[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 109 (Wednesday, July 20, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4687-S4691]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS AFFAIRS AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.R. 2055, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 2055) making appropriations for military
construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and
for other purposes.
Pending:
Coburn (for McCain) amendment No. 553, to eliminate the
additional amount of $10,000,000, not included in the
President's budget request for fiscal year 2012, appropriated
for the Department of Defense for planning and design for the
Energy Conservation Investment Program.
Johnson (SD) modified amendment No. 556, of a perfecting
nature.
Vitter amendment No. 568, to provide that none of the funds
appropriated or otherwise made available by this act may be
obligated or expended at a rate higher than the level of the
Senate and House of Representatives concurrent budget
resolution for fiscal year 2012.
Wyden/Merkley amendment No. 570, to provide for the closure
of Umatilla Army Chemical Depot, Oregon.
Coburn amendment No. 564, to require evidence of causal
relationships for presumptions by the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs of service connection for diseases associated with
exposure to certain herbicide agents.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. President, I am hopeful that the
Senate will be able to complete action on the MILCON-VA appropriations
bill today. Members have had ample opportunity to offer amendments,
staff has been working to clear them, and I believe we now have a clear
path to final passage.
I would like to spend a few minutes today talking about the military
construction portion of this bill, which is so important to our troops
and their families. The bill includes $13.7 billion for MILCON, which
is $1 billion below the budget request. In drafting this bill, we took
a hard look at the projects submitted by the administration and made
strategic reductions in order to make wise use of our MILCON dollars
without sacrificing key military priorities. I believe this bill is a
prudent approach to addressing our military construction needs at home
and abroad.
The bill fully funds the administration's request of $1.2 billion for
Guard and Reserve projects. Typically, Congress adds funds for our
Guard and Reserve components; however, given the current budget
pressures, that option was not available to us this year. It is my hope
the services will acknowledge and address the chronic backlog of
construction requirements for the Guard and Reserve forces in future
budget requests.
Of note, this bill includes $550 million to construct or modify 15
Department of Defense schools at home and overseas. As Newsweek
magazine pointed out last month, a shocking number of DOD schools are
crumbling and in need of replacing. The administration has made
upgrading DOD schools a priority, and the committee wholeheartedly
supports that goal. DOD school funding in this bill represents a
significant downpayment on the estimated $3.1 billion requirement for
DOD school recapitalization.
The administration's request included funding for the move of Marines
from Japan to Guam. While the committee recognizes the need to
restructure force posture in the Pacific, we remain concerned about the
ballooning cost of this plan and the lack of forward progress on the
part of our Japanese allies. The report accompanying this bill directs
the Navy to provide Congress with detailed information on the cost and
prognosis of the Guam relocation initiative.
Additionally, the committee is concerned with the potential cost of
related troop realignments in Korea and the long-term impact of troop
reductions in Europe. The report accompanying this bill addresses these
concerns in depth.
[[Page S4688]]
As I have said before, this is a sound and responsible bill. Senator
Kirk and I have worked hand in hand to forge a bipartisan approach for
the MILCON-VA bill, and I believe we have succeeded. I urge my
colleagues to support final passage of the bill today.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I wish to join with my colleague and say
that Republicans unanimously supported this bill that provides
appropriations for our veterans and for our military construction needs
unanimously in the subcommittee. Our Republican members unanimously
supported this bill in the full committee, and the reason why is
because this bill is marked to the House budget. This bill cuts
spending on the budget authority discretionary side about $1.2 billion
below the President's request. The bill also cuts spending $620 million
below last year's level, and it even comes in $2.6 million below
Chairman Culberson's bill that passed the House of Representatives
under their very strict budget guidelines.
I will note that we came together on a bipartisan basis in the Senate
to bring up this very first of the appropriations bills, and the
cloture motion to move forward to bring this bill to the floor passed
by a vote of 71 to 26, with Leader McConnell and our vice chairman, the
lead Republican on the committee, Mr. Cochran, supporting that.
This bill has been endorsed by AMVETS, the Disabled American
Veterans, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Paralyzed Veterans of
America, and the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.
I think it is very important as we look at the wider issue of
deficits and debt, any danger of interrupting payments to veterans
because of negotiations here on Capitol Hill, it is a very important
signal that not just the House pass the appropriations bill to support
our veterans but also the Senate. So my hope is we will consider the
amendments this afternoon and then advise Members that we would seek to
go to final passage and get this first of the appropriations bills done
this year, sending a very clear message, especially to our veterans and
men and women on Active Duty, that we are supporting their construction
and veterans health care needs in a way that spends money according to
the dictates of the House budget resolution.
I yield back and wait for our senior Member from Maryland.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak up to 10 minutes as if
in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Debt Ceiling
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to point out the obvious;
that is, we are 13 days away from August 2, the date Secretary Geithner
has indicated, if we do not raise the debt ceiling, that America runs
the risk of defaulting on its debt and not paying its bills. I bring
this up because this is an issue on which we never should be this close
to this deadline.
It has been pointed out many times that the debt ceiling has very
little to do with how much money we spend. It has nothing to do with
how much money we spend because we already spent this money. The
question is whether we are going to pay our bills, whether the United
States is going to live up to its obligations, or whether we are going
to default on our debt.
The prospect of not making that deadline is basically unthinkable,
that the United States would give up its preeminent position
internationally. It could jeopardize the U.S. currency being the global
currency. It would have an effect on everyone in this Nation.
We already have heard from the rating houses. Last week, both
Standard & Poor's, S&P, and Moody's Investors Service warned they are
considering downgrading the country's credit rating if the debt ceiling
is not raised. A smaller firm, Egan-Jones Ratings, has already
downgraded the U.S. securities. What happens if we get the major rating
houses saying we are no longer AAA bond rated? Well, it will have an
immediate effect on costs for taxpayers in this country. It will cost
us more to borrow. That means we will have to pay higher taxes in order
to pay the interest on the national debt. It will affect all credit in
this country. It is estimated that the typical homeowner will pay an
extra $1,000 a year on mortgage costs. The average credit card holder
will pay an extra $250 a year in credit card interest. In other words,
the interest rates of the Federal Treasury notes affect all the
interest rates in this Nation. All of us will pay more, and it will
cost jobs. It will cost us in our retirement savings. It will affect
each one of us.
Yesterday, the people of Maryland found out another way the failure
to increase the debt ceiling will have an effect on Maryland taxpayers;
that is, the rating houses have indicated that if the Federal credit is
jeopardized, the State of Maryland's AAA bond rating is in jeopardy.
Why? Because Maryland depends, as do most States, upon the Federal
Government.
Governor O'Malley, as the Presiding Officer knows--when you were
Governor of West Virginia, you managed your State well. The credit
ratings you deserved were based upon what you did in your State. That
is true in Maryland. But Marylanders will find that their credit costs
will go up if we don't increase the debt ceiling by August 2. We are
all in this. We should never be this close. We should make sure we
increase the debt ceiling by August 2.
Yes, I do hope we use this as an opportunity to get our spending and
our budget in order. We need to manage our deficit. We all understand
that. We have to bring our debt under proper management.
I have taken the floor before to sort of go over how we got here. I
am not going to do that today, but I am here to tell you that the
Democrats in the Senate, under Senator Conrad, have come in with a
proposal that we think is well-balanced, that has more deficit
reduction, quite frankly, than any plan that is out there. It is
comprehensive, and it will allow us to be able to continue to grow our
economy because the best thing we can do for our deficit is to create
more jobs. The Conrad Democratic budget does that by investing in
education, by investing in innovation and in infrastructure.
It also recognizes we have to bring the deficit under control. It
protects Medicare and Medicaid because we know those programs are
important for our seniors and important for our economy. So we protect
high-priority programs and include more deficit reduction by having a
balanced approach. That is what we should do in addition to raising the
debt ceiling. We should have a comprehensive approach.
Let me cite some of the numbers of what the Conrad budget does. It
brings spending down to 22 percent. I heard some of my colleagues talk
about the historical averages. Twenty-two percent of our economy would
be the same spending amount, on average, we had when Ronald Reagan was
President. I think most of us would agree the Reagan years were
certainly conservative in terms of government spending. That would
bring down the percentages, despite the demographic changes in this
country. I think that is quite an accomplishment.
The revenues would be equal to what the revenues were as a percentage
of our economy when Bill Clinton was President of the United States and
when we had the strongest economic growth and the greatest job growth
in modern history. So these are responsible programs.
It also, by the way, says to our government workers, who should not
be used as scapegoats and who are doing incredible work under difficult
circumstances and are being asked to do more with less since they have
already made the sacrifice with a 2-year pay freeze--the Conrad
Democratic budget says enough is enough and doesn't ask our Federal
workers to make additional sacrifices beyond the 2-year pay freeze they
have already been subjected to.
I know there are other efforts and I hope we will continue those
efforts. I have spoken before about the Bowles-Simpson approach, and we
have the bipartisan group working. That is how we should proceed. But,
quite frankly, this cut, cap, and balance is not a bipartisan effort;
it is an extreme effort by Republicans to bring forward a budget that
is even more severe and more radical than the Ryan budget. I call it
cut, cap, and kill when it comes to Medicare.
[[Page S4689]]
Why do I say that? I have taken the floor regarding the Republican
Ryan budget to point out the impact on the Medicare system, which would
be to increase the costs, on average, to our seniors, when it is fully
implemented, by an additional $6,500 to pay for health care. I know the
Presiding Officer has been through West Virginia and I have been
through Maryland and I know our seniors are already paying too much for
health care. They cannot afford another $6,500 a year for their health
care. We should be looking at reducing their health care costs, not
increasing them.
But the cut, cap, and balance approach would go even beyond that. It
is estimated there would be another $2,500 in costs on top of the
$6,500, so $9,000 of additional costs, when fully implemented, to our
seniors for health care. That is cut, cap, and kill on Medicare, and I
don't think any one of us wants to be responsible for that.
I heard my colleagues talk about job growth, and we are all for job
growth. The cut, cap, and balance bill is estimated to cost us hundreds
of thousands of private sector jobs.
Why do we say that? Well, the objective is not very subtle. The
objective, as the Heritage Foundation has said--and this was just sent
out to us--this would cut the size of the Federal Government by about
half within 25 years. Are we going to tell our students they can do
without half of their Pell grants? Yesterday, I joined students from
around the Nation and presidents of colleges to talk about the
importance of the Pell grant. At Morgan State University in Maryland
and the University of Maryland Eastern Shore--both historically Black
colleges and universities, in which 80 percent of their student body is
made up of minority students--50 percent depend upon Pell grants. Half
of that number could not be there without Pell grants. We are saying it
is OK to cut the Pell grants in half? No, it is not OK.
Are we going to tell our seniors we are going to cut Social Security
in half?
Are we going to tell those people who need unemployment insurance
they are going to get 50 percent? It is not sustainable.
I heard my colleagues talk about predictability. Well, the cut, cap,
and balance bill is not going to be sustained. It is a radical
approach. We can do better.
Quite frankly, David Brooks, the conservative columnist, said it
best. I will quote what he said about where the Republicans,
particularly in the House, are trying to lead this Nation. David Brooks
wrote:
. . . the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party.
Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction
that is more of a psychological protest than a practical,
governing alternative.
The members of this movement do not accept the logic of
compromise, no matter how sweet the terms. If you ask them to
raise taxes by an inch in order to cut government by a foot,
they will say no. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch
to cut government by a yard, they will still say no.
That is from David Brooks, the conservative columnist.
We need to have the system work. We need Democrats and Republicans
working together. We need a budget plan that is predictable, that gets
our budget under control, that allows America to create the jobs we
need, and that invests in education, innovation, and infrastructure so
America can continue to lead the world in economic growth. That is what
we need to do. It starts by raising the debt limit so America does not
default on its obligations and for us to work in a bipartisan manner to
develop a budget plan that gets the debt under control but allows
America to live up to its commitments to our seniors, to our students,
and to create the job opportunities for tomorrow.
That is what we need to do, and that is what this Senator is prepared
to do.
With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
THE NATIONAL DEBT
Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, our country is 2 weeks away from a
deadline date, and this deadline is approaching because of Washington's
constant inaction. To me, this deadline has to do with our national
debt. The President, on the other hand, says it has to do with our debt
limit, the amount of money we are allowed by law to borrow.
I believe it has to do with the amount of money we have already
borrowed and the amount of money they want to continue to borrow. I
believe as Americans we can do better. I believe as Americans we must
do better. Our country needs for us to act.
The President has repeatedly said we have to deal with this issue
now. Last week he asked the most fundamental question. He said: If not
now, when? The clock is ticking.
We got a wake-up call from Medicare not too long ago when we found
out that it will be bankrupt 5 years sooner than they initially
thought, just over a decade from now. As a doctor who has practiced
medicine a long time, I will tell you we have to strengthen Medicare.
We know in 25 years the same will happen to Social Security. Unlike our
debt limit which Congress can legislate away, strengthening Medicare,
saving Social Security, that cannot simply be legislated away. We have
to act now to prevent these programs from failing not just people on
those programs today but also future generations.
The President has observed that we are in the eleventh hour when it
comes to our debt ceiling, and the only clear path to raise the debt
ceiling that has passed either House of Congress is the proposal that
passed the House of Representatives last night, the Cut, Cap, and
Balance Act. This act would only raise the debt ceiling if we put our
country on the fast track back to fiscal sanity. That is where we need
to be, on the track to fiscal sanity. It is an approach the American
people will tell us we need now more than ever.
Our creditors are getting restive. This week Fitch credit ratings
warned if the United States does not take action to avoid default, we
could lose our AAA credit rating.
Standard & Poor's has already warned that unless we cut our budget,
our credit rating could be at risk. Wasteful Washington spending has
already saddled our children with over $14 trillion of debt. If we
default, this spending may also force them to pay punishingly high
interest rates that will drain American dollars from our already
sluggish economy.
I believe we will not default. We are already paying $6,000 a second
on interest alone on our debt. For those of us with children, we know
what this impact is going to be on them years and years into the
future. Well, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act would put us on the path to
resolving the issue by cutting spending immediately, by capping
spending in the future, and by forcing--finally forcing--Washington to
live within its means. This is the sort of law that the country needs
and that the President should actually welcome.
What has the President done? Well, he has threatened to veto this
law, he says, if it crosses his desk. The President has threatened to
veto the only plan that actually solves the problem that has passed
either House of Congress.
Why? Well, the administration emphasizes ``public opinion'' as their
reason for opposing the hard choices required by our debt crisis. But
yet the President said they are opposed to a balanced budget
constitutional amendment. Well, in a recent Mason Dixon poll, 65
percent of Americans say they support a balanced budget constitutional
amendment. Where is that respect the President talks about for public
opinion?
Finally, the administration has hidden behind catch phrases rather
than debate the merits of cut, cap, and balance. They refer to it by a
different name. Well, when I hear the White House spokesman talk about
cut, cap and balance in a different way, I say: How is that ducking the
issue to confront both our spending problem and the debt ceiling head
on? That is not
[[Page S4690]]
ducking the issue; that is facing the issue.
When the President's spokesman talks about dodging the issue, I will
say: How is it a dodge to support commonsense solutions to our spending
addiction, such as a balanced budget amendment?
Then he used the phrase about dismantling. I say: How does stopping
our government from going bankrupt count as dismantling? The White
House has even admitted that they do not have a plan. You know what,
they do not think they need one. Is that astonishing? The White House--
the United States, the most powerful country in the world--the White
House does not think they need a plan at the eleventh hour. The White
House Press Secretary just recently said: Leadership is not proposing a
plan for the sake of having it voted up or down and likely voted down.
The budget that was brought to this floor--the President's budget--
failed 0 to 97. Not one Republican voted for it. Not one Democrat voted
for it. No one voted for what the President had proposed, no one of
either party.
Perhaps the President ought to propose something new. Holding our
country hostage to irresponsible Washington spending while trying to
hit the economy with tax hikes is not leadership; it is denying the
reality. Refusing to put forward a plan to resolve our spending crisis
is not leadership; it is deferring the consequences.
Making the economy worse the way this administration has done for the
past 2 years is not leadership, and it is hurting our country. The
President's policies have made it worse--made the economy worse, made
health care worse, made energy availability worse, housing worse. The
policies have made it worse.
This administration can accuse cut, cap, and balance of ducking, and
they can accuse it of dodging, and they can accuse it of dismantling,
but the strategy coming out of the White House seems to be duck and
cover. That is what we are seeing.
Anyone who knows the math knows this strategy was never acceptable
before, and it is doubly unacceptable now. The amount of debt we owe
right now is so high that it is hurting employment at home. Experts
tell us our debt is costing us 1 million jobs. Spending like this makes
it harder for the private sector to create new jobs, and the
unemployment numbers that just came out show us at 9.2 percent
unemployment.
With that kind of unemployment, energy prices are high, and people
are noticing it in the quality of their lives. It is harder for
American families to buy gas, buy groceries, buy cars, homes, pay
tuition for their kids to go to college, and it is harder to create
jobs for those kids who will be graduating this year and next year and
every year until we get the spending under control.
Debt is not just a disaster for the distant future. Our debt is
irresponsible. Our debt is unsustainable. Even our military leaders
have condemned it. ADM Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, has said: The biggest threat to our national security is our
debt.
The debt is the threat. It is not our enemies who are defeating us,
it is our spending that is hurting us so very much. It is time for
America to fight back. That is why I am supporting and have cosponsored
cut, cap, and balance and will vote for it on the floor of the Senate.
This piece of legislation takes commonsense steps to get our country
out of debt. It will immediately reduce spending by over $100 billion
as a downpayment on our children's future. It will place a hard cap on
spending so that it never reaches the unsustainable heights of the past
2 years. It will send a balanced budget constitutional amendment to the
American people for ratification, and it will prevent us from
defaulting on our debt.
Passing this law is the kind of leadership that America deserves; and
if the President wants to show he understands leadership, he should
retract his veto threat and support this approach. I absolutely will
support it when it comes to this body.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Amendment No. 568
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I rise to ask support, bipartisan
support, for the Vitter amendment which we will be voting on at 12
noon. This amendment is very simple. It is very straightforward. I
think it is important and makes a central point.
The amendment says these funds in this bill will not be spent unless
and until we have a 2012 budget, unless we start with first things
first and decide what the overall budget framework is and then move
forward with spending, with appropriations bills consistent with that
budget. That is all it says. It is simple, straightforward, but it is
an important point.
Folks around America, including in the market, are scratching their
heads. They look at Washington and us and the Congress and the
President and see almost complete dysfunction in the complete lack of a
budget, even lack of an attempt to get a budget in place, which is a
glaring, maybe the top example of that.
This isn't just a good, commonsense idea, something every family
does, something every small business does; this also happens to be
required by Federal law.
The Federal Budget Act mandates that we pass a budget by April 15 of
every year. We have not done that. The House passed a budget. The
Senate, quite frankly, has not even tried. The Senate Budget Committee
has not even met to begin to do that in regular order, through the
normal process. In fact, it is worse than that. The Senate didn't even
try to do that last year under the same current leadership. So we are
now over 800 days and counting, that the Senate, under this leadership,
has not even tried to comply with Federal law and adopt a budget.
Again, my amendment is very simple. It says first things first. We
need a budget so any appropriations bill, any spending is only done
consistent with and in the context of that budget.
That is the right way to do it. That is the right way to run a
railroad. That is what every Louisiana family does in setting its
plans. That is what every Louisiana business does in setting its plans.
That is what the American people and the markets want from us.
In the last few weeks, there has been great discussion about Moody's
and Standard & Poor's and the threats to downgrade U.S. Treasury notes.
What they have been saying is loud and clear. It is not a pure focus on
the debt ceiling; it is even a more important focus as well on the
underlying issue of spending and debt. They have been saying what every
economist also says: We are on a completely unsustainable path in terms
of spending and debt. They want to see a real change in that--the start
of a real change, adding up to at least $4 trillion of deficit
reduction. We need to do that.
Step one to doing that is to have a budget. We can't begin to do that
without a budget plan, without an outline. Again, that goes to the
core, the simple, fundamental, straightforward and important point of
this Vitter amendment. I urge my colleagues to put first things first.
I urge my colleagues to say we need to start doing our business,
starting with a 2012 budget.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KIRK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. KIRK. Madam President, we are wrapping up to a vote that we hope
will occur on Senator Vitter's amendment at noon. I will summarize
where we are.
We are completing debate on a bill that provides funding for the
Veterans' Administration and military construction needs. This bill
backs up over 22 million veterans who have served our country.
The reason I and the Republicans on the Appropriations Committee have
unanimously supported this bill is, it is
[[Page S4691]]
marked to the House budget resolution, the Paul Ryan budget resolution
number. We cut funding by $1.2 billion in budget authority
discretionary numbers below the President's level. This bill comes in
$620 million below the 2011 enacted level, and it is even $2.6 million
below the House-passed level just adopted earlier this year, Chairman
Culberson's bill in the House of Representatives.
The Senate voted by a vote of 71 to 26 for cloture to bring up this
bill. This is the first of the working appropriations bills. I hope
there are many others. The legislation is important. People may ask:
How did we make the funding cuts to come in at the House level? The
answer is, Chairman Johnson and I made some difficult decisions. We cut
24 separate military construction programs. A list is available in the
report that accompanies this bill.
We made some very tough calls regarding spending that was proposed
for Bahrain, for Germany, and for Korea. There was a worthwhile project
proposed for the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. They wanted a
brandnew building and a courtroom. That was denied outright. Those
tough decisions--those 24 reductions denying a new Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims building--making those cuts necessary then brought us
under the House level, as approved by the Paul Ryan budget.
I remind Members the legislation is endorsed by the VFW, AMVETS,
Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Iraq
and Afghanistan Veterans of America. It had the unanimous support of
Republicans in the subcommittee and in the full committee because it
comes in at the House budget level. That is why I think it is necessary
to move forward, especially as we talk about a budget crisis, in which
checks may or may not go out. I very much hope they do. I think it is
an important signal to send that the Paul Ryan-approved budget number,
which is what this bill is at, goes forward, which ensures 2012
appropriated funding for our veterans and the military construction
needs of our men and women in uniform.
With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent
that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. President, what is the pending
business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on
agreeing to the Vitter amendment.
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. President, the Vitter amendment
pending before the Senate is another attempt to derail the progress we
have made in a bipartisan fashion on the MilCon/VA bill.
The Senate has voted twice on this issue during consideration of this
bill. At the outset of debate, the ranking member of the Budget
Committee raised a point of order against consideration of this bill
without prior adoption of a budget resolution. I made a motion to waive
that budget point of order and the Senate voted 71 to 26 to cut off
debate on the motion to waive. The Senate then agreed to waive the
point of order 56 to 40.
Now we have an amendment that says none of the critical funding
provided in the bill can be obligated in excess of a budget resolution
that does not exist. The strictest interpretation of this means the VA
can't spend money on benefits for vets, and our military can't
construct new training, housing, or other critical facilities until we
have a budget agreement.
I don't disagree that it is important to pass a budget, but the
Senate has overwhelmingly voted to move this bill so as to not delay
essential funding for our troops and vets while negotiations on the
debt ceiling and budget continue.
I remind my colleagues this bill is $618 million below the current
level, $1.25 billion below the President's budget request, and $2.6
million below the House-passed bill. This is a responsible and
bipartisan bill, and the pending amendment would stop all progress we
have made. Therefore, I move to table the amendment No. 568, and 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 motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 69, nays 30, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 113 Leg.]
YEAS--69
Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Cornyn
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Hagan
Harkin
Heller
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inouye
Isakson
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Kirk
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--30
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Coats
Coburn
Corker
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Grassley
Hatch
Inhofe
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kyl
Lee
Lugar
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
NOT VOTING--1
Boozman
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table.
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. 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. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________