Congressional Record, Volume 161 Issue 106 (Thursday, July 9, 2015)

[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

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.

____________________