[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 106 (Thursday, July 9, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4915-S4920]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask that the Chair lay before the 
Senate the House message accompanying H.R. 1735.
  The Presiding Officer laid before the Senate the following message 
from the House of Representatives:

       Resolved, That the House disagree to the amendment of the 
     Senate to the bill (H.R. 1735) entitled ``An Act to authorize 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for military activities 
     of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and 
     for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to 
     prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, 
     and for other purposes,'' and ask a conference with the 
     Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon.


                            Compound Motion

  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to insist upon the Senate amendment, agree to 
the request by the House for a conference, and authorize the Presiding 
Officer to appoint conferees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is pending.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. McCONNELL. I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     insist upon the Senate amendment, agree to the request by the 
     House for a conference, and authorize the Presiding Officer 
     to appoint conferees with respect to H.R. 1735.
         Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Richard C. Shelby, Jeff 
           Flake, John Barrasso, John Cornyn, Mike Rounds, Jeff 
           Sessions, Shelley Moore Capito, Lamar Alexander, 
           Lindsey Graham, Joni Ernst, John Hoeven, Roger F. 
           Wicker, Kelly Ayotte, Richard Burr, Thom Tillis.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule 
XXVIII, that the time until 1:45 p.m. today be divided between the 
managers or their designees and that at 1:45 p.m., all postcloture time 
be expired and that the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on 
the motion to insist upon the Senate amendment, agree to the request by 
the House for a conference, and authorize the Chair to appoint 
conferees with respect to H.R. 1735; further, if the compound motion is 
agreed to, Senator Reed of Rhode Island or his designee be immediately 
recognized to offer a motion to instruct the conferees; and that there 
be 2 minutes of debate equally divided on that motion, and following 
the disposition of that motion, the Senate resume consideration of S. 
1177.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Louisiana.


                            Sanctuary Cities

  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I rise to discuss the very significant 
issue of sanctuary cities.
  Obviously, we have all been startled and saddened by the horrific 
murder in San Francisco that is a direct result of San Francisco's 
sanctuary city policy. As a result, I will be filing an amendment today 
on this bill to address sanctuary city policy.
  This is not a new idea for me. It is not a new issue. I have had 
legislation on this topic since 2009. I have tried to get the attention 
of the U.S. Senate and the attention of others on this topic numerous 
times since then. I have only been able to get one vote on an 
appropriations bill. Unfortunately, my amendment to try to end 
sanctuary city policy around the country was tabled, with every 
Democrat, sadly, voting to table the amendment, except my then-
Democratic colleague Senator Mary Landrieu.
  I hope the very tragic murder of Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco--a 
wonderful 32-year-old woman--gets all of our attention and causes all 
of us to focus on this very serious issue. As we all know, her murderer 
was an illegal alien who was deported five times previously. As we all 
know, he was an illegal alien who was convicted of felonies seven times 
previously. As we all know, it is because of San Francisco's sanctuary 
city law, defying Federal law, that caused local police officials there 
not to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
officials to hold this dangerous criminal for further deportation 
proceedings.
  Obviously, there are a lot of things wrong with our immigration 
system that this case illustrates. The fact that he could come back 
into the country so many times, having been deported, is a real red 
flag. But certainly this also underscores the truly dangerous nature of 
sanctuary cities policy.
  Unfortunately, San Francisco is not alone in promoting this 
ridiculous policy. There are over 200 cities now that

[[Page S4916]]

defy Federal law and provide this safe haven to illegal immigrants, 
including very dangerous illegal immigrants such as the murderer of 
Kathryn Steinle. For years, leaders in this city have argued that 
providing such a sanctuary assists local law enforcement in doing their 
job. Really? Really? We are going to look at this case in San Francisco 
and keep up those ridiculous arguments? Let's get real. Let's call 
these policies to a halt. They are contrary to existing Federal law, 
but the problem is we have never put teeth in that existing Federal 
law. It is absolutely time we did so.
  This horrible murder in San Francisco isn't the only one of its kind. 
Just last week, an 18-year-old girl and her 4-year-old son were found 
shot and burned in their car. Right now, the top suspect is the woman's 
boyfriend, an illegal immigrant who was deported in 2014, who illegally 
reentered the country. In my home State of Louisiana, we have 
identified serious felons who have been released from jail and are now 
free to roam in Louisiana. We know of these cases.
  Now, I hope this recent incident in San Francisco does get some 
folks' attention. There is hopeful evidence about this. In a statement 
following the shooting, Hillary Clinton said that any city should 
listen to the Department of Homeland Security and fully cooperate with 
their law enforcement and deportation work. Even before the incident in 
a hearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, 
the Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Sarah Saldana 
described the adverse effects of sanctuary city policy. She said that a 
significant factor affecting efforts to deport illegal immigrants ``has 
been the increase in state and local jurisdictions that are limiting 
their partnership, or wholly refusing to cooperate with ICE immigration 
enforcement efforts. . . . [I]n certain circumstances we believe such a 
lack of cooperation may increase the risk that dangerous criminals are 
returned to the streets, putting the public and our officers at greater 
risk.''

  Well, yes, we saw the direct result of that dangerous, reckless 
sanctuary city policy in San Francisco recently.
  Right now there are nearly 170,000 convicted criminal aliens who have 
been ordered deported who remain at large in our country. The question 
for sanctuary cities is, Are they going to continue to protect those 
people or are they going to finally cooperate with immigration 
enforcement officials to do something about rounding up those people, 
not allowing them to roam on our streets?
  We need to change our stance that allows sanctuary cities to get away 
with being accessories to murder. Let me repeat that. They are getting 
away with being accessories to murder, and we need to put an end to 
that.
  My legislation, first introduced in 2009, would do that by putting 
real teeth in Federal law, which does not exist now. My amendment on 
this bill, which I will be filing today, would do that by putting real 
teeth into Federal law, which does not exist now. We need to take this 
up and we need to do something to shut down over 200 sanctuary cities 
around the country that are clearly endangering the lives and well-
being of American citizens.
  I urge all of my colleagues to come together to support this 
commonsense policy. We need to act. The tragic events in San Francisco 
prove that we need to act.
  Six years and waiting on this commonsense proposal from me and others 
is 6 years and waiting way too long. We need to act now. I urge all of 
our colleagues to join me and others in doing so.
  Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, as the Republican leader indicated 
pursuant to unanimous consent, I will shortly be offering a motion to 
instruct conferees on the fiscal year 2016 National Defense 
Authorization Act regarding the inappropriate use of overseas 
contingency operations funding in this bill.
  The motion to instruct I am offering today directs the NDAA conferees 
to ``insist that the final conference report fully fund the President's 
budget request for the Department of Defense, including $534.3 billion 
in base budget funding and $50.9 billion in Overseas Contingency 
Operations or OCO budget funding, thereby supporting the bipartisan 
view that the funding caps imposed by the Budget Control Act of 2011 
should be eliminated or increased in proportionally equal amounts for 
the revised security and nonsecurity spending categories.''
  This motion to instruct is consistent with the President's fiscal 
year 2016 budget request for defense, which assumed a resolution to the 
Budget Control Act, or BCA, dilemma that we have been trying to 
address. If this BCA situation is resolved, we can remove the threat of 
sequestration on both the defense and domestic spending. Unfortunately, 
the bill had to rely upon a budgetary--and it has been described by 
many people--gimmick by transferring $39 billion from the base budget 
request for enduring military requirements to the OCO budget, leaving a 
base budget that is just below BCA levels in order to avoid triggering 
sequestration.
  In the absence of a resolution to the spending caps in the BCA, the 
administration has stated that any legislation that contributes to 
locking in massive cuts to nondefense departments and agencies--such as 
this one--will be subject to a veto.
  Now one of my concerns is, when we use this device or gimmick this 
year, it will pave the way to use it next year and the following year 
and year after that. So we will have this enduring imbalance between 
security spending in the Department of Defense and nonsecurity spending 
in non-Defense Department agencies and a full range of governmental 
spending. Abusing OCO is completely contrary to the intent of BCA. The 
BCA was designed to impose proportionately equal cuts on defense and 
nondefense discretionary spending to force a bipartisan compromise. 
This approach unilaterally reneges on that bipartisan agreement.
  OCO and emergency funding are outside the budget caps for a reason. 
They are for the costs of ongoing military operations and to respond to 
other unforeseen events like natural disasters. To suddenly ignore the 
true purpose of OCO and treat it as a budgetary device or slush fund to 
skirt the BCA is an unacceptable use for this important tool for our 
warfighters.
  Just to highlight how this OCO gimmick skews defense spending, 
consider the amount of OCO in relation to the number of deployed 
troops. Most Americans have a very commonsense approach. If we have 
lots of troops engaged in operations overseas in Afghanistan, Iraq, and 
elsewhere, then we need lots of OCO funding as well. In 2008--the 
height of our nation's troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, over 187,000 
troops deployed--we spent approximately $1 million in OCO per troop. 
Under this bill, we would spend approximately $9 million in OCO for 
each of our deployed troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Simply put, this approach, which circumvents the spirit of the law, 
is not fiscally responsible or an honest accounting nor is it 
consistent with the notion of why we created OCO in the first place, to 
support troops overseas engaged in overseas operations.
  There is another point. True national security requires that non-DOD 
departments and agencies also receive relief from BCA caps. The 
Pentagon simply cannot meet the complex set of national security 
challenges without the help of other governmental departments and 
agencies, including State, Justice, and Homeland Security. In the Armed 
Services Committee, we heard testimony on the essential role of other 
government agencies in ensuring our national defense remains strong. 
The Department of Defense's share of the burden would surely grow if 
these agencies are not funded adequately.
  The BCA caps are based on a misnomer that discretionary spending is 
neatly divided into security and nonsecurity spending. Let's be clear, 
essential national security functions are performed by governmental 
agencies other than the Department of Defense. As retired Marine Corps 
General Mattis said, ``If you don't fund the State Department fully, 
then I need to buy more ammunition.''
  With regard to the threat from the so-called Islamic State of Iraq 
and the Levant, or ISIL, Secretary of Defense

[[Page S4917]]

Carter told the Armed Services Committee on Tuesday that ``the State 
Department, the Department of Homeland Security, other agencies that 
are critical to protecting us against ISIL and other threats, they need 
resources too. And so that's another reason why I appeal for an overall 
budget perspective. . . . I really appeal for that, not just for my own 
department, but for the rest of the national security establishment, I 
think it's critical.''

  According to a poll earlier this year, 83 percent of Americans think 
ISIL is the No. 1 threat to the United States. It is notable that of 
the administration's nine lines of effort to counter ISIL, only two, 
the security and intelligence efforts, reside within the 
responsibilities of the Department of Defense and intelligence 
community. The remaining seven elements for our counter-ISIL strategy 
rely heavily on our civilian departments and agencies.
  For example, supporting effective governance in Iraq. We need our 
diplomatic as well as political experts at the State Department to 
engage with Sunni, Shia, Kurd, and minority communities in Iraq to 
promote reconciliation in Iraq and build political unity among the 
Iraqi people.
  Building partner capacity. The coalition is building the capabilities 
and capacity of our foreign partners in the region to wage a long-term 
campaign against ISIL, much of what is being carried out by the State 
Department and USAID.
  Disrupting ISIL's finances requires the State Department and Treasury 
Department to work with their foreign partners and the banking sector 
to ensure that our counter-ISIL sanctions regime is implemented and 
enforced.
  Exposing ISIL's true nature. Our strategic communications campaign 
requires a truly whole-of-government effort, including the State 
Department, Voice of America, USAID, and others. The Republican 
approach to funding our strategic communications strategy is a part-of-
government plan, not a whole-of-government plan, unless we recognize 
that we have to make adjustments in the BCA caps for every agency in 
the government.
  Another aspect is disrupting the flow of foreign fighters. These 
foreign fighters are the lifeblood of ISIL. Yet the State Department 
and key components of the Department of Homeland Security are facing 
severe cuts, undermining ongoing work with partner nations to disrupt 
the flow of foreign fighters to Syria and Iraq and to protect our 
borders here at home.
  The sixth line, protecting the homeland. The vast majority of the 
Department of Homeland Security falls under nonsecurity BCA caps. This 
further demonstrates that the Republican plan is a misnomer, a gimmick, 
and an effort to play a game of smoke and mirrors with the American 
people. They are very critical to our security here at home. Yet they 
are in that ``nondefense'' part of the budget.
  Humanitarian support is critical. It is even more critical as you 
look at the papers and see there is a huge number of people coming out 
of Syria. Military commanders will routinely tell you that the efforts 
of the State Department, USAID, the Office of Foreign Disaster 
Assistance is critical to our campaign, none of which are considered 
security activities under the Budget Control Act.
  Taken together, this proposal, which is embedded in the underlying 
legislation, could compromise our broader campaign against ISIL and 
deprive significant elements of our government of the resources we need 
to do the job of protecting the American people.
  In another respect, adding funds to OCO does not solve and sometimes 
complicates the DOD's budgetary problems. Defense budgeting needs to be 
based on our long-term military strategy, which requires the DOD to 
focus at least 5 years into the future. A 1-year plus-up to OCO does 
not provide DOD with the certainty and stability it needs when building 
its 5-year budget. As General Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, 
testified, ``We need to fix the base budget . . . we won't have the 
certainty we need'' if there is a year-by-year OCO fix.
  On Tuesday, Secretary of Defense Carter told the Armed Services 
Committee, ``It's embarrassing that we cannot, in successive years now, 
pull ourselves together before an overall budget approach that allows 
us to do what we need to do, which is . . . program in a multiyear 
manner, not in a one-year-at-a-time manner.''
  Abuse of OCO in this massive way risks undermining support for a 
critical mechanism used to fund the increased costs of overseas 
conflicts. We have to have a disciplined system for estimating the cost 
and funding the employment of a trained and ready force.
  The men and women of our military volunteer to protect and are 
overseas fighting for American ideals, including good education, 
economic opportunity, and safe communities. Efforts to support all of 
these goals will be hampered unless civilian departments and agencies 
also receive relief from BCA caps.
  Our young men and women who are sacrificing their lives overseas, not 
just to defeat the enemy in the field but to give opportunity for hope 
and a chance here at home for their brothers and sisters, for their 
aunts and uncles. Our servicemembers and their families rely on many of 
the services provided by non-DOD departments, including veterans 
employment services, transition assistance, housing and homeless 
support provided by various civilian departments and agencies, impact 
aid to local school districts administered by the Department of 
Education, the school lunch program provided by the Department of 
Agriculture, lifesaving medical research on issues such as traumatic 
brain injury, post-traumatic stress, and suicide prevention, supported 
by the National Institutes of Health, health care for retirees and 
disabled individuals under Medicare, Medicaid services for parents, 
including military parents and children with special needs. All of 
these programs that benefit directly men and women in uniform and their 
families would be restricted, and I don't think that is why they are 
risking their lives, to see these programs that are helpful to them 
unnecessarily cut back.
  Our national security is also inherently tied to our economic 
security. The President underscored this point on Monday when he said:

       The reason we have the best military in the world is, first 
     and foremost, because we have got the best troops in history, 
     but it's also because we've got a strong economy and we've 
     got a well-educated population and we've got an incredible 
     research operation and universities that allow us to create 
     new products that then can be translated into our military 
     superiority around the world. We shortchange those, we're 
     going to be less secure.
  The NDAA has been accused of not being a funding bill. So we don't 
have to worry about the budgetary complications. But indeed we do. The 
stated purpose of the bill is to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
year 2016 for military activities for the Department of Defense. It is 
one of the few bills we do every year to directly authorize 
appropriations. So it is intimately tied to the appropriations, to BCA, 
and to all of the issues I have talked about.
  Indeed, we have said--and the committee has said repeatedly--that we 
are authorizing money. It is not just suggesting things to do but 
actually providing real money to the Department of Defense. If we do 
that, I think we have to do it in a way that does not use this OCO 
exception this year--and, unfortunately, in the years to come, if we 
let it happen this year--but that we are transparent, clear, and we put 
the money in the base budget and we move forward.
  I think it is clearly within the scope of the conference. That is why 
I will be offering this motion to instruct. Everyone I talk to, on both 
sides of the aisle, with very rare exception, will make an individual 
strident pitch that we have to fix BCA, that this is not the best 
approach. I heard that this morning when we had General Dunford before 
the committee--on both sides of the aisle: These BCA caps are not the 
right way to fund our national defense and not the right way to fund 
other elements of government.
  We can disagree on funding levels, but there seems to be a strong 
consensus that the BCA is not working for the benefit of the American 
people and we have to fix it. Yet we are not fixing it in the 
legislation that is before us nor are we doing things to help leverage 
such a discussion and to help us to come together to do what we all 
claim we want to do, which is to remove those arbitrary caps, avoid 
sequestration, and contribute to a whole-government approach--not just 
to national

[[Page S4918]]

security but to economic prosperity, to educational opportunity. All of 
that has to be done not by using these budgetary loopholes not designed 
for the purpose they are being used for but by sitting down and coming 
up with sensible legislation.
  We did it before with the great work of Senator Murray and 
Congressman Paul Ryan, and we have to do it again. So I will urge my 
colleagues to vote in favor, obviously, when this comes up--this motion 
to instruct--so we send the right message to our conference.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. May I ask, is the Senate in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is on the message to accompany H.R. 
1735.
  Mr. COATS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Wasteful Spending

  Mr. COATS. Madam President, I come down here every week, as the 
Presiding Officer knows. She is usually in the chair when I am here, 
listening to my ``Waste of the Week''. I am a little bit later this 
week than I normally am. But the issue of waste, fraud, and abuse in 
the Federal Government continues. We have covered a lot of ground on 
serious issues such as tax fraud and misplaced death records, to the 
more absurd, such as the federally funded rabbit massages and marketing 
support for pumpkin doughnuts. Each of those has a pricetag. That 
pricetag is paid for by the American taxpayer.
  I am happy today to be able to announce that one of the items which I 
highlighted in a previous ``Waste of the Week'' speech has been 
addressed. In May, my 11th ``Waste of the Week'' speech examined ways 
to improve compliance measures for higher education tax benefits. I 
outlined how Congress can fix this problem to achieve $576 million in 
taxpayer savings.
  So that is a former ``Waste of the Week''. It is a great benefit to 
universities, colleges, and educational institutions across the country 
because previous laws required them to provide information even when 
those applying for the particular aid refused to provide certain 
information. It created a nightmare of paperwork and a nightmare of 
compliance for those colleges and universities.
  So that provision that we brought forward was incorporated into law 
that has now been passed, signed by the President, and is operative. We 
not only have saved the taxpayer $576 million, but we have provided 
universities relief from an unnecessary procedure that consumed an 
extraordinary amount of time.
  Today I want to talk about software licenses. The Federal Government 
needs to purchase literally millions of these licenses. In order to get 
the IT, the information technology, working right you have to have the 
right equipment. In fact, the government spent $80 billion last year on 
information technology, including these software licenses.
  Now, the Office of Management and Budget and the 24 Federal agencies 
that are covered by the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 have very 
key roles and responsibilities for overseeing IT investment management. 
Federal law places responsibility for managing investment with the 
heads of these agencies and establishes chief information officers to 
advise and assist agency heads in carrying out this responsibility.
  Now, there are two Executive orders that have been issued that 
provide information for these Federal agencies regarding the management 
of how they go about procuring and managing these software licenses. 
Executive Order No. 13103 specifies that agencies must adopt procedures 
to ensure that they are not using this computer software in violation 
of copyright laws.
  Additionally, Executive Order No. 13589 states that agencies must 
ensure that they are not paying for unused or underutilized IT 
equipment, software, and services.
  Now, the Government Accountability Office has conducted a study, an 
evaluation of how well this is being managed and implemented. What they 
found is that in many, many cases it is not happening. Specifically, 
the Government Accountability Office found that the Office of 
Management and Budget and the vast majority of Federal agencies lacked 
adequate policies for managing their software licenses. Of the 24 major 
Federal agencies that I mentioned before, only 2--only 2 out of 24--had 
comprehensive policies that included the establishment of clear roles 
and central oversight authority by managing enterprise software license 
agreements.
  Only 2 out of 24 have lived up to their requirement to manage in the 
way that these executive orders have ordered. An additional 18 agencies 
had some type of policy in place, but the Government Accountability 
Office determined that this simply was not comprehensive enough and 
effective enough. Four agencies were found to have no policy at all. 
They totally ignored the mandates of the executive orders.
  So these weaknesses in the system result from principally a lack of 
priority in establishing software license management. Now, this is kind 
of a technical thing. I certainly admit that I am not fully 
comprehensive in terms of how all of this IT stuff needs to work. But 
we hire people who are talented and have the skills necessary to 
oversee this kind of management. Now, the key here is that the result 
of not effectively managing this has racked up a cost estimated at $10 
billion over a 10-year period of time.
  So this is just complying with the executive orders, complying with 
the procedures that are done by every business in America. But the 
Federal Government has not complied with the necessary steps to achieve 
the right kind of management and oversight, and that is costing the 
taxpayer up to $10 billion. So today we add more to our ever-increasing 
amount of waste, fraud, and abuse that has been found within the 
Federal system, and we are moving toward our goal of $100 billion.
  There will be more ``Wastes of the Week'' in the future. We hope to 
reach that $100 billion before we leave here for the August recess, 
with 3 more weeks before that happens. We are way ahead of schedule. We 
had hoped to reach the $100 billion by the end of this Congress. But we 
have determined and found so many examples of waste, fraud, and abuse, 
that our gauge is climbing much faster than we thought it would.
  Look, we have major fiscal problems in this country. It is going to 
take major decisions relative to how we structure how we spend 
taxpayers' money. We have had numerous efforts to deal with this in a 
macro way. All of those have come up short. While I was engaged in all 
of that before, I have turned my attention to this: Let's see at least 
if we cannot find savings for the taxpayer in the areas of waste, 
fraud, and abuse, and document it.
  I am pleased, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, that one of 
those has just been implemented, saving the taxpayers $576 million and 
saving our colleges and universities and institutions of higher 
education from a nightmare of paperwork and compliance requirements 
that they will no longer have to engage in. So we will continue. We 
will do serious issues. We will look at some absurd things that cause 
people to say: Why in the world would we ever spend that money in the 
first place? It is just not responsible leadership and governing.
  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. COATS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COATS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
remaining time under the current order be divided equally between both 
sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COATS. Madam President, 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. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
mandatory quorum call with respect to the

[[Page S4919]]

compound motion to go to conference on H.R. 1735 be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, in just a few minutes, we are going to 
take a vote on a motion to instruct the conferees on the National 
Defense Authorization Act that would then basically--if these 
instructions were agreed to, would actually repeal the Budget Control 
Act passed by the Senate. It would be a direct repudiation of what--
after many hours of debate, some amendments that were passed by the 
Senate and would, on an authorization bill, require budgetary and 
fiscal measures which are totally inappropriate.
  Basically, the problem that my friends on the other side of the aisle 
have is that they want equal reductions. They want restoration of 
funding for both nondefense and defense that is forced by the Budget 
Control Act.
  This legislation that is before the body, which is authorized 
according to the Budget Control Act--and if the instructions to the 
conferees were enacted, which is before the body now, that somehow we 
would then be able to repudiate the Budget Control Act which was passed 
and we would also be dealing with funding which has nothing to do with 
the authorization bill.
  So my friends on the other side of the aisle have a problem with 
OCO--the overseas contingency operations--but they are trying to change 
it on an authorization bill. I wish my dear friends would look at the 
rules of the Senate. If they have a problem with funding, that is what 
the appropriations bills are all about.
  I urge my colleagues to reject what is obviously an unworkable and 
unrealistic approach to a problem that I agree is a problem. 
Sequestration is harming our ability to defend this Nation. But in 
order to defend the Budget Act--to change the budget that was passed by 
a majority and now is part of what guided our appropriations bills--
that is where their problems should lie.
  I urge my colleagues to reject these instructions to the conferees 
which would basically--I do not see a way that we could possibly confer 
with the House after passing these kinds of instructions. So I urge a 
``no'' vote on Mr. Reed's motion to instruct the conferees concerning 
H.R. 1735. Basically, we would have to take approximately $38 billion 
worth of authorization out of the authorization bill. So I urge a 
``no'' vote.

  And I say to my friend and colleague, the Senator from Rhode Island, 
whom I respect and admire and whose friendship I value, on this issue 
we simply disagree.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.


                             Cloture Motion

  Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending 
cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     insist upon the Senate amendment, agree to the request by the 
     House for a conference, and authorize the Presiding Officer 
     to appoint conferees with respect to H.R. 1735.
         Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Richard C. Shelby, Jeff 
           Flake, John Barrasso, John Cornyn, Mike Rounds, Jeff 
           Sessions, Shelley Moore Capito, Lamar Alexander, 
           Lindsey Graham, Joni Ernst, John Hoeven, Roger F. 
           Wicker, Kelly Ayotte, Richard Burr, Thom Tillis.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to insist upon the Senate amendment, agree to the request by the 
House for a conference, and authorize the Presiding Officer to appoint 
conferees with respect to H.R. 1735 shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), 
and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse) 
would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maine (Mr. King) is 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Maine (Mr. King) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 81, nays 15, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 229 Leg.]

                                YEAS--81

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Lee
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Vitter
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker

                                NAYS--15

     Booker
     Brown
     Cruz
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Paul
     Reid
     Sanders
     Warren
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     King
     Moran
     Rubio
     Sasse
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 81, the nays are 
15.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.


                            Compound Motion

  The question now occurs on agreeing to the motion to insist upon the 
Senate amendment, agree to the request by the House for a conference, 
and authorize the Chair to appoint conferees with respect to H.R. 1735.
  The motion is not debatable.
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                      Motion to Instruct Conferees

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I have a motion to instruct conferees which 
is at the desk, and I ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] moves that the 
     managers on the part of the Senate at the conference on the 
     disagreeing votes of the two Houses on H.R. 1735 (the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016) be 
     instructed to insist that the final conference report fully 
     fund the President's budget request for the Department of 
     Defense, including $534.3 billion in base budget funding and 
     $50.9 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations budget 
     funding, thereby supporting the bipartisan view that the 
     funding caps imposed by the Budget Control Act of 2011 should 
     be eliminated or increased in proportionally equal amounts 
     for the revised security and non-security spending 
     categories.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes of debate equally divided 
on the motion.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, this motion represents what we have heard 
from the Secretary of Defense and all of our uniformed leaders in the 
military who are saying that we should budget appropriately, put long-
term defense needs in the base budget--$534 billion--and reserve OCO 
for what it was intended to be--overseas operations. But because of the 
Budget Control Act, we are using OCO as the device to avoid real 
budgeting and giving the Department of Defense the real long-term 
resources it needs.
  Not only does this represent what the Department of Defense desires, 
but it also represents what we need to defend the American people. We 
need more than just the Department of Defense. We need Homeland 
Security. We need the State Department. We need Treasury. We need 
everyone to defend this country.
  This approach would begin the discussion and debate, I hope, to get 
relief from the BCA to move forward and to deal with the threats facing 
this country in a rational, logical way.

[[Page S4920]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I would ask my colleagues to oppose this 
motion. We have had this discussion a number of times. This defeats the 
budget, and this isn't the appropriate place to rehash this or to try 
to do something different. Everything we have been working on has been 
based on this principle. Incidentally, those budget caps were signed by 
the President of the United States and said this was an allowable use 
without breaking the caps and causing sequester.
  So we can fund defense, and defense needs to be defended and funded, 
and it will be under the principles that we have right now, and we can 
work on other methods as we work on this and other budgets. So I ask 
that we vote against this and not put this extra burden on the 
committee that doesn't really have the jurisdiction to do all that is 
being requested in this motion. We voted it down before. Let's vote it 
down again.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
instruct conferees.
  Mr. CARDIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), 
and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maine (Mr. King) is 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Maine (Mr. King) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 230 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--52

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kirk
     Lankford
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sanders
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Crapo
     King
     Moran
     Rubio
  The motion was rejected.
  The Presiding Officer appointed Mr. McCain, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Sessions, 
Mr. Wicker, Ms. Ayotte, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Rounds, Mr. 
Graham, Mr. Reed, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Manchin, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. 
Donnelly, Ms. Hirono, and Mr. Kaine conferees on the part of the 
Senate.

                          ____________________