[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 153 (Saturday, December 13, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6809-S6814]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
INSULAR AREAS AND FREELY ASSOCIATED STATES ENERGY DEVELOPMENT--
Continued
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays
before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will
state.
The bill clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R.
83.
Harry Reid, Barbara A. Mikulski, Brian Schatz, Benjamin
L. Cardin, Martin Heinrich, John E. Walsh, Richard J.
Durbin, Thomas R. Carper, Patty Murray, Tim Johnson,
Angus S. King, Jr., Mark R. Warner, Tom Udall, Dianne
Feinstein, Bill Nelson, Mark L. Pryor, Tammy Baldwin.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R.
83 shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs.
Feinstein) is necessarily absent.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr.
Coburn), and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 77, nays 19, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 352 Leg.]
YEAS--77
Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Barrasso
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Boxer
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Donnelly
Durbin
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Hoeven
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Markey
McCain
McConnell
[[Page S6810]]
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Walsh
Warner
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--19
Brown
Crapo
Cruz
Franken
Heller
Lee
Manchin
McCaskill
Moran
Paul
Portman
Risch
Rubio
Sanders
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Vitter
Warren
NOT VOTING--4
Chambliss
Coburn
Feinstein
Inhofe
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote, the yeas are 77, the nays
are 19.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
Cloture having been invoked, the motion to refer falls.
agricultural exemptions
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a
colloquy with my colleague, Senator Mikulski.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to discuss an important matter
related to H.R. 83, the omnibus bill, with my colleague from Maryland,
Senator Mikulski. As you know, section 111 of this bill for the Corps
of Engineers discusses the agricultural exemptions under section
404(f)(1)(A),(C) of the Clean Water Act.
There has been some confusion as to exactly what this provision does
and doesn't do. I would like to clarify that this provision does not
expand or modify the current agricultural exemptions that are contained
in the Clean Water Act nor does it impact the ``recapture'' provision
in section 404(f)(2).
Mr. President, can the Senator from Maryland provide a further
explanation of the issue?
Ms. MIKULSKI. First and foremost, I wish to thank the Senator from
California for her efforts in negotiating the difficult issues within
the Energy and Water portion of the omnibus bill.
As the Senator knows, the original House language would have kept the
Corps of Engineers from regulating the agricultural exemptions as well
as essentially eliminating the recapture provision where permits are
needed if an exempted activity impacts waters of the U.S. by impairing
circulation of or reducing the reach of such waters.
I was pleased that the language that we were able to work out with
Chairman Rogers and include in the omnibus dropped the language in the
original House provision. The compromise language does not change
current law and preserves the current scope of agricultural exemptions.
The simple fact remains that if you needed a permit before, you will
need to get a permit under this provision; if you didn't need one
before, you won't under this provision.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank my colleague so much for this clarification.
This is a very important clarification.
lead content regulation
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a
colloquy with my colleage, Senator Mikulski.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am joined by the chair of the
Appropriations Committee to discuss a provision in the fiscal year 2015
Omnibus appropriations bill, which we will vote on shortly in the
Senate.
The provision is section 425 of division F of the fiscal year 2015
Omnibus appropriations bill, which preserves the status quo with regard
to the regulation of the lead content of certain items. As House Report
113-551 and the Omnibus Joint Explanatory Statement each explain,
section 425 prohibits the use of funds to regulate the lead content of:
(1) ammunition, (2) ammunition components, and (3) fishing tackle. The
Toxic Substances Control Act regulates the chemical content of
products. However, the Environmental Protection Agency has denied
petitions to regulate the lead content of ammunition and fishing tackle
under this statute. The omnibus provision simply reaffirms EPA's
decision not to regulate the lead content of ammunition or fishing
tackle under TSCA.
While I oppose restricting EPA's ability to regulate the content of
bullets and fishing tackle, I think it is important to be clear about
what this provision does. I would ask my colleague, Senator Mikulski,
if she agrees with this interpretation of section 425.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank Senator Boxer. As chairman of the
Appropriations Committee and lead author of the fiscal year 2015
Omnibus appropriations bill, I agree with her understanding of section
425.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today we face a difficult choice. The
appropriations bill before us today contains a lot of good for Michigan
and for our country, and it will provide most of our Federal agencies,
and the people who rely on them, with the certainty needed to plan and
invest. But it also contains some very troubling provisions.
We shouldn't use appropriations bills like this one to weaken our
financial protection laws and to open the floodgates to campaign
donations from millionaires. We shouldn't fund our financial regulators
far below what they need to do their jobs. We shouldn't meddle with the
will of the majority of residents in our Nation's Capital. And we
shouldn't let tax cheats walk free by funding the IRS at the lowest
level in years. I could go on and on about the flaws in this bill, and
there is one in particular that I will highlight further.
But despite these significant flaws, the alternatives to this bill
are also deeply problematic. Passage of a continuing resolution, which
would put the Federal Government on autopilot, or worse, a government
shutdown, are the two alternatives to passage of this bill. So that
leaves us with the terrible decision we face today. So this bill
appears poised to pass because it must and because it is better than
the terrible alternatives I just discussed. If my vote were needed to
pass this bill, I would, grudgingly, vote in favor. But it appears that
this bill will pass regardless, and so I will not vote in favor of it
today because I wish to express my deep concern about a number of
provisions.
That provision, which guts the swaps pushout rule, will repeal an
antibailout section of the Dodd-Frank act and risk putting taxpayers
back on the hook for Wall Street banks' risky bets. As chairman of the
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, just last month I held a
hearing on bank involvement in the commodities markets. As chairman of
the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, just last month I held a
hearing on bank involvement in the commodities markets. We found that
Wall Street had huge, wide-ranging ownership and control of and inside
information about oil, copper, aluminum, uranium, and electricity
markets at the same time they were engaging in financial transactions
related to those same commodities posing big risks to the banks and, as
a result, to the taxpayers who could be called on to bail them out in
the event that those bets go awry.
Less than 14 years ago, the seeds of our financial crisis were
planted in a derivatives provision planted in the 2001 appropriations
bill. This provision, which like the provision in the bill before us,
was added at the last minute and not subject to debate on its own,
exempted derivatives from regulatory scrutiny, and left regulators,
banks, and the American public on the hook when risky bets went bad.
As a result, Congress voted to enact a prohibition against Federal
Government bailouts of swaps entities, or the swaps pushout rule, as
part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
This provision bans big banks from conducting risky derivatives trading
in their insured banking units--the units that taxpayers would have to
bail out if their bets went wrong.
Now we risk repeating the same mistake of 2001.
The language of the provision was written--literally written--by
lobbyists for the big banks. According to a New York Times report, 70
of the 85 lines of the provision came directly from Wall Street's
recommendations. Even more surprisingly, according to the Times, ``two
crucial paragraphs, prepared by Citigroup in conjunction with other
Wall Street banks, were copied nearly word for word.''
The Senate has long operated under rules that prevent legislative
changes from being made on an appropriations
[[Page S6811]]
bill. This provision runs completely against that longstanding
precedent. The swaps pushout provision is bad policy, and it is bad
procedure. And if I could vote against that provision by itself, I
certainly would.
But, unfortunately, because of where we are today and because of the
decision to insert the unrelated, lobbyist-drafted provision into this
bill at the last minute, we won't be able to considering that provision
on its merits. Instead, we are considering this as part of an all-or-
nothing package, with the threat of a continuing resolution or a
government shutdown looming.
So, I will vote against this bill despite much good that it would do
for my State and for our country in hopes that the next Senate will
heed the warnings of myself and many of my colleagues that the
provision in this bill weakening our country's banking regulations may
sow the seeds of another taxpayer funded bank bailout and another
financial crisis.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the fiscal year 2015
Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act that is
currently before the Senate.
For the last year, members of the Appropriations Committee have
worked hard to develop bipartisan bills that establish priorities and
responsibly fund the government. While I would have much preferred each
of these bills to have been brought to the floor individually so they
could be debated and amended, passage of this compromise legislation to
keep government open and provide vital services to Americans who depend
on them is essential.
While the legislation funds nearly all government operations,
programs, and agencies through the remainder of the fiscal year,
notably, this bill funds the Department of Homeland Security only
through February 27, 2015, giving Congress time to thoughtfully respond
to the President's unilateral action on immigration. While I supported
the bipartisan legislation to reform our immigration laws that passed
the Senate last year, I believe President Obama's recent Executive
action on immigration circumvents Congress and undermines the
separation of powers in our Constitution. This bill gives Congress time
to formulate an appropriate response.
In addition to the regular funding contained in this bill, the
legislation also provides more than $5 billion in emergency funding to
address the Ebola crisis at home and abroad. The scope and urgency of
this crisis require continued attention, and this funding will build on
the important initial investment for the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention and the Department of Health and Human Services that
Congress provided in September.
I want to highlight the important work that Chairman Murray and I
have accomplished as the leaders on the Transportation and Housing and
Urban Development Subcommittee on Appropriations. Over this past year,
Senator Murray and I worked together to craft a bipartisan bill that
includes input from Members on both sides of the aisle and provides the
necessary resources to meet our nation's transportation and housing
needs. Every Member of Congress has unmet transportation and housing
needs in his or her home State, from crumbling roads and bridges to a
growing population of low income families, elderly, and disabled
individuals in need of housing assistance.
There are a number of key programs that I would like to highlight.
With regard to transportation infrastructure, we secured funding to
address the safe transportation of crude oil and other hazardous
materials by rail, strengthening three components: prevention,
mitigation, and response. These safety measures will help to prevent
disasters like the horrific derailment in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, last
year--so very close to the Maine border.
We also provide $500 million for the TIGER program, an effective
initiative that helps advance transportation infrastructure projects.
We all have seen firsthand how TIGER projects create jobs and support
economic growth in our home States. In fact in Maine this highly
competitive program has supported more than $90 million in funding for
roads, bridges, ports, and rail projects.
Turning to air travel, the aviation investments included in the bill
will continue to modernize our Nation's air traffic system and keep
rural communities connected to the transportation network. These
investments are creating safer skies and a more efficient airspace to
move the flying public.
Also included in the bill are provisions I authored, which were
adopted by the Appropriations Committee by a bipartisan vote of 21 to
9, to respond to potential safety concerns related to DOT regulations
governing truck drivers. As a result of unintended consequences of
these regulations, more trucks have been forced on our Nation's roads
during the most congested morning hours--when commuters are traveling
to work and children are traveling to school. The bill provides
temporary relief until the DOT Secretary conducts a comprehensive study
on the impacts of these unanticipated outcomes.
In addition to these transportation programs, our bill provides
sufficient funding to keep pace with the rising cost of housing
programs for our most vulnerable families. More than four million
families will continue to receive critical rental assistance for
housing. Without it, many of these families would otherwise become
homeless.
The bill reflects our strong commitment to reduce homelessness and
includes more than $2 billion for Homeless Assistance Grants. Since
2010, we have reduced overall chronic homelessness by 21 percent and
veterans' homelessness by 33 percent. This program works. That is why
we build on these successes and provide an additional 10,000 HUD-VASH
vouchers to serve our Nation's veterans.
While we continue to help families in need, we also recognize the
struggles facing our local communities. Boosting local economies is
critical to job creation and helping families obtain financial
security. Our bill supports these local development efforts by
providing $3 billion for the Community Development Block Grants
program. This is an extremely important program for States and
communities because it allows them to tailor the Federal funds to
support local economic and job creation projects.
Other provisions of the bill make equally important investments in
our national security, energy infrastructure, veterans, and health and
human services.
For our military and our national security, I particularly appreciate
that the bill fully funds the Arleigh Burke-class DDG-51 and Zumwalt-
class DDG-1000 destroyers. The destroyers are known as the real
workhorses of the fleet and are critical to maintaining the robust
forward naval presence our nation requires especially in a time of
increasing threats to our security. The continued support of the
destroyer programs is also a strong testament to the hard work and
dedication of the men and women at Bath Iron Works in Maine. Bath-built
truly is best built.
The bill also includes funding for the procurement of 38 F-35s and
for four additional aircraft. The F-35 is vital to maintaining air
superiority, and components of the aircraft are built by skilled
workers at Pratt & Whitney in North Berwick, General Dynamics Ordnance
and Tactical Systems in Saco, Hunting Dearborn, Inc. in Fryeburg, and
Fairchild Semiconductor in South Portland. Neither the bill, nor the
report, recommends an unnecessary study of an extra engine for the F-35
fighter, which would have wasted billions of dollars.
Turning to our Nation's public shipyards, I am pleased that this bill
funds our Navy's facility maintenance and modernization efforts,
including projects at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, ME. The
agreement contains language I secured that ensures the capital
investment for the Navy's four public shipyards, including the
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, is funded at the level required by law.
For the men and women serving in uniform all over the world, the bill
also rightly rejects many of the President's proposals that would have
imposed burdens on many servicemembers and their families.
For our Veterans, I am pleased that this bill provides funding for
the highly successful Access Received Closer to Home program, or ARCH,
which provides critical care to our veterans living in rural areas,
including those living in Northern Maine. The ARCH pilot
[[Page S6812]]
program provides VA-covered health care services through non-VA
providers and has been crucial to increasing access to care for rural
Maine veterans.
The funding bill also provides additional resources to implement the
reforms included in the recently enacted Veterans Access to Care
through Choice, Accountability, and Transparency Act.
We must increase our investment in biomedical research, and this bill
provides $72 million in new funding for Alzheimer's Disease research,
treatment, and caregiver programs. This important step takes us closer
toward the goal of doubling funding for Alzheimer's research and
eventually reaching the level of $2 billion a year in federal
investment. This is the amount that the chairman of the Alzheimer's
Advisory Council has said will be necessary if we are to reach our goal
of having a way to prevent or effectively treat Alzheimer's Disease by
2025. At a time when Alzheimer's is costing our Nation $214 billion a
year, including $150 billion in costs to Medicare and Medicaid, we are
spending less than $600 million a year on Alzheimer's research. While
this bill does take a step forward, clearly we need to do more given
the tremendous human and economic toll this devastating disease takes
on our Nation.
In addition, this funding bill makes important investments in
agricultural research and extension activities, from potatoes to wild
blueberries to aquaculture and forest products, while maintaining a
commitment to nutrition and food security. The agreement finally allows
all fresh vegetables, including the fresh, white potato, to be included
in the WIC program while USDA carries out an evaluation of the nutrient
value of all vegetables, helping to ensure that any long-term policy is
transparent and reflects the latest science.
This bill also makes important commitments to our energy
infrastructure and provides robust funding for the Department of Energy
wind program. This program funds the offshore wind demonstration
projects, including the R&D project being carried out by the University
of Maine. Federal seed money is helping overcome barriers to the
development and implementation of new and innovative technologies, such
as deepwater offshore wind, which can position the U.S. as a global
leader in innovative clean energy.
To help address the high cost of residential energy, particularly for
those living in northern, rural States like Maine, funding is provided
in this bill for the Weatherization program. This program plays an
important role in permanently reducing home energy costs for low-income
families and seniors. Moreover, the funding included for LIHEAP will
help ensure that many of our most vulnerable families and seniors do
not have to choose between paying for heat and paying for other
necessities such as food or medicine.
Helping to meet the water infrastructure needs of smaller states and
regions is another vital piece of our National infrastructure. This
bill includes funding for the operation and maintenance of Army Corps
projects at smaller harbors, which are the economic lifeblood for many
rural communities, a fact not fully accounted for under the Corps'
budget metrics, which tend to favor larger ports.
The bill also continues to support our nation's fisheries, which are
so important to the economies of our coastal communities, particularly
in Maine. From funding for annual stock assessments, surveys and
monitoring, and cooperative research, the bill supports key State and
Federal partnerships. It provides funding to ensure fisheries data
collection accurately reflects stock sustainability and funding for
NOAA to invest in the science and research necessary to sustainably
manage our fisheries in a way that continues to support our fishing
fleets.
Finally, I am pleased to see that the bill includes full funding for
the Trade Adjustment Assistance programs that are so important in
Maine, and for which Senator King and I both advocated. As we continue
to deal with the recent job losses at paper mills in Maine, this
assistance to displaced workers is extremely important.
Completing action on this bill will keep government open and provide
essential services to Americans who depend on them. While there are
aspects of this compromise legislation that should have been subject to
debate and amendment in an open process by the full Senate, including
provisions that affect significantly multi-employer pensions and our
campaign finance laws, we simply cannot allow a government shutdown.
For that reason, I will be voting for this compromise legislation, and
I urge my colleagues do so as well.
Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my opposition to
the spending bill we are being forced to vote on. I am not voting to
shut down the government. I am voting to negotiate on a bill where we
are at least able to participate. I am voting to stay here, work with
all my colleagues on a better bill, and put an end to the dysfunctional
process we are forced to endure every year. I have read through the
bill, and I am sure everyone can find something in here that they like.
I certainly have some items in the bill that will help my little
State of West Virginia. But there is just too much waste, too much
taxpayer risk, and too little transparency for me to stomach.
In the 4 years I have been in the Senate and on the Armed Services
Committee, I have heard from officials on the damage done by the
sequester and how it has cannibalized the Armed Forces. And yet, while
DOD officials were forced to absorb across-the-board cuts in 2013, I
have made it a point to ask if they are being forced into projects they
don't want or need. This bill, however, completely ignores what the
Department of Defense has said.
We are wasting $5 billion on Department of Defense spending that the
Pentagon did not ask for and does not need. They didn't ask for some of
these ships, tanks and airplanes, but we are forcing them to purchase
those projects anyway. And not only are we wasting this money, but we
are denying it from other important programs that desperately need
those funds.
In this bill, we gut hard-working Americans' pensions, and instead of
using the $5 billion to fund the Care Act, which ensures that the
UMWA's Pension Plan remains solvent to benefit miners who have helped
power this Nation, we give the Pentagon tanks and ships and planes they
don't need or even want. We have seen our political process become more
corrosive than ever in recent years.
We have already seen the negative effects that the Citizens United
ruling has had on our elections. It has allowed unlimited and dark
money to distort the records of our colleagues, flood our airwaves with
negative advertisements and shrink our campaigns to sound bites instead
of ideas.
And what does this bill do to address this? It increases the limits
for individual contributions to political parties by 10 times the
current limit--10 times. The current limit of $32,400 was already too
high for most West Virginians and Americans to be able to take full
advantage. The new limit of $324,000 is inconceivable for the vast
majority of Americans. That means that our political process will only
be available to a small number of wealthy individuals who will have
more influence on our government than the hard-working Americans we are
sent here to represent.
Main Street America is still hurting from the fallout of Wall
Street's greedy behavior. Americans lost 8.8 million jobs and our GDP
fell by at least $7.2 trillion. We lost a generation of jobs and
economic progress. And while our economy is still trying to recover and
millions of Americans are still out of work, Wall Street has seen
record profits.
Instead of working to help our small businesses, community banks, and
credit agencies, this bill allows Wall Street banks to go back to the
same risky behavior that drove us into the great recession in the first
place. If we pass this bill, we will allow Wall Street banks to trade
risky derivatives and once again force American taxpayers to bail them
out if they lose their bets.
Haven't we learned our lesson yet? If big banks want to trade in
risky derivatives and act with greed, then they should bear the cost of
their mistakes, not the American taxpayer.
Mr. President, I understand omnibus bills are made out of negotiation
and compromise, but negotiations start
[[Page S6813]]
with participation. Here, most Members of the Senate were not even
consulted on this bill, nor was there an opportunity to offer
amendments.
Senator Robert C. Byrd, a man who defined what it meant to be a
representative of the people and one of the most dedicated and
passionate United States Senators to date, told me what it was like to
work in the Senate before the process was broken. Upon arriving in the
Senate, I assumed those same rules of conduct applied until Members
here in this body explained to me just how much has changed.
We used to consider individual appropriations bills that were
carefully deliberated by committee members, and then we brought those
smaller bills to the floor and were given an opportunity to offer
amendments and debate the bill in a timely, proper manner. Somehow, the
Senate process has gotten away from the days of regular order. Instead,
here we are today, where we were given two days to read a 1,600-page
bill loaded with provisions that we cannot even amend.
Since we are forced to consider this bill as a whole, I have
determined that it is simply too flawed for me to support.
I urge my colleagues to stay here another week and truly draft a
bipartisan omnibus package that fairly represents American values.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, 1 month ago President Obama announced
unprecedented Executive amnesty, in direct conflict with the
immigration laws passed by Congress. Tonight is the first opportunity
that Congress has to express its disapproval.
A dozen Democrats have publicly criticized the Executive amnesty.
Tonight, both Democrats and Republicans will have the opportunity to
show America whether they stand with the President, who is defying the
will of the voters, or with the millions of Americans who want a safe
and legal immigration system.
This point of order is targeted not to the entire omnibus but
specifically to the DHS funding that the President has announced will
be spent unconstitutionally.
If you believe President Obama's amnesty is unconstitutional, vote
yes. If you believe President Obama's amnesty is consistent with the
Constitution, then vote no. Accordingly, I raise a constitutional point
of order against Division L of the pending House amendment, on the
grounds that it violates the following provisions of the Constitution:
the separation of powers embodied in the vesting clauses of article I,
section 1, and article II, section 1; the enumerated powers of
Congress, stated in article I, section 8; and the requirement that the
President take care that the laws be faithfully executed as stated in
article II, section 3.
It is incumbent on this body to resolve those constitutional
questions and to honor and protect the constitutional authority of the
United States Congress.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the junior Senator from Texas raises a point
of order attacking the pending legislation on the grounds that the
President has acted unconstitutionally. The junior Senator from Texas
is wrong, wrong, wrong on several counts. But most importantly for us
this evening, it is an attack on this bill because this is not an
appropriate place to debate the constitutionality of any executive
branch action. Under the precedents of the Senate, the Senate
determines whether it is constitutional to consider the legislation
before it.
The House of Representatives passed this legislation before us in an
exercise of its powers under article I of the United States
Constitution. This bill has, thus, originated in the House within the
meaning of the origination clause of the Constitution.
Voting on this measure is no different from thousands of other
measures on which the Senate has voted. The Constitution objection is
completely--completely--without merit and should be rejected.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield back all time.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. All time has expired.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, regular order.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. All time has expired. Regular order has
been requested.
Under the precedents and practices of the Senate, the Chair has no
power or authority to pass on such a point of order. The Chair,
therefore, under the precedents of the Senate, submits the question to
the Senate, Is the point of order well taken?
The yeas and nays were previously ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs.
Feinstein) is necessarily absent.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr.
Coburn), and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).
The result was announced--yeas 22, nays 74, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 353 Leg.]
YEAS--22
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Crapo
Cruz
Fischer
Grassley
Hoeven
Isakson
Johanns
Lee
Moran
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Vitter
NAYS--74
Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Barrasso
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Donnelly
Durbin
Enzi
Flake
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Walsh
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NOT VOTING--4
Chambliss
Coburn
Feinstein
Inhofe
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question was put to the Senate, Is the
point of order well taken?
On this vote, the yeas are 22, the nays are 74.
The point of order is not well taken.
Under the previous order, the motion to concur with amendments is
withdrawn.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the motion
to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 83.
The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, this will be the last vote tonight. We hope
to be able to start at 9:30 Monday morning with the next vote. We will
let everyone know for sure.
Mr. WICKER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs.
Feinstein) is necessarily absent.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr.
Coburn), and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 40, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 354 Leg.]
YEAS--56
Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Barrasso
Begich
Bennet
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Donnelly
Durbin
Enzi
Fischer
Graham
Hagan
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hoeven
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Kirk
Landrieu
Leahy
McConnell
[[Page S6814]]
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Pryor
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Walsh
Warner
Wicker
NAYS--40
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Corker
Crapo
Cruz
Flake
Franken
Gillibrand
Grassley
Harkin
Heller
Hirono
Johnson (WI)
Klobuchar
Lee
Levin
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Paul
Portman
Reed
Risch
Rubio
Sanders
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Tester
Vitter
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--4
Chambliss
Coburn
Feinstein
Inhofe
The motion was agreed to.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________