are $1 billion, where, as a matter of 
longstanding tradition, the Members in both the House and Senate, 
Democrats and Republicans, are enabled with an allocation to make 
designations within their districts or States because we know more 
about our States and our districts than, in many instances, do the 
officials who run the bureaucracy of the U.S. Government.
  I said if we could not get the $2.183 billion emergency declaration 
for LIHEAP that it was going to be my position that we ought not to 
include the earmarks for the projects. When we could not get that 
emergency declaration, we struck the earmarked projects.
  That was a very tough decision. We are paid to make tough decisions 
around here. I can't think of one in the time I have been here more 
disappointing to a lot of people in America who are relying on these 
projects. Although, the $1 billion spread around the country, here and 
there, is not unsubstantial--a lot of people were disappointed. Many 
Members were disappointed that the traditional allocations were not 
made.
  It is my hope that we can put the $2.183 billion into LIHEAP. We are 
facing a drastic situation with fuel costs, as we all know, and as 
significantly occasioned by Hurricane Katrina, which is an emergency. 
If there ever was a clear-cut emergency, it is what the consequences of 
Hurricane Katrina are. The fuel costs are a direct result of that. This 
is a classical, quintessential emergency.
  I think we have the 51 votes to pass it here in the Senate. The 
difficulty is going to be in getting our House colleagues to agree to 
it.
  But I hope we work our way out of this morass and impasse with 
approval of this resolution and ultimate approval by both bodies.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I respect immensely the Senator from 
Pennsylvania and the Senator from Iowa who tried to take a budget that 
is inadequate and fulfill many programs. But I strenuously object to 
the classification of LIHEAP in this way as an emergency program.
  There are two components of LIHEAP. This is a program that has been 
appropriated for years and years and has built up a locked-in structure 
in every State to go ahead and solicit applications and to process the 
applications. They have to have some sense that this program is going 
to be in place, not depending upon our Presidential emergency 
declaration at some time in the year.

[[Page 27225]]

  There is another component which is emergency. That is additional 
funds. But we are creating bad policy and bad precedent.
  There are a number of programs in this Labor-HHS bill that could also 
been declared emergencies.
  We have a children's vaccination program that provides vaccines. The 
States have offices that have to deal with it. They have to predictably 
know they are going to have these funds.
  This is bad policy and bad precedent. It is being forced because the 
budget is inaccurate. I think it is a desperate moment to do this. It 
would send a terrible signal to people throughout this country and 
State and local community agencies that are dedicated to this program 
that they can no longer depend upon the formula for LIHEAP funds which 
they have been now for almost 20 years.
  I hope my colleagues will reject this proposal.
  I yield the floor.


                      motion to instruct conferees

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
motion be set aside and that I may be permitted to file a motion at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Durbin moves that the managers on the part of the 
     Senate at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
     Houses on the bill H.R. 3010 (making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Labor, Health, and Human Services, and 
     Education, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2006, and for other purposes) be instructed to 
     insist on retaining the Senate-passed provisions relating to 
     funding for the National Institutes of Health.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, what I am doing with this motion is making 
a statement of policy that I think most American families would 
support. It is this:
  In this troubled time, when we are having difficulties with our 
budget, the one area we absolutely must protect is medical research at 
the National Institutes of Health.
  Over the last 10 years or more, we have made a concerted effort in 
America to invest more money in medical research, to ultimately double 
the amount of money going into medical research. It is a heroic effort, 
and it is the right thing to do under Presidents of both political 
parties because we understand how vulnerable each and every one of us 
and every member of our family could be with one diagnosis from a 
doctor.
  I salute the chairman of the committee, Senator Specter, and Ranking 
Member Harkin of Iowa. I can't find any stronger advocates for medical 
research than these two Senators.
  The bill that we are considering that came to us from conference is a 
bill which turns its back on all the progress we have made by putting 
money into medical research. Unfortunately, this bill would result in 
our funding the National Institutes of Health at a level inconsistent 
with the pattern of growth that we have seen over the last several 
years.
  Let me be as specific as I can. I have heard from people across 
Illinois about how important medical research is to them and their 
families. My family knows that, and the families of everyone watching 
know it, too.
  Eight-year-old Claire Livingston, who is living with type II 
diabetes, came by my office. More and more children are affected by 
diabetes. Claire checks her blood glucose level several times a day and 
adjusts her medication, her diet, her activity levels. She is bright 
and happy. Her mother wakes her up in the middle of the night to make 
sure she is going to be alive in the morning.
  That is the reality. They only ask one thing of me. Please make sure 
that we continue the research into diabetes at the National Institutes 
of Health.
  Autism: Are you aware of the fact that 1 out of every 165 children in 
America now suffers from autism? I don't know why. We are not certain 
why.
  Do we want to stop asking the important questions? You know the 
struggle these children go through and their families go through to 
cope with their terrible disease. Why in the world would we step away 
from medical research funding in this area?
  The autism research NIH supports is looking at biological factors 
that cause autism but also looking at interventions--what works and 
what doesn't work. We owe it to the NIH to allow them to continue their 
work. The list goes on and on.
  Members of the Senate and the House are visited on a regular basis by 
individuals and families who are suffering from diseases and maladies. 
They ask us to do something, please--whether it is cancer or heart 
research or diabetes or asthma. Please make sure the funding levels 
continue.
  NIH-supported research into muscular dystrophy is promising. Children 
are living longer. We cannot back off. We cannot lose sight of the 
enormous role that NIH research plays in the discovery of treatments 
and cures for the life-threatening illnesses that afflict millions of 
Americans each year--such as heart disease, cancer, and stroke.
  NIH research grants have moved us to the forefront of the world's 
scientific community. We take a backseat to no one when it comes to 
medical research. If we pass budgets such as the ones sent to us by the 
NIH, we will be weakening our commitment.
  The bill the House rejected just yesterday includes only a $150 
million increase in National Institutes of Health funding, the lowest 
increase in 36 years. You say to yourself, well, $150 million more in 
these times cannot hurt. Considering the rate of biomedical inflation, 
what it costs to do research, this increase represents a cut in 
funding. Assuming no change in committed resources, it means there will 
be 505 fewer research projects next year at the National Institutes of 
Health than there were this year.
  Could one of those important projects, projects that have been 
carefully evaluated, be that critical project for you, your family, 
your children, or someone you love? If it is, is this not a false 
economy, to cut this budget at this moment in our history? Can we 
really afford to shortchange our Nation's premier research institution 
when illnesses such as heart disease and stroke continue to be leading 
causes of death? When so many people are afflicted with so many forms 
of cancer? These diseases will cost our country $394 billion in medical 
expenses and lost productivity in this your alone.
  In simple dollar terms, the amount of money we are alleging we will 
save by cutting medical research just means more people afflicted with 
disease, more medical expenses for them and for our Nation.
  Increased investment in NIH research can yield extraordinary 
breakthroughs. We can maintain our leadership role in the world in 
medical research. We can further the missions we have started at the 
National Institutes of Health. We need to significantly increase 
medical research funding, not back off. We need to support our Nation's 
researchers. They need to know we stand behind them. These men and 
women working in the laboratories, as I stand and speak in the Senate, 
need to know this budget process is not going to move from left to 
right and up and down. They need to know there is continuity and 
commitment from our Government so they can dedicate their lives to this 
important work.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in charging the conferees to retain 
the Senate language, which increases the budget of the National 
Institutes of Health by $1 billion. A billion could not be better spent 
in this economy. Any who have had the misfortune of learning of a 
serious illness in the family say a little prayer to God, then try to 
find the best doctor and hospital we can find. We walk into that 
doctor's office, frightened with what we are about to hear, hoping that 
doctor will say there is something we can do. If the doctor says they 
are not quite there yet, this illness that we are concerned about is 
one that they do not have a grip on yet, we pray to God that someone 
somewhere in a laboratory connected with medical research is trying to 
find that cure to save that person we love so much.

[[Page 27226]]

  Unlike most people who can just pray for that outcome, we can do 
something about it in the Senate. We can say that a national priority 
will be medical research come hell or high water. We can say that we 
are not going to back out of a 36-year commitment to increase the 
funding for the National Institutes of Health.
  Some will argue there are higher priorities. There are some who 
believe tax cuts for wealthy Americans are much more important than 
dealing with medical research. Those ranks do not include this Senator. 
I believe medical research should be the highest priority. It has no 
partisan side to it. Republican and Democrats, people who do not vote, 
we all get sick. We all pray there will be a commitment by this Senate 
and by this Nation for premier medical research to find cures for those 
illnesses.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield back all remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending motions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to requesting the yeas and 
nays on two motions concurrently?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Parliamentary inquiry: Do I have 5 minutes on the Durbin 
motion?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time was just yielded back.
  Mr. SPECTER. The time was yielded back?
  Senator Durbin did not have the authority to yield back my time.
  I understand he did not have that authority. I am obliged it was not 
Senator Durbin. It was unnamed conspirators that I will deal with 
later.
  I support the amendment of the Senator from Illinois to reinstate the 
Senate mark on the National Institutes of Health because the money is 
needed. When you take in the inflation factor, NIH will be funded at a 
lower rate this year than last year.
  The Senate has taken the lead, initiated by Senator Harkin and myself 
and our subcommittee, the full Committee of Appropriations, to more 
than double NIH funding from $12 billion to $28 billion. The results 
have been remarkable. We are on the vanguard of enormous advances on 
some classifications of cancer, on the research on many maladies which 
confront America.
  It is something of sharper focus this year to me than in the past, 
although I have steadfastly supported NIH during my entire tenure in 
the Senate. This is a modest addition. I believe this Senate will 
instruct the conferees, and we will have more than 50 votes. The 
difficult part is getting it done in conjunction with the House. It is 
a good amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  I yield the floor and yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion made 
by the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. 
Inouye), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson), and the Senator from 
Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Nebraska (Mr. Nelson) and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) 
would vote ``aye.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 66, nays 28, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 349 Leg.]

                                YEAS--66

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Martinez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thune
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--28

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Gregg
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lincoln
     Lott
     McCain
     McConnell
     Pryor
     Reed
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Thomas
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Biden
     Corzine
     Ensign
     Inouye
     Nelson (NE)
     Stabenow
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was agreed to and to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
instruct offered by the Senator from Illinois.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. 
Inouye), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson), the Senator from 
Michigan (Ms. Stabenow), are necessarily absent. I further announce 
that, if present and voting, the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson) and 
the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) would each vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 36, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 350 Leg.]

                                YEAS--58

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Talent
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--36

     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Biden
     Corzine
     Ensign
     Inouye
     Nelson (NE)
     Stabenow
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.

[[Page 27227]]

  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Chair appoints 
Mr. Specter, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Craig, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. 
Stevens, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Inouye, 
Mr. Reid, Mr. Kohl, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Byrd 
conferees on the part of the Senate.
  The Senator from Idaho.

                          ____________________