[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 137 (Tuesday, September 22, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6864-S6868]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CLOTURE MOTION
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to the motion to
reconsider the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to
proceed to H.R. 2685.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. McCONNELL. I move to reconsider the vote on the motion to invoke
cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 2685.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
[[Page S6865]]
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the time until 12 noon be
equally divided prior to the cloture vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, almost exactly a year ago, President
Obama addressed the Nation and declared his resolve to degrade and
destroy ISIL. I will speak more on that in just a moment, but there are
two lines in that speech of particular relevance to the vote we are
about to take.
This is what President Obama had to say:
As Commander-in-Chief, my highest priority is the security
of the American people [and] our own safety, our own
security, depends upon our willingness to do what it takes to
defend this nation and uphold the values that we stand for.
He was certainly right. It does. And doing what it takes requires
many things--everything from amphibious shipping, Joint Strike
Fighters, and forward presence, to preserving our gains in Afghanistan
and investing in the naval systems required to balance against Chinese
expansion in Asia.
So when President Obama sent us a budget request asking for $612
billion in defense spending, we worked across the aisle to craft a
bipartisan appropriations bill at that level. Democrats hailed the
defense spending as a win-win and a victory for their States. They
voted to pass it out of the Appropriations Committee. This is how the
Defense appropriations bill came out of the Appropriations Committee:
27 to 3.
But then, as the Washington Post put it, Democrats ``decided to block
all spending bills starting with the defense appropriations measure''
as part of some ``filibuster summer'' strategy designed to pump more
taxpayer cash into Washington bureaucracies such as the IRS. The same
President who had lectured the Nation about doing ``what it takes to
defend this nation'' seemed content to have our military held hostage
to the whims of the far left. The White House cheered as they voted
repeatedly to block the bill that funds pay raises and medical care for
our troops. It was outrageous then, and it is outrageous now.
China is deploying ships to the Bering Sea and to the coast of
Alaska. Russia's military is positioning itself in Syria to attack
anti-regime forces under the guise of a counterterrorism campaign.
Refugees are pouring forth in the thousands, causing instability in
Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, and Europe. And 1 year after the President's
speech, ISIL is consolidating its gains within Syria and Iraq as it
demonstrates an agility and an operational flexibility that threaten
our country and our national security interests.
The sad lesson of the last 7 years is that our global conventional
drawdown and withdrawal from the Middle East emboldened Russia and
China. Our ambitious train-and-equip and economy-of-force programs to
train combat forces within Yemen, Afghanistan, and Iraq and our program
to train an opposition to fight within Syria--all have failed to defeat
the enemy. And Iran now appears free under the President's deal to
inspect its own suspected nuclear site and to funnel more cash to
Hezbollah.
If President Obama is committed to protecting the American people, he
will convince his party to end its blockade of funding our military. We
are going to give our Democratic friends that chance again in a few
moments.
The goal of Democrats' ``filibuster summer'' was to force Congress
back to the brink. They have succeeded in doing that. They think it is
the only way to force America to accept their demands for more debt and
more bureaucracy. But it is time Democrats started considering the
needs of our country, not the wants of the far left or the IRS. Ending
their blockade of funding for our military at a time of significant
international threats would show they are ready to start putting
Americans first.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have voted on this before. It seems that
is what we have been doing the last few weeks--revoting. Vote once and
vote again. The results are going to be the same. We have made it clear
we are not going to proceed to appropriations bills under the
Republicans' partisan budget. We have 12 appropriations bills, not 1.
We have 12.
We seek a budget agreement that fairly prevents mindless sequester
cuts to defense and to the middle class. I am gratified that our votes
on this measure have caused the Republican leader to acknowledge
publicly that we need to negotiate an end to this fiscal crisis that
has been created by the Republicans.
As for this upcoming vote, there is no reason for Senators to change
their votes from how they voted earlier this year. This is yet another
case of the Republicans just wasting time rather than addressing the
real deal. Another revote.
We read in this morning's papers that the Republican leader intends
to bring a clean continuing resolution before the Senate later this
week. Congratulations. We appreciate that very much. But bringing it to
a conclusion now is certainly very important because we are running out
of time. The end of the fiscal year is now. On September 30, we need
more money or the government will shut down. It is not as though we are
making up something. They have done it before. And who has been hurt?
The American middle class more than anyone else.
I hope we will just move on to the business at hand. The business at
hand is to make sure the government does not close. We have cooperated
every way we can. We are not asking for revotes on tearing down the
tree numerous times. We have agreed to that. We are not trying in any
way to procedurally stop us from moving to important funding measures.
So I hope we can move on past this as quickly as possible.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Bill
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, unfortunately, our Democratic friends have
now blocked another vital piece of legislation from moving forward by a
vote of 54 to 42. The cloture vote on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child
Protection Act has failed on that cloture vote. But I want to point out
to our colleagues that this is not the end of this discussion. This is
the beginning of the discussion once again.
I would point out that over the years we have actually been making
some progress in favor of an agenda that favors life. In 2007 eight
Senate Republicans opposed defunding Planned Parenthood, by 2011 five
Senate Republicans opposed defunding Planned Parenthood, and in August
just one Senator opposed it by voting to filibuster the bill. Last time
we had zero Democratic Senators vote on such a measure. In August we
got two.
The pain-capable bill that was blocked by Senate Democrats last year,
of course, is what we just voted on again. Today we had an opportunity
to be on the record and advocate for what is a top priority for pro-
life groups.
There is legislation that has passed in the House of
Representatives--namely, the born-alive piece of legislation, which
really shouldn't divide Congress the way perhaps the defunding of
Planned Parenthood bill has because at some point, whether you are pro-
choice or pro-life, hopefully we can agree that a child who is
basically grown to full-term in their mother should be protected from
the abortion industries. I think we are going to have other
opportunities to vote on that issue.
The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is really a moral
imperative for our Nation. It says a lot about who we are as a country.
This Chamber just had the opportunity to send a clear message that
America is a nation that seeks to advance a culture of life and
opportunity for everyone, particularly those who are the most
vulnerable. As a father of two daughters, I don't understand the
rationale of some of my colleagues on the other side. Do they believe
there should be no limitation on access to abortion at all? No limit?
Well, we will have an opportunity for another vote that perhaps will
give them a chance to go on record on the born-alive bill that passed
the House of Representatives last week. Unfortunately, I think it
appears that by blocking this vote, some of our colleagues were simply
unable to cast aside the pressures of special interest
[[Page S6866]]
groups to take a stand for life. But it is important to note for pro-
life Members such as myself that protecting the sanctity of life is an
ongoing mission, and it doesn't end with this one vote.
Mr. President, briefly on another matter, we will shortly consider or
reconsider another vote that should be a clear-cut issue. This vote
would make sure that our military has what they need in order to
protect our country and deal with the rising and diverse threats to
national security occurring around the world. This will most pointedly
help our troops maintain their status as the greatest military. The
Defense appropriations bill includes simple initiatives that make sense
and serve our troops well, such as giving them a well-deserved pay
raise.
I think it is worth reminding those here today that this will be the
second opportunity to move this legislation forward. Earlier, our
colleagues across the aisle blocked this Defense appropriations bill
that provides critical funding for our troops and refused to allow it
to move forward. That legislation, as the majority leader pointed out,
was voted overwhelmingly out of the Appropriations Committee in June
with the support of many of my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle who then turned and voted against it on the floor. I guess, in
the famous words of John Kerry, they were for it before they were
against it.
So the bill we will be considering and voting on shortly is not a
piece of partisan legislation, but holding up this legislation is
unfortunately indicative of a larger strategy of keeping the Senate
tied in knots and making it impossible for it to function as intended.
If the goal is to stymie real progress, I would have to congratulate
our friends across the aisle. But unfortunately they have taken as a
hostage in this partisan political fight the very military which they
claim to support and which I believe they do support, but their vote
certainly does not indicate that when they vote against funding our
troops.
I would point out that in 2013 the Democratic leader himself
advocated for something we call regular order around here when it comes
to setting our Nation's fiscal policy.
Fortunately, this year, under the new majority, we were able to pass
a budget for the first time since 2009. But then what should have
happened after that is the Appropriations Committee should have done
its work--in fact, it did do its work--and then those bills would come
to the floor and they would be voted on by the Senate. But that is what
our Democratic colleagues have blocked. I think they have gone a bridge
too far in blocking the funding for our military, particularly with the
headlines we see in the newspapers and the conflicts arising and
spreading across the world.
So this is the first time in 6 years that the Appropriations
Committee has approved and reported out all 12 appropriations bills.
But then these bills became hostage to something our Democratic friends
called ``filibuster summer''--a political strategy telegraphed from the
pages of the Washington Post just last June to block all appropriations
bills.
I said it then and it bears repeating that stifling debate and
blocking votes is a pretty lousy political strategy, and it is not what
the American people sent us here to do. It is what lost my friends
across the aisle control of this Chamber nearly a year ago. It is a
losing strategy, it is bad policy, and it is cynical politics. It is
simply shameful to take these partisan political fights to the point of
denying our troops the resources they need in order to do their job.
So the Appropriations Committee has done its work on a bipartisan
basis and painstakingly drafted, considered, and passed all 12
appropriations bills. Now this Chamber should do our job and move those
appropriations bills forward, starting with the Defense appropriations
bill.
Now that the majority leader has moved to reconsider that failed
vote, earlier blocked by our Democratic colleagues, I hope our friends
across the aisle have had a chance to reconsider and to think carefully
about the ramifications of their decision and that they will join us in
moving this bill forward. The world is far too dangerous and the
threats are far too real to take this important piece of legislation
hostage and prevent the resources going to the troops, who simply
deserve it.
Quite simply, we have no time to lose when it comes to fulfilling one
of our most basic duties to the American people: defending against
threats to national security. I would urge my fellow colleagues to join
me in moving this important bill forward.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I respect my colleague from Texas, the
majority whip. I disagree with his conclusion. I am vice chairman of
the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. The chairman is Senator
Cochran of Mississippi. The two of us and our staffs worked night and
day to put together a good Defense appropriations bill. I think we did
a good job.
The problem is, there is a difference between the Democrats and the
Republicans about the total amount to be spent on the defense budget.
The Republicans suggest that we should take $38 billion and put it into
the defense budget but not to add a similar amount to the nondefense
budget. I could go onto the arcane language of OCO and all of the
sequestration. I am going to try to avoid that and keep this at a level
where most people understand what we are talking about.
Our concern is not about funding the military on the Democratic side.
We wholeheartedly support that, all of us. Not a single Democrat
dissents from what I have just said, but the question is whether or not
the money that is going to be invested in nondefense agencies is also
going to be protected in this appropriations process. That is all we
have asked for.
We are willing to put $38 billion more into defense, let's put the
same amount in nondefense. What is nondefense? Nondefense, frankly,
includes a lot of appropriations programs that are critically important
to middle-income families across America. Are we going to continue to
fund educational programs so that the kids of working families have a
shot at college? That is nondefense spending.
Are we going to make sure that we make the basic processes of
government be protected when it comes to investing in nondefense? May I
give you an example? Medical research. Is that worth putting money
into? From the Republican side, that is nondefense, that is not really
that important. I think it is critically important. Once every 67
seconds in America, one of our citizens is diagnosed with Alzheimer's--
once every 67 seconds.
It is a tragedy. It is an expensive tragedy. It cost us over $200
billion last year just to care for Alzheimer's patients in America
under Medicare and Medicaid. That does not even come close to
calculating the sacrifices made by family members on behalf of those
who are suffering from Alzheimer's. So should we invest more money in
Alzheimer's research? Should we put more money into an effort to delay
the onset of Alzheimer's or, God willing, find a cure? Of course we
should. That is nondefense spending. That is not a priority of the
other side of the aisle.
What we have said to them is: We need to sit down and work this out.
Be fair to defense to keep us strong and safe as a nation, but make
those critical investments in programs that make a difference to
middle-income families across America. What we are asking for today is
nothing new. As the Senator from Texas reminded us, we took a vote on
this issue. It was over 3 months ago--the same vote. We took the same
vote we are about to take at noon today as to whether or not we should
have this lopsided appropriation, money to the defense budget but not
to the nondefense budget. We said no. Balance it. Be fair. Be as
concerned about middle-income families in America as you are about the
defense of our Nation. Let the budget reflect that.
But they said no. So we are back again. It was on June 18 when the
leadership on the Democratic side of the aisle, aided by others who
felt the same way, sent a letter to the Republicans and said: Let's not
waste any time shouting at one another and giving speeches on the
floor. Let's sit down in closed, bipartisan negotiations and work out
the budget, bring the President in. He is critical. We need his
participation. But let's work it out.
We wrote that letter on June 18. Here we are more than 3 months later
in the
[[Page S6867]]
same predicament. We should have taken the time before now--days before
the end of the fiscal year, at the end of September--to sit down and
work this out by budget negotiation. But they refused. They don't want
to sit down.
Instead, they want us to go through these show votes. Last week--last
week we had five unnecessary separate votes on the Iran agreement. We
had already established, by public announcement of every Senator and by
an open public vote, where we stood. Senator McConnell insisted on
spending another week and five more votes on exactly the same thing
with exactly the same outcome. What a waste of Senate time.
Look at this week. This week is a challenge because of the visit of
the Pope and the Jewish holy day, but instead of dealing with
substantive issues, this week we have allowed two Republican
Presidential candidates who are Senators to have their day on the
floor. I think we should be rolling up our sleeves and tackling this
issue. I don't want to see a government shutdown. We allowed the
Senator from Texas to do that a few years ago, and we paid a heavy
price for it. He has now threatened to do it again. He likes shutting
down our government, thinks that is a great expression of his
effectiveness as a leader. So be it. Maybe it is to some, but not to
most.
Instead we should be involved in real budget negotiations. I want to
tell you, this idea of a continuing resolution--what is a continuing
resolution? It says: Spend the money this year the same way you spent
it last year. What if your family had that charge? What if we said:
Spend the same amount for groceries and utilities that you did last
year, spend it this year. You would say: Wait a minute, that does not
reflect the things that have changed in my family. My son is off to
college. We are changing the place where we live and such.
That is not the kind of thing that you would respect. That is what a
continuing resolution does. It continues to spend money the same way.
It wastes taxpayers' money. Senator Cochran and I, on a bipartisan
basis, came up with a better approach. It is an appropriations bill
which we think keeps us safe and spends our defense dollars wisely. So
let's not get comfortable with a continuing resolution. It is not good
for the Department of Defense, not good for the men and women in
uniform who risk their lives for us every single day.
It is important for us to do the responsible thing and move forward.
Let's not waste any more time with repeat votes and show-boat votes;
let's instead focus our time on negotiating a sound budget.
On June 18, we sent an invitation to the Republicans to sit down and
negotiate a budget. The invitation is still open, but we are running
out of time. It is important that the President be in that negotiation.
It has been 96 days since the last vote we had on this issue. We are
going to face it again in just a few moments.
There has not been any progress made on budget negotiations. I ask
the Republican leadership of the House and Senate: What are you waiting
for? When are you going to sit down and govern? When are you going to
sit down and work out problems instead of dreaming up new ways to shut
down the Government of the United States of America?
There are signs we are headed back to the same old process that was
used before. By the end of the week, they are talking about filibusters
on the Republican side, and staying in all night, and maybe we will
hear another Dr. Seuss book read to us in the middle of the night by
the Texas Senator.
I am not sure what lies ahead, but what the American people are sick
and tired of is what they see on the Senate floor today. They want us
to do our work. They want us to compromise, to agree, to do what is
best for this Nation.
Having one show vote after another does not accomplish that. I ask my
colleagues: Work together. I ask the leaders on the Republican side:
Instead of one more monotonous, predicable vote after another, should
we not sit down and work out a budget negotiation that serves our
Nation, not only the defense budget, but all of America, including
middle-income families.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to support the motion
to proceed to the Department of Defense appropriations bill for fiscal
year 2016. The Committee on Appropriations approved the bill on June 11
by a vote of 27 to 3. The bill provides $489.1 billion in base funding,
and $86.8 billion in overseas contingency operations, which is
consistent with both the fiscal year 2016 budget resolution and the
Defense Subcommittee's allocation.
The bill provides funding to protect the security interests of our
country. The Senate should return to regular order starting with this
national security legislation. It is a bipartisan bill that provides
the President, as Commander in Chief, with the resources to protect our
Nation. I urge the Senate to approve proceeding to this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes for the minority, 1 minute for
the majority.
Mr. DURBIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending
cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
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
proceed to H.R. 2685, an act making appropriations for the
Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September
30, 2016, and for other purposes.
Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, James Lankford, Roger F.
Wicker, John Barrasso, Thom Tillis, Steve Daines, Tom
Cotton, Kelly Ayotte, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, John
Thune, Jerry Moran, Richard C. Shelby, Daniel Coats,
Jeff Flake, Rob Portman.
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 proceed to H.R. 2685, an act making appropriations for the
Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016,
and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close, upon
reconsideration?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer),
the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), and the Senator from
Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 54, nays 42, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 269 Leg.]
YEAS--54
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kirk
Lankford
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--42
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Nelson
Peters
[[Page S6868]]
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--4
Boxer
Murkowski
Murray
Warner
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 54, the nays are
42.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion, upon reconsideration, is rejected.
The majority leader.
____________________