[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 24444-24448]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG 
ADMINISTRATION AND RELATED AGENCIES PROGRAMS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING 
                 SEPTEMBER 30, 2010--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The report will be stated.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     2997), making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2010, and for other purposes, having met, have agreed that 
     the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of 
     the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment and the 
     Senate agree to the same, signed by a majority of the 
     conferees on the part of both Houses.

  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of September 30, 2009)
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference report 
on H.R. 2997, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 2010.
  This bill includes total spending of $121.1 billion. Of the total, 
$97.8 billion is for mandatory programs, and $23.3 billion is for 
discretionary programs. The discretionary spending in this bill is an 
increase of $2.7 billion and is within our 302(b) allocation.
  This bill funds a range of programs that help improve the lives of 
Americans every day.
  It provides more resources for food and drug safety.
  It delivers low-income housing and supports rural communities who 
need sanitary water systems.
  It fully funds the WIC, SNAP, School Lunch and School Breakfast 
Programs. It expands the Commodity Supplemental Food Program and the 
Child and Adult Care Feeding Program.
  It significantly expands the McGovern-Dole Program so children in 
developing countries can get school meals. Often, that is the only 
reason they come to school.
  It bolsters agricultural research so we can produce better crops and 
feed more people more efficiently.
  It funds conservation, community development, animal and plant 
health, trade, and much more.
  We worked closely with our counterparts in the House to come to 
satisfactory agreements on issues about which we had differing views.
  We included compromise language on the reimportation of Chinese 
poultry, setting up a stringent system to protect public health. This 
language meets all of our WTO requirements and has been endorsed by all 
sides.
  We included critical funds to aid the dairy sector which is suffering 
from historically low prices. Some will be used to purchase dairy 
products for food pantries, and the rest will provide direct relief to 
producers.
  We fund development of new food aid products to provide higher 
nutritional content for food aid recipients; most of these products 
have not been updated for nearly two decades.
  Overall, this bill is properly balanced. It provides appropriate 
funding and direction for the Department of Agriculture, FDA and other 
agencies. We worked to ensure that the concerns of all Senators were 
addressed, and I believe we have been successful.
  I am very encouraged by the process that brought us to this point, 
and I am grateful to my ranking member, Senator Brownback, and others 
who have been instrumental in its success.
  I strongly encourage all Senators to support this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Kohl, who 
chairs this committee. This is the first year for me to be ranking 
member. He has been a delight to work with.
  A number of issues are addressed in this bill. The centerpiece is the 
agriculture industry. It is of key importance. It is interesting to 
note, in this economic downturn we are in, that the agriculture 
industry has had a great deal of difficulty, although it has been one 
of the stronger industry sections we have had during this period. That 
is in no small part because of the strength of the industry, the 
willingness of people to work, to invest aggressively, to work hard, 
and to pay attention to details.
  For us to support the research entities underneath it--a lot of that 
is in this bill. So we are researching aggressively what we can do to 
produce things efficiently, effectively, that the marketplace wants. It 
is a great export industry. It is one that provides a lot of exports 
out of my State, out of the State of the chairman, and the States of 
other Senators. That research is important. That is what is in the 
bill, the research and development industry. That is the primary piece 
of it. It is not the total, but it is a key part.
  Looking into the future, I can see that places we need to go are in 
things that will require the research for us to be able to move 
forward, things such as cellulosic ethanol where people are excited 
about doing the grain-based ethanol. We need to have a stream from 
cellulosic ethanol so we can produce

[[Page 24445]]

more of our energy needs domestically and renewably. That also goes 
into the energy field, but it is a key part of agriculture. It also 
grows jobs in rural areas where it is pretty hard at times to grow 
jobs. People go to more concentrated regions and places, but we need 
them in rural areas. If we can invest and if we can show ways people 
can invest and make money in rural areas, going into food and fiber and 
fuels and pharmaceutical products, these are things that can really 
work for us and for our people and around the world. I am pleased to 
work with Chairman Kohl on that. He has worked on this many years. This 
has been my first year as ranking member.
  In particular, I would like to note two areas we made key investments 
in that are important for the country and to save people's lives. One 
is in the food and drug piece of this bill. The FDA is also 
appropriated in this bill.
  One of those areas is rare and neglected diseases. There is language 
included in this bill that creates two groups within FDA to examine the 
agency's approach to rare and neglected diseases in the developing 
world and here.
  Unfortunately, a number of people in the United States get diseases 
that maybe only 100,000 people get. That sounds like a big number, and 
it is a big number, but to a drug company looking at making an 
investment and then being able to develop a cure, it is looking for a 
much larger marketplace.
  What we are asking in this bill is, are there ways within the FDA, 
for a rare disease or neglected disease, for us to cut down the cost 
process to develop a new drug? Otherwise, we are not getting any 
research into how we take care of diseases for somebody who is one of 
50,000 who get it, and there is nothing going on research-wise to help 
them. I had a lady in my office this morning who had a disease in this 
category. She was basically told by her physician when she got 
diagnosed: You should get your affairs in order. That is not an 
acceptable answer, particularly as a policymaker.
  We have two groups in here looking at rare or neglected diseases and 
how do we cut the cost of developing that drug so that a pharmaceutical 
company or others could say: This doesn't affect a lot of people, but 
my entry cost is lower, so I will look at this, I will go into this 
field. Our hope is we can stimulate some research in this country.
  Then neglected diseases around the world that can affect huge numbers 
of people--the World Health Organization says that more than a billion 
people, nearly one in every six persons worldwide is affected by at 
least one of the neglected diseases. This isn't a small category, but 
they happen to be in countries that don't have high per capita income. 
So again a company looks at this and says: There are a lot of people 
affected, but there is no income level here, so I can't go into it. 
Well-known examples include malaria, tuberculosis, and cholera. They 
disproportionately affect low-income populations in developing 
countries. We are going at this issue too.
  I can't think of a better place for us to invest more policy-wise 
than helping to save people's lives. People tend to like you more when 
you help save their lives. This affects a broad cross-section of people 
around the world. And we have the marketplace, the technology to work 
on it, if we can cut the cost down. These two really track together, 
and they are very important for us to save lives. I always consider it 
a great day if we can save a person's life by some policy move we are 
making that may make things work better. These are a couple of them.
  Another area the chairman and I have been working on is the issue of 
food aid. Here, I have had a lot of disappointment in the fact that we 
put a lot of money in food aid and then not a lot of it hits the 
target. For every dollar we put in food aid, 60 percent is eaten up by 
transportation and administration. So 40 percent gets to the person who 
actually needs it.
  A lot of these are food aid situations where it costs a lot to get 
the food there. Going into the interior in Sudan, it just costs a lot 
to get there, there is no question. But still I have to think we can do 
this better. We are starting to look at that but also pilot projects to 
help develop new food aid products and to develop micronutrient-
fortified foods for infant through schoolage children, pregnant or 
nursing mothers. We haven't developed a new food aid product in over 20 
years. The last one was a corn-soybean blend which is a good product. 
But I know the chairman and I don't eat the way we did 20 years ago. 
You kind of understand the body moves a little differently.
  This area of micronutrients is the area that most researchers believe 
that if the world would invest in it, it is the highest yield category 
for us to save and positively affect the most lives, an investment in 
micronutrients. It may be a corn-and-soybean blend, but it also has 
vitamin additives put into it for that infant, that nursing mother, 
that person with AIDS or malaria. We have invested a lot to try to save 
the person with AIDS or malaria, but now they really can't get better 
because they don't have the nutrition in their body they need. We get 
that into the system.
  I am excited about these steps and pilot projects, what we might be 
able to find out in these categories and do to save lives. These are 
well-spent funds.
  It is tough economic times for us as a country. These are critical 
issues for us. I am always looking at ways we can hold the budget 
numbers down because I think we really have to get our budget under 
control. These are ones that have been good and wise investments. They 
are important places for us to work in.
  I am appreciative of being able to work on these particular projects. 
As we move forward, looking at next year, I hope we can sharpen the 
pencil even more in areas that may have been a high priority in the 
past but they should not be now, for us to look at ways we can control 
and get our budget down. And then you move that money either into 
paying down the deficit so the deficit is much lower or you say: If we 
are going to put things in higher investment areas, we move them from 
low-investment to high-investment regions, and that we would emphasize 
ourselves and work in the committee to see what areas are there that we 
should be taking money out of to put into higher need categories or to 
put back against the deficit that is just running way too high for us 
as a country.
  We all know that. This deficit is way too high. It is nonsustainable. 
We need to sharpen our pencil every bit we can in these committees to 
do our part. I hope we can really spend some time this next year, even 
as we line up for the appropriations process, holding hearings on what 
are low-priority areas, what we can cut out of this budget. We tend to 
mostly focus on new ideas, new programs, and those are good and 
important, but in these budgetary times, we have to spend some time 
asking: What is it we could do without? That would be important for us 
to do.
  It has been a pleasure to work with the chairman. I urge colleagues 
to vote for the conference report and to send it on to the President.
  I yield the floor.


                   Congressionally Directed Spending

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, it has been brought to my attention that the 
Congressionally directed spending items table in the statement of 
managers to accompany the Fiscal Year 2010 Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act mistakenly listed Senator Hutchison as requesting 
funding for the medicinal and Bioactive Crops research project through 
the Agricultural Research Service. Additionally, Senator Hutchison's 
name was mistakenly omitted from the table for the Grain Sorghum 
research project through the National Institute for Food and 
Agriculture and the Range Revegetation for Ft. Hood conservation 
project through the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I agree with Chairman Kohl and appreciate him bringing 
these items to the Chamber's attention.

[[Page 24446]]




                       EMERGENCY DAIRY ASSISTANCE

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wisconsin and the 
Senator from Vermont for joining me to discuss $350 million in 
emergency dairy assistance funding included in the fiscal year 2010 
Agriculture, Rural Development, and Food and Drug Administration 
Appropriations Act conference report.
  I had a very encouraging meeting with the Secretary of Agriculture 
where he informed me that he intends to distribute emergency dairy 
assistance funds included in the conference report in a way that is 
regionally equitable, and to do so as quickly as possible.
  As the author of the amendment to the fiscal year 2010 Agriculture 
appropriations bill that added $350 million in emergency dairy 
assistance funds, the Senator from Vermont stated on the floor that 
``whether it is Vermont, Wisconsin, California, Colorado--rural America 
is hurting.''
  The Senator from Vermont went on to say that ``I know the people 
familiar with dairy always say these are great regional fights, the 
Northeast is fighting the Midwest is fighting the Southeast is fighting 
the West coast, and every region has its own set of priorities. This is 
not a regional issue, this is a national issue.''
  I ask the Senator from Vermont, was it your intention that emergency 
assistance be provided to dairy farmers in every region of the country?
  Mr. SANDERS. Yes, that is correct.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator from Vermont. If I may ask the 
Senator from Wisconsin, as the lead Senate negotiator, can you tell us 
how the conference committee intended these funds to be used when 
crafting the final language?
  Mr. KOHL. Let me start by saying that I appreciate the guidance and 
input I have received from my California colleague throughout this 
process.
  The bill before us provides $290 million to the Secretary under broad 
authorities to assist our Nation's dairy farmers. The conference report 
does not direct any form this assistance shall take--an approach that 
was the result of a hard-fought negotiation with the House. Many 
members would have preferred to distribute this assistance through the 
MILC program formula. In fact, I must admit that such an outcome would 
have been my preference since programs such as MILC would greatly 
benefit my farmers in Wisconsin. But I knew that dairy farmers all 
across the country are suffering and an approach couched in inherently 
regional terms would not meet the test for national acceptance.
  I understand the MILC program would impose limitations difficult for 
some regions to accept, and for that reason a more general 
authorization was employed to provide greater regional fairness in the 
distribution of assistance. My understanding is that the Secretary has 
three main goals in mind in administering this assistance: No. 1, the 
payments must be directed to actual dairy farmers, No. 2, the payments 
must go out as quickly as possible, and No. 3, the payments must 
reflect as much regional equity and fairness as possible. I agree with 
these three principles and trust that the Secretary will carry out this 
assistance in that fashion.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin for his views and say 
further that his understanding of the Secretary's goals is correct. I 
thank my colleagues for joining me to discuss this issue.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to offer for the record, the Budget 
Committee's official scoring of H.R. 2997, the Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2010.
  The conference report provides $23.3 billion in discretionary budget 
authority for fiscal year 2010, which will result in new outlays of 
$17.7 billion. When outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken 
into account, nonemergency discretionary outlays for the bill will 
total $24.9 billion.
  The conference report matches its section 302(b) allocation for 
budget authority and is $120 million below its allocation for outlays.
  The bill is not subject to any budget points of order.
  I ask unanimous consent that the table displaying the Budget 
Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 H.R. 2997, AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
              AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010
   [Spending comparisons--Conference Report (in millions of dollars)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               General
                                                               purpose
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference Report:
  Budget Authority.........................................       23,304
  Outlays..................................................       24,905
Senate 302(b) Allocation:
  Budget Authority.........................................       23,304
  Outlays..................................................       25,025
Senate-Passed Bill:
  Budget Authority.........................................       23,400
  Outlays..................................................       25,030
House-Passed Bill:
  Budget Authority.........................................       22,900
  Outlays..................................................       24,686
President's Request:
  Budget Authority.........................................       22,980
  Outlays..................................................       24,904
 
                     Conference Report Compared To:
 
Senate 302(b) allocation:
  Budget Authority.........................................            0
  Outlays..................................................         -120
Senate-Passed Bill:
  Budget Authority.........................................           96
  Outlays..................................................          125
House-Passed Bill:
  Budget Authority.........................................          404
  Outlays..................................................          219
President's Request:
  Budget Authority.........................................          324
  Outlays..................................................           1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Table does not include 2010 outlays stemming from emergency budget
  authority provided in the 2009 Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L.
  111-32).

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today the Senate turns to the conference 
report for H.R. 2997, the Agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal 
year 2010. This bill spends about $120 billion in direct and mandatory 
spending. This is on top of the $108 million that was provided under 
the fiscal year 2009 omnibus bill, as well as the infamous economic 
stimulus package, which provided another $26.5 billion in Ag spending.
  I acknowledge that many of the programs funded by this bill are 
valued for providing important services to the agriculture community at 
large, and I commend the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee 
for reporting this bill in a timely manner. I agree that we should 
ensure that our farmers stay out of the red, and that some Federal 
involvement is necessary to assist low-income families under nutrition 
programs. Unfortunately, Congress once again has conformed to the 
practice of diverting precious taxpayer dollars into an array of 
special interest pork projects which have not been authorized or 
requested by the administration.
  When the bill passed the Senate shortly before the August recess, the 
bill carried with it 296 ``Congressionally Directed Spending Items'' a 
fancy new term for earmarks--totaling over $220 million. Now that 
conferees have had their chance to feed at the trough, the number of 
earmarks has grown to 461 totaling over $360 million. None of these 
projects were requested by the administration. Many of them were not 
authorized, or competitively bid in any way. No hearing was held to 
judge whether or not these were national priorities worthy of scarce 
taxpayer's dollars.
  Let's take a look at some of the earmarks that are in this bill: $2 
million for a fruit laboratory in West Virginia; $819,000 for catfish 
genome research in Alabama; $360,000 for a corn ethanol research plant 
in Washington, DC; $75,000 to promote childhood farm safety in Iowa; 
$250,000 for the Iowa Vitality Center; $700,000 to improve cattle 
health in Maine; $300,000 to develop ``Best Practices in Agriculture 
Waste Management'' in California; $1.3 million for greenhouse nurseries 
in Ohio, which weren't requested by the administration; $2.9 million 
for shrimp aquaculture research in Arizona and Massachusetts; $693,000 
for beef improvement research in Missouri; $165,000 for maple

[[Page 24447]]

syrup research in Vermont; $195,000 to research how to increase the 
lifespan of peach trees in South Carolina; $349,000 for pig waste 
management in North Carolina; $500,000 goes to the National Wild Turkey 
Federation in Nebraska, and $250,000 for the Kansas Farm Bureau 
Foundation for a workforce development program.
  The largest earmark in this bill goes to Hawaii. The Aloha State bags 
$5 million to continue construction of an Agriculture Research Service 
Center to study agriculture practices in the Pacific. As my colleagues 
know, ARS construction is one of the most heavily earmarked accounts in 
government. So much so that the President's budget actually proposed 
zeroing out ARS construction for fiscal year 2010 because:

       Congress routinely earmarks small amounts of funding for 
     [ARS projects] located throughout the nation. The result of 
     scattering funding in this manner is that . . . few if any of 
     the projects are able to reach the critical threshold of 
     funding that would allow construction to begin. Funding 
     construction over such a long time significantly increases 
     the amount of money needed to fully complete these projects, 
     as well as postponing their completion for many years.

  So here we have a program that is earmarked so severely that it 
delays and drives up the costs of approved construction projects. Not 
only are we funding this Hawaiian facility, but conferees approved 21 
earmarks totaling over $71 million for ARS facility construction, some 
of them airdropped in conference.
  During Senate consideration of this bill, I filed over 300 amendments 
to strike every earmark as well as cut funding to several USDA programs 
that the President proposed for termination including the ARS 
facilities account. It should come as no surprise that my amendments 
were defeated at every turn by appropriators on both sides of the 
aisle.
  These projects may be meritorious and helpful to the designated 
communities, but considering our current budgetary crisis, it's 
inappropriate to include them on this year's agriculture spending bill, 
especially when they have been identified for termination or reduction. 
I hope my colleagues will agree that we have higher spending priorities 
that are directly related to the purposes of this agriculture bill. 
This bill is intended to address farmers, women, children, and rural 
communities with the greatest need, not for piggybacking pet projects 
that garner the support of special interest constituents.
  I know that many of my colleagues have spoken about the economic 
struggles of America's hardworking farmers and low-income families. The 
farmers and struggling families I know are tired of watching their 
hard-earned money go down the drain.
  I will oppose this conference report and every other pork-laden bill 
that comes before this body.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I submit pursuant to Senate rules a 
report, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Disclosure of Congressionally Directed Spending Items

       I certify that the information required by rule XLIV of the 
     Standing Rules of the Senate related to congressionally 
     directed spending items has been identified in the conference 
     report which accompanies H.R. 2997 and that the required 
     information has been available on a publicly accessible 
     congressional website at least 48 hours before a vote on the 
     pending bill.

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate will pass H.R. 
2997, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010 conference 
report.
  This legislation will fund important programs, such as food safety 
inspection, agricultural research, and the Supplemental Nutrition 
Program for Women, Infants, and Children. Programs such as these will 
benefit the entire Nation. My constituents will additionally benefit 
from a number of projects located throughout the State of Hawaii.
  The bill will stimulate food and agricultural development in Hawaii 
through projects tailored to the State's needs. It will fund continued 
agricultural development and resource conservation programs through the 
local, community-based leadership of Hawaii's four Resource 
Conservation and Development Councils. It will foster food science and 
agricultural research that meets Hawaii's unique needs and that 
bolsters American competitiveness in such areas as floriculture, 
tropical fruit, and aquaculture.
  Watershed and flood prevention projects in Hawaii also receive 
appropriate attention in this bill. Recent droughts underscore the 
importance of watershed projects to increase water storage capacity, 
delivery system efficiency, and water conservation. Projects on Maui 
and the Big Island will help make progress on the planning and 
construction of projects dealing with the limited natural resource of 
water.
  Funding in the bill also includes programs to control invasive 
species in Hawaii such as termites, brown tree snakes, coqui frogs, and 
other alien pests and weeds that threaten agricultural lands and 
sensitive ecosystems. Hawaii is the only domestic supplier of varroa 
mite-free queen bees for honey producers and pollinators, and therefore 
the mite eradication efforts cultivated by this legislation are of 
national importance. Similarly, farmers in the continental United 
States will benefit from the establishment of a facility to provide a 
secure supply of sterile fruit flies used to control fruit flies that 
are destructive to fruit crops. Hawaii offers a premier location for 
rearing sterile fruit flies as four pestiferous fruit fly species are 
already established there.
  In sum, this bill will fund programs meeting Hawaii's unique needs in 
addition to supporting local leadership that will aid agriculture 
nationally. I am glad to have advocated for this funding and thank the 
senior Senator from Hawaii, the Chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, as well as the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate 
Appropriations Agriculture, Rural Development, and FDA Subcommittee for 
their work in crafting and managing this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous 
consent that the time be equally charged to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask for all the remaining time to be 
yielded back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the conference report.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) 
and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 76, nays 22, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 318 Leg.]

                                YEAS--76

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin

[[Page 24448]]


     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--22

     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     McCain
     McConnell
     Sessions
     Thune

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Byrd
     Kerry
       
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and I 
move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________