[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 143 (Thursday, October 1, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7067-S7075]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED 
    AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2016--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2101

  Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I come to the floor today to ask for an 
extension of a very important program to my State--the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund--and because of that I ask unanimous consent that the 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee be discharged from and the 
Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2101; I ask 
unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, and 
the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I am very disappointed that last night 
the Land and Water Conservation Fund expired, and so it has lapsed. I 
just offered a unanimous consent request to extend this fund for 60 
days to make sure there was not a lapse in this important program.
  This is a fund that, in my home State of New Hampshire, has been used 
to ensure the public can enjoy our beautiful environment and our 
natural spaces, from my home city of Nashua, NH, and Mine Falls Park, 
which I love to run through every morning when I am in New Hampshire, 
to our beautiful White Mountain National Forest.
  I had the opportunity to come to the floor yesterday with Senators 
from both sides of the aisle, including my colleague from Montana, 
Senator Daines. The Senator from Montana had a wonderful picture of him 
and his wife in their public lands that have been preserved using the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund. The picture was of him and his wife 
hiking. We all understand that a big part of the beauty of this country 
is our natural beauty, and because of that, the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund was established in 1965. It was actually established 
to aid in the preservation of spaces for outdoor recreation across this 
Nation.
  In New Hampshire we have a very strong tradition of the outdoors 
being such a part of who we are. In fact, the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund has led to more than 650 individual acquisition and 
development projects in our State. We very much support the public use 
of our lands in our State, enjoying their natural beauty, whether it is 
hiking, fishing, hunting or any number of other wonderful uses we can 
have of our public lands. So this fund has been very important, and I 
believe we should not let it lapse.
  The law that created the Land and Water Conservation Fund in 1965 
established that a portion of the revenues coming from oil and gas 
leasing would be designated for this purpose. So to not extend this 
fund really is another example, if you look at the fund itself, where 
portions of these dollars have actually been taken to spend for other 
purposes in the Treasury, not in accordance with the law. We see that 
happen too much in Washington. But to let this lapse is very 
unfortunate.
  I am very disappointed my colleague has rendered an objection because 
this is such a bipartisan issue and something that has done so much for 
our country--this program--and for my home State of New Hampshire. So I 
hope in the coming days we will be able to work together to have the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund program extended and that we can get 
beyond the partisan objections and get it done so we can work together 
to preserve the beautiful spaces in this country. This program has done 
so much for my home State of New Hampshire and for many States across 
this country, and that is why it has such strong bipartisan support.
  Madam President, I am very disappointed that my very reasonable 
request in asking for unanimous consent to extend this program for 60 
days until we can get to the long-term permanent authorization--which I 
support and I have cosponsored, and I think that is what we need to do 
in the long term--has been objected to. To let this lapse is completely 
unacceptable when it has been such a strong program in allowing 
everyone in this country to enjoy our public lands, to enjoy the great 
outdoors in the greatest country on Earth.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BLUNT. 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. BLUNT. Madam President, I want to talk for a few minutes about 
the discussion we are having about whether to have a discussion. The 
debate we are having about whether to have a debate is always amazing 
to me. How far we have moved in such a short period of time from the 
way the Congress always did its work. The way you set your priorities, 
both at home and in the government, is how you spend your money. You 
might think that is not the way you set your priorities, but if you 
think something is very important to you and your family and you find 
out you are not investing any money or time in it, it is probably not 
all that important. It is probably something you have decided is a good 
thing to say is very important.
  This is the process we go through in the government to talk about 
what our priorities are. What could be more significant in our 
priorities than the bill that I would like to see us take up today, the 
VA-Military Construction bill, the bill that determines lots of things 
about not only people who serve in the military but what is available 
for their families, and what kind of support structure there is, and 
then with the Veterans' Administration, what is there after they serve, 
how are we meeting that commitment we made to our veterans that if they 
serve for the government--and we are grateful, so we should then make 
sure we are always there to do what the American people have told 
veterans we would do if they served.
  We have already had votes not to go to the Defense appropriations 
bill--a bill that is about the same amount of money the President asked 
for and what the President said was needed to defend the country, but 
apparently there is some balance somewhere in the world--that I am not 
aware of--that no matter how much it costs to defend the country, you 
have to spend that much money on other things that don't defend the 
country; that there is a balance between what is happening in Syria 
today and how many employees the EPA needs or how many employees the 
IRS needs. Obviously, that is something that doesn't make sense to 
people. It doesn't make sense to me, but we couldn't get the four 
additional votes we needed to go to the Defense appropriations bill. I 
guess in a world where the President said he is also going to veto the 
Defense authorization bill--not because of what it authorizes but 
because of the money that eventually the appropriators would have to 
spend--people have to wonder what is going on. The No. 1 priority of 
the Federal Government is to defend the country, and following that 
priority, our obligation is to those who serve in the military and 
their families. That is what the Military Construction bill would do. 
It actually spends a little more money than we spent this year. That 
appears to be everybody's complaint; that somehow the government is not 
spending enough money, but the Appropriations Committee took the amount 
of money that the law allows, and the Budget Control Act did a good 
thing in terms of keeping spending under control. That is one of the 
few things that has happened in Washington, DC, in a long time that 
actually did put a lid on spending because it actually put a lid on 
spending. It actually says in the law how much money we can spend this 
year on discretionary spending. The Appropriations Committee, with 
Republicans in charge for the first time in a long time, did the work 
for the first time in a long time. In fact, this is the first year in 6 
years that the Appropriations Committee voted all the bills out of 
committee, marked up all of the bills, cut places where the committee 
thought should be cut, increased places where the committee thought 
should be increased, and this at a level that the law

[[Page S7068]]

allows, but apparently the law is not good enough for our friends who 
always want to spend more money. It is not even good enough to debate 
the bills that come out at the level of the law, to let those be 
amended, and to let that work be publicly done.
  This worked pretty well for a long time. I think initially there was 
probably one spending bill, but I think in the tradition of Congress, 
that was the one bill that in both the House and the Senate we were 
able to debate as long as we wanted to, until everybody was worn out, 
offering their ideas as to how to spend the money better or not spend 
it at all. The House has continued to do this, except for a couple of 
years under Speaker Pelosi, on the half dozen big bills of the 12 
spending bills we have now, and they traditionally have 200 or 300 
amendments on each of those bills on how to spend the money. Some of 
those suggestions were not to spend it at all. What could be healthier 
than that? The Senate is not allowed to do that. At the end of the day, 
we are saying: Let's debate these bills. Let's, of course, debate the 
bill that defends the country. Let's debate the bill that takes care of 
those who do defend the country.

  This bill includes $5.5 billion more than was spent last year. I 
don't recall hearing a hark and cry--when this bill finally gets passed 
as part of one big not very appealing package--from anyone saying that 
we were not spending nearly enough on military construction or veterans 
programs last year, but even though we are spending $5.5 billion more 
than we spent last year, some are saying it isn't nearly enough to 
spend this year. The committee thought it was enough.
  In fact, this bill was voted out of committee--and remember this 
committee has Democrats and Republicans on it--with a vote of 27 to 3. 
Eleven Democrats and all the Republicans said: This is the best way to 
spend this amount of money--$5.5 billion more for these purposes than 
we spent last year. Let's vote this bill out so it can be debated on 
the Senate floor. Here we are months later, still trying to get 60 
Senators to agree to have that debate. Actually, I think we are trying 
to get five Senators to agree to have that debate because all of the 
Republicans, and one Democrat, appear to be willing to move forward on 
these defense funding bills, but there is not enough on the other side. 
If we could get half of the Democrats who voted for the bill in the 
committee, we would have the votes we need to have this debate and talk 
about spending money.
  Eventually the government has to be funded, and we should all 
understand that if we don't do it this way, the alternative is that it 
will be funded in absolutely the worst possible way as one big bill 
with no debate and having to settle on some desperate decision at the 
end of the year in order to keep the government funded because we do 
have to defend the country.
  I am not arguing with the decision that ultimately has to be made to 
defend the country. I am not arguing with the decision that ultimately 
has to be made to have the military installations that allow that to 
happen with military construction. I am not arguing with the decision 
that has to be made for the veterans affairs part of our government, 
including veterans' health--mental and physical--behavioral health, and 
other health, to be funded properly, but why aren't we debating on that 
today?
  What would be wrong with debating this bill? If you were not one of 
the 27 Senators on that committee--so 27 percent of the Senate has 
already voted on this bill. Let's send it to the Senate floor and vote 
on it. If you are not one of the 27 Senators who voted for it or one of 
the 3 who voted against it, bring your ideas to the floor. That is how 
this process is supposed to work. Your ideas may be better than what is 
in the bill, but we will never find out if we are not allowed to debate 
it. This is regrettable for veterans and their families. We see a 
Veterans' Administration that is not doing what it ought to do.
  A year ago, the President said the Veterans' Administration was the 
best funded part of ``his government,'' but now there is not enough 
money. Suddenly there is not enough money. The President thought there 
was enough money a year ago, but apparently there is not enough money 
now. The real issue is that there is not enough commitment to veterans 
and the Veterans' Administration. We could have that debate here too.
  Over the last year, we have moved a long way toward giving veterans 
more choices, more options, and more places to go to get their health 
care. That system is in its fledgling stages, and it ought to be 
debated as we talk about how to spend money that would be spent on the 
Veterans' Administration, but we can't debate and vote on it if people 
aren't willing to have the vote it takes to have that debate. We ought 
to be getting back to the way this process works transparently and the 
way it works constitutionally. We need to have this vote today. We need 
to get to the Defense appropriations bill.
  Earlier this week, we had a vote--which I didn't support--to move 
forward for a few more weeks with last year's spending. Last year's 
priorities only work for so long. Just a couple of years ago, we had 
the situation where the Budget Control Act had to go into effect--and 
it went into effect because Congress didn't do its job and ended up 
appropriating more money than the law would allow--and that required 
line-by-line cutting, the sequester, which is not a necessary part of 
that law at all. It is only a part of the law if the Congress violates 
the law, and the Congress violated the law. The President signed the 
bill, and then we had to do the line-by-line cutting.
  We brought the leaders of our military in to talk about this, and 
none of them were for line-by-line cutting. Who would be? That is the 
worst possible way to reduce spending because you are not making any 
choices, you are just admitting that you can't make any choices, and so 
everything gets cut everywhere. Every one of them said this is a big 
problem, but an even bigger problem in almost every case is the 
sequester. In fact, Admiral McRaven of Special Ops said that an even 
bigger problem than the sequester is the continuing resolution because 
we were cutting lines of a budget that might have met the military 
needs 5 years before, but it hasn't been updated for 5 years.
  Let's have this debate. Let's move beyond saying that we can't decide 
how to spend the money to debating how to spend the money. Let's have a 
defense structure that works for 2015 and 2016, not a defense structure 
that might have worked for 2010. One of the great frustrations the 
people we work for have with us today is they believe this is not all 
that complicated, and they are right. How complicated can it be? We 
were elected to the Senate so we could take positions and vote, so 
let's take positions and vote. The debate we should be having is about 
moving forward on these critical issues.
  I hope our colleagues will join us today. I hope there are 60 
Senators who will say: I am ready to have this debate. I am ready to 
defend the country. I am ready to take care of those who defend our 
country and their families and veterans and their survivors. And that 
is what this budget is all about.
  How anyone can walk onto the floor and say they don't want to deal 
with this now and put it off a little while longer is disappointing to 
me and to lots of people.
  Let's get our work done.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KIRK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KIRK. Madam President, I come to the floor to urge my colleagues 
to pass the 2016 Military Construction appropriations bill. This bill 
has a $4.2 billion increase over last year's level.
  We passed the MILCON-VA bill out of the full Appropriations Committee 
by a vote of 21 to 9, with Democratic Senators Leahy, Feinstein, Udall, 
Schatz, and Baldwin all supporting that bill and with 16 Republicans 
backing it.
  We now have record levels of funding to fix the backlog of disability 
claims at the VA. We took construction out of the hands of the VA and 
gave it to the Army Corps of Engineers so that we never have cost 
overruns like at the Denver hospital again. The bill also bans funding 
for Glenn Haggstrom, the bureaucrat responsible for spending

[[Page S7069]]

$930 million over budget in Denver. The bill provides new protections 
for whistleblowers, especially for doctors and nurses not protected by 
the Whistleblower Protection Act.
  By voting no on this bill, Members will be voting against a $4.2 
billion increase for our veterans.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.


                 Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations

  Mr. TILLIS. Madam President, I rise today to speak about a subject 
matter I touched on about a month ago regarding current trade 
negotiations.
  I don't blame elected officials for pushing legislation, policy 
proposals, or ideas that further their home State's interests. In fact, 
I think that is one of the first things we should do here, that is, to 
make sure the folks who elected us know we are standing up for them.
  But I also think there comes a time when we need to recognize that 
the long-term interests of our collective constituents are at risk, 
even when we are doing short term things that put us at risk.
  This is why I have decided that I wish to speak a little bit about 
the current status of the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP 
negotiations.
  I learned overnight and this morning that the American team of the 
TPP negotiators has tabled language which would carve certain American-
grown commodities out of the protections of the trade deal's investor-
state dispute settlement--or ISDS--mechanism.
  By carving out tobacco from the TPP, the President and his 
administration are discriminating against an entire agriculture 
commodity, setting a dangerous precedent for future trade agreements.
  I rise today to defend the farmers, the manufacturers, and the 
exporters from the discriminatory treatment in this proposed trade 
agreement. What they have decided to do right now relates to tobacco. 
Today it happens to be about tobacco, but I will do this for any crop 
now and for any agriculture commodity for any State going forward in 
the future. This is not just about tobacco. This is about American 
values and fairness.
  In July I stood on this same floor and I discussed this same issue. I 
went out of my way to emphasize that I believe free trade is good. That 
is why I voted for trade promotion authority. A balanced trade 
agreement will benefit all of us.
  I also recognize that the United States over the years has tried to 
do more with these agreements than merely haggle for market access or 
tariff reductions. Over the past 30 years, the United States has 
consistently imported certain components of our American system into 
these agreements, including due process protections, dispute settlement 
procedures, and the protection of private property rights.
  These are now standard terms that those who engage with the United 
States at the bargaining table know are not negotiable.
  They never have been--that is, until yesterday.
  Our negotiators have now concluded that while some investors are 
entitled to equal treatment under the law, others aren't. What our 
negotiators have proposed sets the stage for the remainder of this 
negotiation and for those deals which will be negotiated in the future, 
such as the agreement with Europe and future agreements with African 
nations.
  Our trade agreements are now apparently nothing more than 
laboratories for setting partisan policies and picking winners and 
losers. If we condone this kind of behavior, how can we be assured it 
will ever end?
  As I stated in July, once we allow an entire sector to be treated 
unfairly, the question is, who is next? Is it the beef industry in 
Nebraska? Is it the pork industry in States such as Iowa and North 
Carolina? Is it the poultry industry in Delaware, North Carolina, 
Arkansas, and Georgia?
  We need not look far to find protracted, heated policy debates about 
any number of issues that affect trade--the consumption of coal, energy 
exploration practices, the use of pesticides, the use of biotechnology. 
The right place for those debates is in bodies like this one, not in 
trade agreements. The wrong place is what is going on right now with 
our trade negotiators and the members of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
  I hold a sincere belief that unfair treatment for one agricultural 
commodity significantly heightens the risk that more unfair treatment 
for another commodity lurks around the corner.
  I have no choice but to use this forum to make two very important 
points and make it very clear to the negotiators as we reach the final 
stages of the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations.
  First, I would like to speak to process concerns. A failure to abide 
by the process and the terms governing the process as established by 
the TPA is unacceptable. When I state that I have no choice but to use 
the Senate floor to make these points, I mean it.
  A full 8 weeks ago, I wrote to our Trade Ambassador cautioning him 
about this course of action and requesting that he consult with me as 
he was statutorily obligated in the TPA to do.
  To explain to those in the Gallery, we passed a bill that said we 
wanted to provide the President with trade promotion authority. We 
wanted to empower representatives of the United States to negotiate 
with trading partners who are in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. We 
wanted to support that, over the objections of many of my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle.
  We also set certain ground rules for being able to do that. They had 
to review with Congress some of the proposed items of the agreement 
that may be the most contentious about intellectual property, about the 
carve-out. But to date I have had absolutely no additional 
communication from the Ambassador or his designees. In other words, it 
has been lights out.
  In fact, I would ask any Member of the Senate whether they honestly 
know what currently is in the TPP agreement that is being, in my mind, 
pushed forward and pushed to a point where we will just have a simple 
up-or-down vote. I think this abuse of the process is in violation of 
the letter and the spirit of the TPA.
  The last time anybody spoke to me regarding this particular provision 
that has to do with the carve-out, I was told it is something our 
partners were insisting on. The actions of the last 24 hours--namely, 
that the United States actually tabled the language in question--really 
raises serious doubts about that assertion.
  Second, I want to speak to the growing view that the TPP is not being 
negotiated in accordance with the substance of the TPA. The failure to 
abide by the substance of the provisions of TPA puts the privileged 
status of the proposed treaty at risk, and it is something I am going 
to spend a lot of time focusing on.
  I would remind this body that we have already, in a bipartisan 
fashion, disavowed language that treats some products differently. In 
the TPA, Congress said that opportunities for U.S. agriculture exports 
must be ``substantially equivalent to opportunities afforded foreign 
exports in U.S. markets.'' Congress has stated that dispute settlement 
mechanisms must be available across the board, not selectively.
  I voted to give the President trade promotion authority to allow 
trade agreements such as the TPP to move through Congress in a quick, 
orderly, and responsible fashion. Congress granted the President trade 
promotion authority with the mutual understanding that his 
administration would negotiate deals in good faith. I did not vote to 
give the President and the administration the freedom to 
indiscriminately choose when fairness should be applied and when it 
should be ignored.
  If the President chooses to arbitrarily ignore TPA provisions he 
doesn't like, then Congress is not obliged to honor the fast-track 
status. If any carve-out is ultimately included in the TPP, I will work 
hard to defeat it.
  I might add that our own majority leader has expressed concerns over 
this and has expressed the same sentiment to the trade negotiation 
team.
  In closing, I wish to offer this to anyone who believes my sticking 
up for tobacco or this particular provision or for equal treatment and 
American values is shortsighted: I want you to know that I would do it 
for beef in Nebraska,

[[Page S7070]]

for pork in Iowa, for poultry in Delaware, for any farmer who is being 
unfairly carved out as a result of the administration's desire to put 
provisions in a trade agreement that simply shouldn't be there, and 
which have not been there historically.
  So to the Members of the Senate and to the American people and the 
farmers out there, I want you to know I am going to continue this 
fight. I am going to continue this fight not because it satisfies a 
home constituency, but because I intend to protect the free trade 
ideals that have made the United States the most desirable trading 
partner in the world.
  Thank you, Madam President. I also want you to know that I think 
there is a growing sense of concern--whether it is Senator Hatch, 
Senator McConnell, or a number of other Senators--that regardless of 
how they feel about this particular issue with tobacco, the provision 
in such a trade agreement is unacceptable. I hope our trade negotiators 
recognize that we are focusing a lot of attention on this, and they 
risk putting together a good trade agreement that we would all like to 
get behind as a result.

  Thank you, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). The Senator from New Hampshire.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2101

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, for 50 years the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund has done amazing work protecting our land, waterways, 
forests, State parks, and critical wildlife habitats. This is 
particularly true in New Hampshire, where since 1965 LWCF has funded 
more than 650 individual projects. Just this month, New Hampshire 
received eight new LWCF grants, which will allow New Hampshire 
communities to develop outdoor recreation facilities in Dover, which is 
close to where I live, to renovate Osgood Pond in Milford, and to do so 
many other projects.
  In the last couple of months, I actually had a chance to go around 
New Hampshire and visit so many of these projects that were done 
because of LWCF grants. One of the things that really struck me about 
them is that they are not for big projects, although some have been 
used toward doing that. The Silvio Conte National Wildlife Preserve 
that crosses Vermont and New Hampshire is one of those that have been 
preserved, with the help of Judd Gregg, a former Republican Senator 
from New Hampshire. LWCF helped to preserve that.
  So many of these grants have been used for small projects and 
communities, such as Meredith in the Lakes Region of New Hampshire on 
Lake Winnipesaukee, where I visited. They have been able to expand the 
park along the lake so that people not only from Meredith but from 
across the State and other parts of the country when they are visiting 
can come and sit and enjoy the water. With those projects, they have 
been able to put in new docks so that people can get out on the lake on 
boats and enjoy the water. Without LWCF, those projects would not have 
been possible. It gets people out into the outdoors who otherwise 
wouldn't be able to do that.
  Federal and State LWCF funds are also vital to the outdoor recreation 
industry in New Hampshire. That is one of our biggest industries. It 
accounts for $4.2 billion in consumer spending, $1.2 billion in wages 
and salaries, and nearly 50,000 jobs. The importance of these projects 
and the conservation efforts that are the result of LWCF to the tourism 
sector of our economy and to our outdoor industry cannot be overstated.
  There has been bipartisan support for LWCF since its inception back 
in the 1960s. There is a bill which Senator Burr has introduced and 
which I am a cosponsor of that would extend LWCF for 60 days. 
Unfortunately, last night LWCF expired. Its authorization ended as of 
September 30.
  The effort to reauthorize the program, to invoke Senator Burr's 
bipartisan legislation, was defeated. When they objected to a simple 
short-term extension of LWCF, our Republican friends indicated it was 
because they believed most LWCF funding goes to Federal land 
acquisition. Well, I would like the Record to reflect that is just not 
the case. I have seen it firsthand in New Hampshire in the projects I 
talked about. I would bet the Presiding Officer has seen in North 
Carolina the support LWCF has provided. In fact, during the last 10 
years, LWCF funds have been split about 50-50 between Federal agencies 
and States. In New Hampshire, what these Federal grants do is to 
leverage State support and private support and local support.
  Moreover, most Federal lands that are acquired with LWCF funds are 
within the existing boundaries of Federal parks, refuges, forests, and 
other recreation areas. Consolidating these lands helps to reduce 
Federal maintenance and management costs, saves taxpayer dollars, and 
enhances the experience visitors have to these areas. For example, in 
2014, 39 of 40 LWCF national forest acquisitions expanded access to 
property already managed by the Federal Government that had been 
previously closed to the public. This is not about keeping the public 
off these lands, this is about helping to ensure that members of the 
public can get on these lands and benefit from them and enjoy them.
  This Senator is very disappointed that we have seen a few people 
blocking the extension of this program in a way that affects every 
single State in this country. Our failure to act has significant 
consequences for each and every State.
  The expiration of this program jeopardizes access to public land for 
hunting and fishing, which is one of the great benefits we have in New 
Hampshire that we use these lands for. It prohibits access to other 
outdoor activities that are important and unique to our American 
heritage. This is going to adversely impact our Nation's outdoor, 
recreation, conservation, and preservation economy. In New Hampshire, 
our whole outdoor industry is affected. That outdoor industry 
contributes over $1 trillion to our Nation each year, and it supports 
millions of American jobs.
  I think it is critical that we pass a short-term extension to keep 
this program operating, but ultimately what we need to do is to pass a 
bill that permanently reauthorizes and fully funds LWCF--something a 
bipartisan majority of this body supports doing. I am going to continue 
working to pass a permanent authorization. I know that Senator Burr; my 
colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Ayotte; and other people who are 
on this bill feel the same way.
  In the meantime, we should not allow LWCF to lapse any longer. So 
this Senator is going to renew a unanimous consent request that was 
made last night by my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Heinrich, to 
pass a 60-day extension.
  I recognize that this request is going to be objected to by Senator 
Lankford, whom I see on the floor, but I just want to remind us all 
that less than 2 weeks ago, 53 Senators wrote the Senate majority 
leader urging action to reauthorize LWCF. To the 12 Republican Senators 
who signed that letter, I say this: I hope you will work with us to 
correct the misconceptions and the mischaracterizations that exist 
about this program. Let's work together so we can allow this short-term 
extension to pass. Let's work together to get a long-term 
reauthorization for the Land and Water Conservation Fund because LWCF 
has expanded outdoor opportunities in every single State in the 
country.
  We should come together to support the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund, to protect one of America's most essential tools for conservation 
and economic growth.
  With that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee be discharged from and the Senate proceed 
to the immediate consideration of S. 2101; and I ask unanimous consent 
that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I do 
object to this bill moving forward by unanimous consent today. The 
issue is that this bill needs reform. I enjoy our national parks. My 
children enjoy our national parks.
  Twenty-nine percent of the United States is already under Federal 
ownership. Twenty-nine percent of all of the United States is under 
Federal ownership. A significant portion of this--in

[[Page S7071]]

fact, last year $306 million was spent from the LWCF, and $178 million 
of that was for new land acquisition.
  So the bulk of what this program is used for is for new land 
acquisition. But the real issue to address here is not only what 
happens if we allow it to lapse but what happens with it day to day. 
The day-to-day operation of the LWCF is for new land acquisition or for 
putting money into a State grant to be able to have them buy new 
facilities, not to maintain them.
  We are not setting aside the money to be able to maintain this. We 
have an $11.5 billion deferred maintenance backlog at our national 
parks right now. The new additional dollars that are used for land 
acquisition are used to be able to pick up new properties and not to be 
able to maintain what we currently have. So the challenge that I have 
is this: Why don't we look at this fund in a new way? Why can't we take 
care of what we already have and not just focus on acquiring new 
properties?
  To leave the LWCF as it currently is would be something akin to 
saying: I want to buy a new car, but I don't want to set aside money to 
actually put gas in it. I just want to have the new car.
  Well, if we are going to have that property, we better take care of 
it. Currently, the Federal Government is a terrible steward of the land 
we have. Now, as far as this program and reauthorizing it right now, we 
checked with the Congressional Research Service. If this program is not 
reauthorized currently, the program continues. The program currently 
has $20 billion in reserves right now--$20 billion.
  Last year, $306 million was spent. The year before, $306 million was 
spent in LWCF, meaning in current status, right now, if we do not put a 
single dime into LWCF for the next few years, we will only have 65 
years of reserve left in this program. It is not a crisis that we need 
to fix immediately. This authorization does not keep the program going. 
This authorization means we are not adding new money to the $20 billion 
already in reserve.
  I think we have at least 64 years to be able to work this out and a 
65-year reserve. I can't imagine it would take that long, but with the 
Senate, everything seems to take too long. What we are looking for is 
pretty straightforward and simple. Let's spend some of these dollars to 
be able to focus on not just buying new properties but on actually 
taking care of properties that the U.S. Government has the 
responsibility to actually be able to maintain. It is to reform this 
program in the days ahead and to make sure that we are managing land 
well, not just adding new land all the time.
  So with that, I do object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I would be all for taking the backlog of 
funding and putting it into LWCF. I think my colleague raises some real 
reforms that could be made to LWCF. In fact, there is legislation in 
the comprehensive energy bill that Senators Murkowski and Cantwell have 
passed that would make some of those reforms. But if we can't get to 
that, if we can't extend this program in the short term, we are never 
going to get to that point.
  The fact is that the backlog of maintenance needs should be 
addressed. But it does not make sense for us to suspend the program 
while we address those needs. LWCF was not established for maintenance 
purposes. It was established to protect natural areas and to provide 
recreation opportunities to the American public.
  When I went to the city of Nashua, the second largest city in New 
Hampshire, and walked with the Republican mayor along the Riverwalk 
that they are trying to establish there, what I heard from her was what 
a critical difference LWCF made to the city and being able to leverage 
funds that the city put in and that the State could put in to help make 
sure that the people of Nashua, many of whom cannot get to national 
parks or to the White Mountains in New Hampshire but they could get to 
the Riverwalk through downtown Nashua.
  Those are the kinds of projects that LWCF goes to help fund. Some 99 
percent of what Federal agencies spend goes to acquire inholds, those 
pieces of land that are already within the boundaries of a national 
park, a national forest or a national wildlife refuge that if sold to a 
private developer would block public access. It would damage park 
resources. It would harm the visitor experience, and it would make it 
harder to maintain those very projects that my colleague was talking 
about wanting to maintain.
  So I think, while it sounds simple to say there is a backlog and we 
should not reauthorize this program, that is only half the story. It is 
very disappointing that with the strong bipartisan support this 
legislation has, with the need to reauthorize it to continue to protect 
special places in the country, we are seeing opposition from a very few 
people in this body who are able to block our moving forward.


                       Nomination of Gayle Smith

  Mr. President, I would like to, if I could, move on to address a 
different issue, and hope we will see some cooperative agreement at 
some point in the future. I also want to urge the consideration of the 
nomination of Gayle Smith to serve as the Administrator of the United 
States Agency for International Development, also known as USAID. I am 
here with my colleague Senator Coons from the Foreign Relations 
Committee to talk about this nominee because this is a noncontroversial 
nominee, a seasoned public servant for a position that should be above 
partisanship.
  So it is really disappointing that, again, there is only one person 
in this body who is holding this up. This comes at a particularly 
difficult time because we are witnessing a humanitarian crisis in Syria 
and across the Middle East. It is a crisis that grows worse every day. 
Our European allies are struggling to cope with a massive refugee and 
migration crisis without precedent since World War II.
  The United States, with our unparalleled capacity to mobilize 
humanitarian support for humanitarian relief, has played a leading 
role, but there is more that we can do to assist both the Syrian 
refugees and the neighboring countries that are hosting them to help 
with that humanitarian crisis. But our ability to respond effectively 
to these challenges is hampered by the inability of the Senate to vote 
on Gayle Smith's nomination to lead USAID.
  So, again, nearly 4 months have passed since she appeared before the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The committee approved her 
nomination by a voice vote in July. But since then, there has been no 
attempt to bring her nomination to the Senate floor, even as these 
humanitarian crises have deepened and deteriorated. It is not only our 
operations in the Middle East that are being hampered, USAID currently 
operates in more than 60 countries and regional missions around the 
world.
  Following the devastating earthquake in Nepal in April, USAID 
disaster response teams were among the first crisis personnel to deploy 
there to organize the humanitarian response. USAID personnel continue 
to support our development efforts in Afghanistan. Those efforts are 
critical to the long-term success in the country. Given the 
extraordinary humanitarian crises confronting the United States, 
confronting our allies in the world, we really need a leader in place 
at USAID. It is unconscionable that here we are 4 months later and she 
is still being stalled.
  Gayle Smith is a superbly qualified nominee who will almost certainly 
be confirmed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote. The Senate deserves 
the chance to vote on this critical nomination. So, again, I urge the 
majority leader to bring her nomination to the floor. We discussed it 
again today in the Foreign Relations Committee. I know my colleague 
from Delaware can speak also to what we heard in the Foreign Relations 
Committee.
  So I would yield to my colleague from Delaware to discuss what we 
have heard in the Foreign Relations Committee about Gayle Smith and the 
need to put her in place as leader of USAID.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, confirmation and expiration are issues 
before us today. As we have heard from the Member from New Hampshire, 
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on which we both serve, months 
ago considered the nomination of Gayle Smith to be the next 
Administrator of USAID. Today, 60 million people

[[Page S7072]]

around the world are displaced, either within their countries or as 
refugees spreading throughout the world.
  It is the single greatest refugee crisis since the end of the Second 
World War. Gayle Smith came before our committee and received 
commendations and plaudits from Republicans and Democrats for her long 
experience as a journalist, as a leader in humanitarian agencies, as a 
member of the National Security Council, as a cofounder of the 
Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network, and as a seasoned and senior 
leader who can help bring strong leadership to USAID at this difficult 
and important time.
  Four months later, she has yet to be confirmed by this body. We have 
broad bipartisan support for this nominee yet fail to move her forward 
due to a hold by one Member. I think this points to a longer challenge 
that this body faces because you also heard from the Senator from New 
Hampshire of an attempt to move forward the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund, which yesterday expired.


    Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program and Child Advocacy Centers

  Mr. President, I cannot yield without commenting on how hard I worked 
in the previous Congress to get reauthorized two critical programs, a 
bulletproof vest partnership program that for years provided tens of 
millions of dollars to State and local law enforcement for lifesaving 
bulletproof vests, and a reauthorization effort I led for years--both 
of these with bipartisan support--to restore authorization to child 
advocacy centers--centers that critically support families who have 
been harmed by child abuse and allow local law enforcement to pursue 
effective prosecutions.
  It is unconscionable that this body yesterday, September 30, allowed 
the Land and Water Conservation Fund to expire, allowed a whole range 
of child nutrition and school lunch authorizing programs to expire, and 
allowed the James Zadroga 9/11 first responders act to expire. One of 
the very first bills I cosponsored and was proud to support as a new 
Senator 5 years ago was the James Zadroga 9/11 first responders act, 
which provides support for those who raced to the site of the 9/11 
catastrophe, risked their lives, and today suffer lasting health 
effects from it.
  The idea that this body allowed that funding to expire yesterday and 
that many of the folks who are the beneficiaries of that fund now face 
the extinction of their medical support is unacceptable to me. So 
before I yield the floor, I simply wanted to commend my colleague for 
raising the issue of Gayle Smith's nomination at this unique time of 
global humanitarian challenges.
  USAID cannot effectively do its job without a confirmed leader. I 
remind everybody in this body that when we fail to work together, when 
bills expire, it has real consequences, not just for humanitarian 
issues overseas but for our own first responders who we are pledged to 
support. I say it is a shame on this body that we allowed the 9/11 
James Zadroga first responders act to expire, that we allowed the 
authorizing statutes for the summer lunch and school lunch programs to 
expire, and that we have allowed the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
to expire.
  It is my hope that we will begin to work together in this place and 
to stop allowing nominations to rest for months and to stop allowing 
the expiration of valuable statutes that underlie our security at home 
and abroad.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 
5 minutes, after which point I will be followed by the Senator from 
Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                 Russia

  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, 3 years ago when President Obama's 
opponent said that Russia was our chief geopolitical rival, President 
Obama chuckled and said: ``The 1980s called and they want their foreign 
policy back.''
  Well, now the 1930s are calling President Obama, and they want their 
foreign policy back. Yesterday was the anniversary of Munich. How 
fitting that Russia conducted its first major military operations 
outside of its near abroad since the end of the Cold War on that 
anniversary in Syria yesterday, because the President's foreign policy 
has invited exactly this kind of provocation all around the world. 
President Obama and Secretary Kerry keep saying that they don't know 
what Russian intentions are, that they don't know Russia's goals are in 
the region.
  It is very simple. So let me lay it out clearly. Russia is an enemy. 
Vladimir Putin is a KGB spy who views the world as a zero-sum game. In 
the short term, he intends to prop up his tyrannical ally Bashar al-
Assad, and he wants to preserve access to his expeditionary military 
bases outside of his country.
  In the medium term, he wants to either preserve Assad or he wants to 
replace him with a like-minded ally. He wants to diminish the power and 
prestige of the United States in the region. He wants to establish 
Russia as the main Middle East power broker, and he wants to divert 
attention from his continued occupation of Ukraine.
  In the long term, he sees an opportunity to divide EU and divide NATO 
at lower risk than it would take to conduct military operations such as 
Estonia or Latvia. If Europeans are going to be divided because of a 
refugee crisis of a few hundred thousand, imagine what could happen 
when Vladimir Putin turns up the heat in Syria and drives hundreds of 
thousands or more of those refugees into Europe.
  How has this come to pass? Why would he think he could get away with 
all of this? Because of the unending series of concessions and 
appeasement of Barack Obama toward Vladimir Putin. Before he was even 
elected to office in 2008, when Vladimir Putin invaded Georgia, Barack 
Obama--then a candidate--called for Georgia to exercise restraint while 
they were under an invasion.
  Just a couple of months later, he called for a reset in relations 
while there were still Russian troops on Georgian soil. A few months 
after that, he withdrew missile defense systems from the Czech Republic 
and Poland--on the 70th anniversary of Russia's invasion of Poland--
without so much as a heads-up and without getting anything in return.
  He entered into the New START treaty, which allows Russia to continue 
to grow their nuclear forces or requires the United States to reduce 
ours. In a ``hot mic'' moment, he was caught with Dmitry Medvedev, 
promising more flexibility toward Russia after the election of 2012. He 
fought tooth and nail against the Magnitsky human rights act, only 
accepting it once he realized it had overwhelming bipartisan support in 
Congress. He continues to look the other way as Russia violates the 
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. He jumped at the opportunity 
that Vladimir Putin provided him in 2013 to avoid carrying out his 
airstrikes in Syria and to enforce his own red line.
  Just as in Georgia, when Vladimir Putin invaded Crimea, he demanded 
restraint from the government of Ukraine. When Vladimir Putin began to 
conduct operations in eastern Ukraine, he looked the other way, he 
imposed weak sanctions. To this day, he refuses to arm them in the ways 
they are desperately calling for.
  So what should we do now? Again, I think it is very simple. Let me 
lay it out. We should make it clear that Vladimir Putin and Russia will 
not be a power in the Middle East. We should pressure our partners to 
do the same thing. We should establish no-fly zones in Syria and make 
it clear that any aircraft that enters those zones will be shot down. 
We should make it clear that we will fly where we want and when we 
want, that any aircraft in Syria--or, for that matter, in the vicinity 
of a NATO country--that turns on the transponder will be shot down as a 
menace to civil aviation and to our allies. We should ramp up our 
airstrikes in Syria against our enemies such as the Islamic State. We 
should threaten Iran with termination of the nuclear deal because they 
are continuing to provide support for Bashar al-Assad. We should make 
it clear that Israel retains the right to interdict missile shipments 
from Iran through Syria to the terrorist group Hezbollah.
  Let's not forget about Ukraine and Europe. We should arm Ukranian 
forces. We should give them the intelligence they need on Russian 
forces and rebels who are amassing on their border. We should enhance 
sanctions

[[Page S7073]]

by expanding them across all sectors. We should move troops to base 
them--at least temporarily, if not permanently--on our eastern NATO 
flank in places such as Estonia and Latvia.
  Some say these responses will be provocative, but where will Putin's 
provocations end? What is really provocative is American weakness.
  Putin is humiliating the United States. If we don't draw a line now 
and enforce it, it will not be a choice between humiliation or war; it 
will be a choice between humiliation and war.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.


                    Land and Water Conservation Fund

  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I do wish to go back to the comments of 
the good Senator from New Hampshire on the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund, and I want to associate myself with those remarks.
  I also wish to add for the record that there is a fair amount of this 
money that is spent for land acquisition from the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund. That is not a bad thing. Get some of the in-holdings 
out of being in-holdings. It helps with management, and it helps with 
management costs.
  I will tell you, if you are a fisherman or a hunter in this country, 
access and habitat is a huge issue, and the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund is all about access for hunters, fishermen, bike riders, 
birdwatchers, and all those folks, and habitat for big game and 
fisheries.
  For this fund to expire for the first time ever is a travesty. You 
are right. We spent $306 million on it the last 2 years; we were 
supposed to have spent $900 million in this fund, and that is why there 
is the reserve there is. Quite frankly, if you take a look at the 
United States, you take a look at the in-holdings, and you take a look 
at the recreational opportunities out there--$306 million isn't enough. 
Yet this fund has expired and is not authorized.
  In Montana alone, just for the record, recreational opportunities add 
$6 billion, with a ``b,'' to our economy. We are a State of 1 million 
people--$6 billion to our economy. It employs over 64,000 people, and 
that doesn't count the businesses that moved to Montana for the 
recreational opportunities nor the people who come to work for those 
businesses for the recreational opportunities. I just wanted to get 
that into the Record.
  Mr. President, I wish to talk about the bill under consideration, the 
Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill, and I 
express my opposition to that bill.
  Why? We just heard a presentation on the floor a minute ago from the 
Senator who talked about shooting down planes and potentially going to 
war. The amount that it costs to take care of our veterans is a cost of 
war, and we are underfunding the VA today by over $800 million. I 
express my deep disappointment in the majority's inability to recognize 
the true cost of sending this Nation, young men and women, into harm's 
way.
  Veterans Day is 6 weeks from now. Many of the folks in this Chamber 
will go back to their home States where they will be attending 
ceremonies and taking photos of men and women who are in uniform. We 
will give speeches and talk about our profound gratitude to the 
veterans and their families who have sacrificed so much for their 
country.
  In the meantime, you will see a flurry of press statements from 
Senators, oftentimes patting themselves on their backs for extending 
benefits to veterans or enhancing the quality and timeliness of their 
care, or you will hear Senators and Congressmen lamenting on the lack 
of leadership within the VA and taking the VA to task for not 
performing up to their expectations. But there is one thing many of 
those Members of Congress will not do, and that is give the VA the 
resources it needs to serve the men and women who have served this 
country and the military.
  Right now, the VA is under greater demand for services and subject to 
a higher degree of accountability than any other time in this 
Department's history. After a decade of war in the Middle East, that 
demand should be expected to be high. After recent allegations of 
mismanagement and wrongdoing, that accountability is absolutely 
warranted, but the standard we are holding the VA to should be the 
standard we hold ourselves to.
  Is Congress doing the very best that it can do to ensure our Nation's 
veterans can access the health care and the benefits they have earned? 
Given the appropriations bill before us, the answer to that question 
is: No, we are not.
  Our job is to make sure the VA is working for all veterans and to 
make sure it can work for all veterans. That means holding the VA 
accountable and ensuring it operates in full transparency, but that 
also means the VA has to have the capacity to meet the current needs of 
the demand for its services and to meet those demands into the future.
  It requires rigorous oversight. Today's President understands that. 
There is no doubt about that, but it also requires giving the VA the 
tools and the resources it needs to get the job done.
  Let's be clear. I believe this bill sets the VA up for failure. There 
are folks on the other side who are demanding that the VA fix itself, 
but in order to fix itself, we have to give it the tools it needs to do 
that. We are refusing to do that in this bill. We are setting up the VA 
for failure, and that failure will result in failing our veterans.
  If this bill is enacted, it could mean that 68,500 fewer veterans are 
receiving the VA medical care they need, including veterans such as a 
constituent of mine from Reed Point, MT. This man had an eye exam in 
early February and received a prescription for a new pair of glasses. 
He was told he would receive them in 4 to 6 weeks, but due to a large 
backlog, he did not receive them until July. It took 5 months to get 
this man glasses.
  How are we going to improve the quality of care for veterans if the 
VA budget isn't where it needs to be?
  Take the story of Perry, who is 67 years old. He has a 100-percent 
service disability due to Agent Orange exposure in Vietnam. He relies 
on the VA for lifesaving cancer treatment. Without chemotherapy and 
specialty care, Perry's prognosis is not good. To make matters worse, 
the VA can approve only six appointments at a time, which is a real 
challenge for Perry because he is receiving treatment 5 days a week. So 
every week he has to fill out another round of paperwork to qualify for 
medical care.
  These are real folks who served their county. They are veterans who 
have real issues with the VA today at current funding levels.
  Do we think these problems are going to be easier to solve if we give 
them an underfunded budget? They won't be.
  Over the last 14 years, we fought 2 wars in the Middle East. Almost 
10,000 Americans are still involved in a fight in Afghanistan at this 
very moment. For them, this war is far from over, and for many people 
in this Chamber--some who led us into the war in Iraq--they refuse to 
admit these are also the true costs of war, taking care of our 
veterans.
  When we send young men and women over there and we put these wars on 
America's credit card as we did--financed by China, Japan, and others--
we do not bother to factor in what it would cost to meet their health 
care and educational requirements when they come back home. Honoring 
our commitment to veterans is a cost of war and one that we should 
never forget about. Those who came home are now suffering from physical 
wounds but also wounds we cannot see. As I said yesterday, at least 22 
veterans are taking their own lives every single day, and $1 billion 
less won't help the VA get these men and women back on their feet and 
give them the mental health care that they need.
  The VA also faces unprecedented demand for new treatments of diseases 
such as hepatitis C, which are shorter in duration, with fewer side 
effects, and that have cure rates--and this is very good news--
approaching 100 percent, but they cost money. As Vietnam veterans reach 
retirement age, that means that nearly half of this Nation's veteran 
population will be 65 years of age or older. They are entitled to their 
VA care. After all, they have earned it, and they are going to need 
more and more of that care in the years ahead.
  My home State of Montana has the second highest per capita veterans 
population in this country. It is a rural State where distance poses a 
major obstacle to care. The Choice Act that we

[[Page S7074]]

passed and enacted last year was designed to address many of those 
obstacles that rural veterans face.
  The VA is also working to establish residency programs in rural 
States to encourage rural medical providers to locate in those rural 
States. We need to build off of these efforts and work to ensure they 
are carried out as we intended and as the veterans deserve.
  Will cutting pay for VA providers help bring more medical 
professionals to Montana or Alaska or Oklahoma or North Carolina? The 
answer is no.
  I go home nearly every weekend, and when I travel around the State, I 
talk to veterans. They tell me that getting in the door of that VA can 
be very frustrating. Shortchanging the VA's medical facilities doesn't 
solve that problem. Not allowing the VA to hire more doctors and nurses 
doesn't solve that problem.
  So today we need to fix this bill because the folks who sacrificed so 
much for this country deserve nothing less.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I yield back all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, all time is yielded back.


                             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 
     proceed to calendar No. 98, H.R. 2029, an act making 
     appropriations for military construction, the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2016, and for other purposes.
         Mitch McConnell, Orrin G. Hatch, Thom Tillis, Tom Cotton, 
           James Lankford, Shelley Moore Capito, Deb Fischer, Thad 
           Cochran, John Barrasso, John Cornyn, Richard C. Shelby, 
           Cory Gardner, Richard Burr, Jerry Moran, Jeff Flake, 
           Steve Daines.

  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. 2029, an act making appropriations for 
military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related 
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other 
purposes, shall be brought to a close?
  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 Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
Graham), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from 
Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 50, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 273 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

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

                                NAYS--44

     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
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Boxer
     Cruz
     Graham
     McCain
     Rubio
     Vitter
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 50, the nays are 
44.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Military 
Construction and Veterans Affairs and related agencies appropriations 
bill. I am very encouraged that has finally come before the U.S. 
Senate. I also wish to remind my colleagues that the Senate 
Appropriations Committee has put forward 12 appropriations bills that 
reflect the priorities of the American people and the budget we passed 
in April.
  Let me remind my colleagues that budget took $7 trillion out of the 
President's proposed budget over the next 10 years. Yet here we are 
today, in October, facing the reality that since April we have not been 
able to debate on this floor those 12 appropriations bills. You have 
heard all year that we need to get back to regular order, and that 
means the Senate needs to bring up and debate each of these 12 bills 
individually. However, due to Democratic obstructionism, the Federal 
Government is operating under a short-term funding measure, and the 
Senate has not been able to debate any of these 12 funding bills.
  It is time for the political posturing to stop. People back home 
don't understand. I don't either. Senate Democrats are again acting as 
a roadblock in preventing progress. The American people sent us to 
govern responsibly, and it is time for Senate Democrats to start living 
up to this expectation, particularly when it comes to funding our 
government.
  In this vote today, Senate Democrats are blocking us from moving 
forward with a bill to fund military construction projects that help 
our troops and support key veterans programs, many of which need reform 
after being plagued by backlogs and scandals for years.
  We must make good on our Nation's promise to our veterans and provide 
our troops with the facilities they need to work, train, and fulfill 
the mission of the U.S. Armed Forces. Senate Democrats just voted 
against improvements to the VA electronic health records system so that 
veterans' records are safely and seamlessly accessed among agencies and 
the private sector. They just voted against increased transparency for 
the VA disability claims system to reduce the backlog for those 
veterans who need help the most. They just voted against much needed 
oversight of VA construction projects, like the VA hospital in Denver, 
CO, that is over $1 billion over budget. Additionally, they just voted 
against construction of the second missile defense site in Poland, a 
project that is an important deterrent against Russian aggression in 
Eastern Europe and had been previously scrapped by President Obama.
  Our Nation is currently dealing with a global security crisis. We 
must take recent Russian aggressions and the rise of great power 
traditional rivals very seriously. Yesterday Russia launched airstrikes 
in Syria to prop up President Bashar Al Assad in a strategy Defense 
Secretary Ash Carter described as counterproductive and equated to 
``pouring gasoline on the fire.'' Clearly, we must make sure our troops 
have the resources they need to protect our country. Because of that, I 
am shocked that my colleagues across the aisle today just voted to 
delay construction for our military facilities--facilities our troops 
depend on to train for current conflicts and to prepare for whatever 
the future holds.
  Most appalling of all, Senate Democrats voted today to block this 
bill even after we learned that tens of thousands of our veterans have 
died while waiting for care they need and deserve. This is 
unconscionable, and the brinksmanship we are seeing from Senate 
Democrats across the aisle is totally unacceptable.
  Our veterans sacrificed so much for our freedom, and our service men 
and

[[Page S7075]]

women are currently putting their lives in jeopardy every day for us 
and our families. We cannot fail them. This bipartisan Federal funding 
bill does a lot of important things for our Nation, but most 
importantly it supports our American heroes. Like most of my 
colleagues, I have traveled this year and met with our fighting women 
and men on frontlines. The very best of Americans are in uniform today, 
and they deserve our full support.
  Today I call on my colleagues across the aisle to stop blocking these 
important bills. Let's get them on the floor and negotiate--compromise 
if we have to but get to a conclusion where we can fund the men and 
women defending our freedom. We now have 72 days to return to regular 
order and debate these important appropriations bills so the priorities 
of our veterans, our military, and the American people can once and for 
all be restored. I sincerely hope that all the colleagues in this body 
will not disappoint the American people yet again.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________