[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.
____________________