[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 148 (Thursday, October 8, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7233-S7244]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                        2016--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 2028, which the 
clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 96, H.R. 2028, a bill 
     making appropriations for energy and water development and 
     related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2016, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 11:30 
a.m. will be controlled by the majority.
  The Senator from West Virginia.


                  National Defense Authorization Bill

  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate came together in a 
bipartisan way to pass the National Defense Authorization Act 
conference report. This important legislation authorizes vital 
resources for our Nation's troops, our wounded warriors, and their 
families.
  This NDAA provides for our national security needs and will meet our 
commitments to our allies. The defense funding bill also includes 
programs that will directly benefit the West Virginia National Guard, 
including our partnership program with Peru and the Drug Interdiction 
and Counter-Drug Program to fight the wave of prescription drug abuse 
that is all over our States and our State in particular.
  This bill provides funding for STARBASE--I visited STARBASE just 
recently--an innovative program that provides hands-on learning 
opportunities for students in science, technology, and mathematics, and 
helps spur their interest in STEM. They were really excited that day.
  On Monday when I visited the 167th Air Lift Wing in Martinsburg, I 
enjoyed the opportunity to personally meet and thank our servicemembers 
and learn about the challenges they face. These brave men and women 
deserve our unified support and should not be subject to the gridlock 
that has been too common in Washington.
  Unbelievably to me, though, the President has threatened to veto this 
bipartisan legislation, even though it authorizes the same amount of 
spending for national defense that he asked for in his budget 
submission. Just recently the administration authorized tens of 
billions of dollars for Iran through sanctions relief, including money 
that will be used admittedly to further destabilize the Middle East. 
Now the President is threatening to veto funding authorization for our 
own troops.
  We face great and growing threats to our national security. ISIS 
continues to advance. Syria's ongoing civil war is creating a flood of 
refugees in Europe, Russia is increasing its influence in the Middle 
East, and Iran will gain strength due to the sanctions relief granted 
in the nuclear agreement. It would be a mistake for the President to 
veto this funding for our national defense.
  As the Washington Post editorialized this weekend, ``American 
presidents rarely veto national defense authorization bills, since they 
are, well, vital to national security.''
  The editorial continues, ``Refusing to sign this bill would make 
history, but not in a good way.''
  This is not the legacy the President wants to leave behind. He should 
reconsider his position and follow the lead of the 70 Senators who 
voted yesterday--including 21 Democrats--to put our national security 
before politics.
  The Senate is now considering another bipartisan bill that has 
important implications to our national security. The Energy and Water 
appropriations bill funds programs that help us use our energy 
resources in the most efficient way possible.
  I serve on the Appropriations Committee. I saw the bipartisan work 
that occurred between the chair and the ranking member. Continued 
innovation in our energy resources, whether it is coal, natural gas or 
oil, is absolutely a strategic asset to our national energy 
independence.
  The benefit of innovation in our energy sector is reflected in the 
vast reserves of shale gas that are now being produced in West Virginia 
and elsewhere across the country. It was less than a decade ago, when I 
came to Congress, many of us were worried about a shortage of natural 
gas. Today, natural gas production is surging. In West Virginia alone, 
production has increased by over 500 percent in the last decade. It is 
exciting to watch. An energy economy is a jobs economy.
  Not only does shale gas help us meet our domestic energy needs, we 
have an opportunity to expand our LNG exports, creating more jobs at 
home while helping to meet the energy and security needs of our allies 
in Europe and Japan.
  Innovation and investment in clean coal technologies, not across-the-
board regulation, should be our focus. The Energy and Water 
appropriations bill includes $610 million in fossil fuel development. 
This is a necessary investment in entities such as the National Energy 
and Technology Lab in Morgantown, so that they can use these dollars to 
develop the technologies to make coal, oil, and natural gas production 
cleaner and more efficient.
  I strongly disagree with EPA regulations that require the use of 
technology that is not commercially available. That is what we see in 
these regulations. They increase the cost of energy and they decrease 
the reliability of electricity grid. The best way to provide that 
energy and improve our environment is to invest in the technologies 
that will help us and use those coal reserves in the most efficient way 
possible.
  This bill also provides important funding for the Appalachian 
Regional Commission. West Virginia is the only State that is completely 
within the boundaries of the Appalachian Regional Commission, and the 
ARC plays an important role in helping West Virginians meet our 
economic challenges. The funding provided in this bill can help ARC 
promote rural broadband--something I talk a lot about on the floor of 
the Senate--and will expand rural health care services and offer 
opportunity to our State's workers.
  Investments made in the Army Corps of Engineers through this bill 
will help provide the infrastructure we need to make sure American 
products can move to markets across the country and around the world.
  The Energy and Water appropriations bill impacts every American. It 
was carefully crafted, robustly debated in committee, and passed the 
full Appropriations Committee with bipartisan support.
  Mr. President and my fellow Members of the Senate, the Appropriations

[[Page S7234]]

Committee did its part. We passed all 12 government funding bills for 
the first time since 2009. Nine of these bills had bipartisan support. 
So far Democrats have chosen twice to block debate on the Department of 
Defense appropriations. Last week, the Democrats blocked debate on the 
Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. That 
obstruction is the reason the government is continuing to operate on a 
continuing resolution.
  Let's get the bills on the floor. Let's debate them, make changes, 
and then vote again. That is what we are supposed to be doing. None of 
us was sent here to pass short-term continuing resolutions and allow 
the government to operate on autopilot. Let's do our job. That is what 
we are sent here for. We are here to advocate for our State and 
national priorities, and this Energy and Water bill reflects those 
priorities. The full Senate should have an opportunity to debate this 
bill, offer amendments to improve it, and pass a bill that will lead to 
energy security and improve our infrastructure. By contrast, voting to 
filibuster this and other appropriations bills will make the threat of 
a government shutdown more likely.
  Americans deserve a government that makes wise and strategic 
investments to best meet our needs. Endless continuing resolutions are 
not the most effective way to meet those needs and can prove wasteful 
in dollars and time. I ask my colleagues to allow debate on this 
important legislation to move forward and to support investments in our 
energy and infrastructure priorities.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I rise reluctantly to acknowledge that I 
am going to vote in opposition to moving to cloture on this Energy and 
Water appropriations bill--reluctant because I have supported every 
single movement to go to the appropriations act because that is what 
the Senate should be doing. However, I will not reluctantly but will 
passionately object for the following reason: included in this energy 
and water report is language that was circuitously placed into the bill 
that would disadvantage my State of Georgia and show a preference to 
other States that surround it. It is not our job as Members of the 
Senate to circuitously write language into a bill that directs what 
policy this country may seek to follow.
  My State, Florida, and Alabama have been in litigation for 30 years 
over what is called the water wars in the ACF and the ACT Basins. There 
has been litigation and cases have been dismissed from the courts. We 
have settled law in terms of the disposition and responsibility of the 
Corps of Engineers.
  It is my responsibility, as a representative of my State, to do what 
is right, but it is also my responsibility to ask you the rhetorical 
question as follows: Should any Member of the Senate be able in any way 
possible to circuitously place language into a bill that would 
disadvantage one State or advantage another without debate or without 
direction? If we become that type of a body in the Senate, we are no 
longer the most liberating body in the world; we are the most punitive 
body in the world.
  I appreciate the job the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee 
has done in writing this bill, I appreciate the appropriations that 
benefit the State of Georgia, but I do not appreciate the use of an 
appropriations bill to direct the actions of the Corps of Engineers to 
disadvantage my State and advantage another State without debate, 
without any degree of direction, and in total conflict with the courts' 
decisions in the past. So I reluctantly will vote no on moving forward 
on cloture until we remove this language from the underlying bill.
  I yield to the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Perdue.
  Mr. PERDUE. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, the bill before us, the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act of 2015, is an important bill, and I appreciate 
Senator Isakson's leadership in this matter. I hope this bill can be 
considered again in the near future but under different circumstances.
  This bill currently contains language that you just heard that would 
prevent the Army Corps of Engineers from updating the Master Water 
Control Manual for the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa River system. By 
blocking updates to the water control manual, this bill would give 
Alabama the power to veto any plan by the Army Corps of Engineers to 
use Federal projects to accommodate both States' water supply needs.
  When we look at what is really happening, it should concern every 
Member of this body as well as every person in the United States. For 
the last 30 years, as the Senator just mentioned, the States of Georgia 
and Alabama have been in litigation about the use of water in the ACT 
River system. In instances like this, the court system is the best way 
to resolve these issues between the States, not the body we are in 
today. Instead, the senior Senator from Alabama has chosen to insert 
specific language in this bill to litigate this issue in the Senate 
instead of the courts. As anyone can imagine, with nearly 30 years of 
court cases and 60 years of water rights issues, the line between who 
is right and who is wrong can sometimes get blurry, but the fact is the 
Senate should not be intervening in a dispute between the States. This 
is an issue that should be decided by the courts, and the Senate 
certainly should not allow one Senator to invalidate progress on a 
multi-State water issue problem.
  Several attempts have been made to get the Governors of Alabama, 
Georgia, and Florida to get together and once and for all solve this 
issue.
  I want to applaud today Georgia's Governor, Nathan Deal, for his 
recent attempts to solve this issue and hope that one day we will reach 
a resolution to this problem that meets everybody's needs. But for now, 
it seems incredibly shortsighted to force any party in the negotiating 
process to give in and to tip the scales in one State's favor.
  I have had my fair share of negotiations in my career, just as the 
senior Senator from Georgia has in his business career. I can tell you 
that forced negotiations never end well for anybody involved. I also 
know that the citizens of Georgia are not in favor of prolonging this 
issue any further. I know, Senator, that many of our colleagues in 
Georgia and many of our colleagues here don't like to be forced to 
decide issues between the States they don't represent.
  With that, Senator, it appears that this bill incentivizes the State 
of Alabama not to negotiate, causing our colleagues to adjudicate this 
matter without all the facts.
  I ask the Senator, can you give us your interpretation of this 
language one last time here? I appreciate the Senator's leadership on 
this.
  Mr. ISAKSON. I thank the Senator for his leadership. Without 
reservation, the language benefits one State to the detriment of 
another. It is not the responsibility of the Senate to do so. It is 
inappropriate. I would ask this question of every Member of the Senate: 
If we became a body of equal representation, two Senators per State, 
that could secure that they write language into appropriations bills 
that disadvantages another State, would you want to be a part of that 
body or would you rather be a part of a body that debates, delegates, 
and then does what is right for the citizens of the United States of 
America and right for those they represent?
  I appreciate very much the hard work of the Appropriations 
subcommittee. They have done a good job. We appreciate the priorities 
that Georgia has gotten. But I don't appreciate a body or the attempt 
to make this body a court of arbitration between somebody with 
seniority or somebody with cash versus somebody without, or somebody 
with a preference versus somebody without. We need to get back to the 
business of debating and doing what is right for America, not 
disadvantaging our neighbors or advantaging ourselves over someone 
else, other than to negotiate what is right for the country and right 
for the people we represent.
  I commend the Senator from Georgia and appreciate his wholehearted 
support in this. I am going to ask every Member of the Senate to vote 
no on moving forward on the Energy and Water appropriations bill until 
the language advantaging one State over another is removed.
  I yield back.

[[Page S7235]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Mental Health Reform Act of 2015

  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I am deeply saddened by the terrible 
tragedy that occurred in Roseburg, OR, last week that resulted in the 
loss of nine lives and injured many more. My heart goes out to the 
victims and their families, who are struggling to understand this 
senseless act of violence and are shouldering incomprehensible grief. 
Roseburg, Newtown, Aurora, Virginia Tech, the Navy Yard--these mass 
shootings are examples of tragedies that our country has experienced 
far too often.
  The common thread that runs through all of these acts of violence is 
untreated or undertreated severe mental illness. The shootings in 
Roseburg should serve as a wake-up call that it is time--indeed, it is 
past time--for a comprehensive overhaul of America's mental health 
system.
  A serious flaw in our current system is that it is simply far too 
difficult for families to get help for their adult children who are 
suffering from severe mental illness. Over the past several months, it 
has been my privilege to get to know Joe Bruce from Caratunk, ME.
  Motivated by his own family's tragic experience, Joe has become a 
powerful advocate for mental health reform.
  Let me share with you and with my other colleagues Joe's tragic 
story. In 2006, Joe's 24-year old son Will, who had a history of severe 
and persistent mental illness, was discharged from a psychiatric 
hospital and returned home without the benefits of any medication. Will 
had been advised that without his consent, his parents had no right to 
participate in his treatment or to have access to his medical records.
  Will believed that there was nothing wrong with him and that he was 
not mentally ill, which can be characteristic of some individuals with 
severe bipolar disorder or paranoid schizophrenia. Will would not 
consent to his parents' involvement with his treatment, and because he 
was an adult, his father Joe and his wife Amy were barred from all 
access to his treatment or his medical records.
  Tragically, the fears that Amy and Joe had voiced to Will's doctors 
that Will would hurt or kill someone came true. On June 20, 2006, Joe 
returned home to find the body of his wife Amy. His son Will was in a 
deep state of psychosis and, believing his mother to be involved with 
Al Qaeda, murdered her with a hatchet.
  Because of that tragedy, Will was committed to the same psychiatric 
hospital, which had previously discharged him, by a criminal court. He 
is now doing well because he is getting the treatment and care he 
should have had before. As his father says: ``Ironically and horribly, 
Will was only able to get treatment by killing his mother.''
  Joe also introduced me to a group of families from Maine, who are 
part of a group known as the Families of the 4%, a reference to the 
segment of our population that suffers from severe mental illness. All 
of them spoke of similar difficulties in getting needed treatment and 
care for their adult children suffering from severe mental illness.
  This group of parents was distressed, exhausted, and so worried about 
their loved ones. One mother told me that she had made more than 60 
calls seeking help for her son, whom she believed was dangerous.
  Another mother described her son chasing her around the kitchen table 
with a butcher knife. A few of these families had more uplifting 
stories, because they had finally been able to get needed help for 
their children. One mother told me about her son who is currently 
receiving treatment and is in stable condition after being hospitalized 
more than 30 times in 10 years and spending time homeless and in jail.
  Another father told me about his son who had been hospitalized more 
than a dozen times but is now living in an apartment and able to hold a 
part-time job because he too is finally receiving the care he needs.
  While millions of Americans suffer from mental illness, only a very 
small number engage in unspeakable acts of violence against themselves 
or others. Yet many of the tragedies that we have witnessed in recent 
years--these mass shootings--might have been prevented had the proper 
resources been in place to support a timely diagnosis, early 
intervention, and effective treatment for those struggling with severe 
mental illness.
  That is why I have joined with my colleagues, Senator and Dr. Cassidy 
and Senator Murphy, in sponsoring the Mental Health Reform Act of 2015. 
This bill is patterned on a bill that has been introduced by 
Congressman Tim Murphy, a clinical psychologist in the House of 
Representatives. It will make critical reforms to address a lack of 
resources, to enhance coordination, and to develop real solutions to 
improve outcomes for families dealing with mental illness.
  My hope is that this most recent tragedy in Oregon will provide an 
impetus for the Senate to consider our bipartisan bill, which has been 
endorsed by so many mental health groups, including the National 
Alliance on Mental Illness, the American Psychological Association, and 
the National Association of Psychiatric Health Systems. Passage of this 
comprehensive, bipartisan legislation would help to jump-start the 
much-needed conversation in this country about how to better care for 
people living with severe mental illness and to help their loved ones.
  This bill addresses one facet, but a significant and ignored one, of 
the problem of mass shootings. I will continue to support other 
actions, such as the gun purchase background checks proposed by Senator 
Manchin and Senator Toomey. I hope we can come together to pass both 
bills to help lessen the chance that other families will have to endure 
the loss of a loved one to a mass shooting.
  I urge all of our colleagues to join Senator Cassidy, Senator Murphy, 
and me in cosponsoring this important legislation to strengthen our 
mental health system, to help ensure that others in this country do not 
suffer, as far too many families have done, because of adult children 
suffering from severe mental illness.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.


                 Mental Health and Safe Communities Act

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I know the President is traveling to 
Oregon tomorrow. There is a lot of focus, and appropriately so, on the 
tragedy that occurred last Thursday afternoon in Oregon. I want to 
start out my remarks this morning by offering, again, our deepest 
condolences and heartfelt prayers to the families and friends who 
suffered so much in what seems like a senseless act of violence.
  Perhaps stating the obvious, that it is terrible for our Nation to 
experience yet another tragedy like this, what I hope is that we don't 
become numb to hearing these reports so we end up being frozen into 
inaction or dysfunction but that we actually look for ways to try to 
work together to try to make some progress to deal with the root causes 
of incidents like this.
  For the family and friends of those who lost loved ones last week--
like so many others who have lost children, their friends, and siblings 
in one of these shootings--we know the emotions are still raw and real. 
So it is with great deference to those who have suffered this loss that 
I wish to discuss what I believe to be one of the major contributing 
factors to these seemingly senseless acts of violence that have 
occurred across the country, and I will talk a little bit about some 
legislation which I have introduced which I think will actually help us 
address one of those root causes.
  The legislation I have introduced is called the Mental Health and 
Safe Communities Act. I believe it would bring real change to our 
Nation and provide help to those struggling with mental illness. This 
bill would empower families with more options for their loved ones. I 
think about the mother of Adam Lanza, the shooter at Sandy Hook, and 
how she knew her son was suffering from mental illness, but basically 
she didn't have any options other than to let him continue to descend 
and become sicker and sicker or to go to court and seek an involuntary 
commitment for a temporary period of time.
  So to make sure that families like Adam Lanza's and like the mother 
of

[[Page S7236]]

the Oregon shooter--she said her son seemed to be doing fine as long as 
he took his medication, but when he quit taking his medication, he 
would become a real problem because he would get sicker and act out.
  The legislation I have introduced attempts to strengthen the safety 
of our communities by providing families with more options when it 
comes to treating people with mental illness and treating them 
different from common criminals.
  We know the majority of inmates at our jails in America are people 
with mental illness. They may have committed some petty crime because 
of their mental illness, and frequently, because of their attempts to 
self-medicate with drugs or alcohol, they get in trouble with the law. 
But rather than just lock them up, wouldn't it be so much better if we 
could get at the root causes of their mental illness and the reason 
they show up there in the first place? That is actually the goal of 
some very innovative programs I will mention in just a moment, but the 
goal of my bill that I introduced in August is to support families 
before it is too late and to provide a path to recovery and healing for 
the mentally ill.
  Proactively treating those with mental problems is a vital component 
to reducing the risk of violence in towns and cities across the 
country. This bill would help the whole community, including families, 
as I mentioned, and schools. Certainly teachers and administrators at 
schools are privy to information and know things or suspect things that 
could be very helpful in providing assistance to families and those 
suffering from mental illness. It would also help law enforcement, 
providing them the training to spot the warning signs of individuals 
who could become a danger to themselves and others.
  Many of the provisions of this legislation are based on policies that 
have been proven effective in State and local jurisdictions around the 
country.
  Recently, I was in San Antonio--my hometown and where I served as a 
district judge. In August I had an opportunity to visit with those in 
the San Antonio area who have taken a leading role in coming up with 
new and innovative ways to approach this issue, including one of the 
leaders of that effort, Sheriff Susan Pamerleau. She championed those 
reforms, made our community safer, and provided families with 
alternatives to an endless cycle of incarceration for people with 
mental illness who don't actually get their symptoms and the cause of 
their problems treated.
  The mental health program in Bexar County, which is the county where 
San Antonio is located, is now touted as the national standard for how 
to think strategically about those suffering from mental illness in our 
criminal justice system. The legislation I have introduced will help 
institute some of these best practices at the national level.
  This legislation would empower families who struggle to find help for 
their mentally ill loved ones and encourage the development of mental 
health awareness programs in schools to help educators identify 
students with mental illness and provide them with the resources and 
treatment they need. It also includes specialized training for those on 
the frontlines, such as law enforcement. I heard in San Antonio 
recently that because of the training law enforcement receives, they 
have been able to reduce, if not almost completely eliminate, the 
violence that occurs when a police officer arrives at a call and 
encounters someone who is mentally ill. By providing the specialized 
training, you can deescalate the violence and allow the officer to 
direct the person to a place where they can actually get some help.
  This legislation would also encourage State and local governments to 
create pretrial screening and assessment programs to identify mentally 
ill offenders, provide need-based treatment, and develop post-release 
supervision plans so they don't become a danger to themselves and 
others.
  This bill also strengthens the current background check system by 
incentivizing information sharing among the States so that law 
enforcement has appropriate information regarding individuals with 
adjudicated mental illness in the criminal justice system. One example 
that is pretty close to Washington, DC, is the Virginia Tech shooter, 
who actually had been adjudicated mentally ill, but the State of 
Virginia had not uploaded that information to the National Instant 
Criminal Background Check System maintained by the FBI. So when he 
purchased a firearm, it did not show that he was disqualified, as he 
would have been if that information had been uploaded to the National 
Instant Criminal Background Check System. Trying to make it easier for 
the States to put information into the system is one of the goals of 
this legislation.
  I hope my colleagues will view this as a commonsense attempt to try 
to make a significant step forward that will help not only those with 
mental illness get the help they need but also equip our Nation's law 
enforcement officers to perform their jobs.
  Last week, more than 20 mental health organizations sent a letter to 
Members of the House advocating for mental health reform, calling the 
need ``urgent'' to ``improve the lives of tens of millions of 
Americans, their families, and our communities.'' We need to listen to 
them, and we need to act.
  I know from reports that some of our Democratic colleagues have said 
they are going to introduce some gun control legislation that we all 
know has been tried before and cannot pass this Chamber. What we need 
instead is a broad consensus to try to get something done that can 
bring people together, and I believe my legislation can do that by 
addressing the root cause of some of these horrific events--again, 
mental illness.

  So instead of calling each other names, as the minority leader did on 
the floor last week, I would invite our colleagues across the aisle to 
do something constructive and to work together on this legislation.
  The Mental Health and Safe Communities Act is a serious proposal and 
will take important steps toward preventing additional tragedies across 
the country. I think many of us understand that mental health reform, 
generally speaking, is long overdue, and this is an issue many groups 
in the mental health community support.
  I should point out that there are many other organizations that 
support this legislation as well. Just to make my point about this 
being consensus legislation, I will mention some of the organizations 
that are supporting the Mental Health and Safe Communities Act: the 
National Alliance on Mental Illness, the National Association of Police 
Organizations, the American Correctional Association, the American Jail 
Association, the Council of State Governments, the Treatment Advocacy 
Center, the National Association of Social Workers, and the National 
Rifle Association. Madam President, I daresay that you won't find a 
group like that coming together on many issues, but on this 
legislation, on which we worked very closely with them, they have 
actually been able to settle some of their differences and meet each 
other on common ground in a way that I think gives us hope that we can 
actually get some legislation passed and send it to the President. That 
will actually provide help to people like Adam Lanza's mother or the 
mother of the shooter in Oregon, who had nowhere else to turn, under 
the current state of the law, in order to get her son to comply with 
his doctor's orders to take his medication. Thanks to the miracle of 
modern medical science, there are miraculous medications that can help 
people suffering from mental illness lead productive and relatively 
normal lives.
  I encourage my colleagues to consider how we can move this 
conversation forward in a way that results in real, positive change for 
our country--above the polarizing rhetoric and political gamesmanship 
that tends to characterize too much of what we do here in Washington 
and certainly on this topic.
  Last week President Obama addressed the Nation after this horrific 
incident in Oregon. I believe his emotions were real, but unfortunately 
he didn't offer any concrete solutions to the problem. He said, among 
other things, that making our communities safer will require changing 
our laws. He went on to say that Congress needs to put forward such 
legislation, and that what is I have tried to do.
  I am pleased that the President indicated his interest and concerns, 
but the real question is, Will the President

[[Page S7237]]

work with us on legislation that actually offers solutions or will it 
just be a matter of grandstanding? Will our Senate colleagues offer 
legislation that previously has shown it cannot move in the Senate and 
render us dysfunctional or will they work together in a bipartisan way 
to try to find common ground and real solutions? I think that is the 
question.
  I would ask our colleagues who are offering legislation--sort of 
relitigating some of these issues on which we haven't been able to find 
consensus--which of these proposals would have actually gone on to 
address the root causes of some of these incidents in the past? I think 
that is a very important question because if you are interested in 
demagoguing an issue, you can talk about that and offer purported 
solutions which can't pass and which actually would not have changed 
the outcome. What I have tried to do is figure a way that--OK, given 
our differences on this issue, how can we find that common ground and 
offer solutions?
  Through this legislation, we would give families a way to help their 
mentally ill family members. We would help schools appropriately 
identify and respond to someone with mental illness. We would improve 
the response of law enforcement and the criminal justice system to make 
sure that mentally ill individuals do not become dangerous to 
themselves and others. We would work to help the States fix the 
National Instant Criminal Background Check System. We would reduce the 
stigma associated with mental illness by protecting due process rights 
of the mentally ill.
  I was somewhat taken aback and disturbed when I saw a story this 
morning in Politico: ``Dems ready sweeping new guns bill.'' One of the 
statements in the article jumped out at me. It says: ``Democratic 
leaders are wary that their rank and file could defect and begin 
supporting the Cornyn bill.'' So actually, according to this article, 
what is occurring is, rather than looking to find consensus or to join 
together to support legislation that might actually help solve the 
problem, some in the Democratic leadership are actively lobbying their 
own Members not to get on legislation or support legislation that might 
actually pass and might actually work. That strikes me as incredibly 
cynical and doesn't demonstrate an interest in actually solving the 
problem but, rather, political grandstanding.
  I would encourage all of our colleagues, regardless of where you 
stand on this issue, let's try to figure out a way to move forward. We 
have a real opportunity to address the common element found in most of 
these mass shootings, and we don't have any time to waste. We can do 
better for the American people and get the Mental Health and Safe 
Communities Act done.


            Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII, following the cloture vote 
on the motion to proceed to H.R. 2028 on Thursday, October 8, the 
Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following 
nominations en bloc: Calendar Nos. 123, 266, 267, 300, 325 through 328, 
330, 331, and 335; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc 
without intervening action or debate; that following disposition of the 
nominations, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon 
the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions 
be in order to the nominations; that any statements related to the 
nominations be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately 
notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative 
session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I have come to the floor to speak in 
support of the fiscal year 2016 Energy and Water appropriations bill. I 
want to thank the senior Senator from Tennessee for his leadership in 
developing this bill, for doing his part to help the Senate return to a 
regular budgeting process, and I want to urge my colleagues not to 
filibuster when we vote on it.
  The Appropriations Committee passed this bill with broad bipartisan 
approval in late May. The final vote in committee was 26-4, with all 
Republicans and 10 Democratic Senators supporting it. That means close 
to 90 percent of the Appropriations Committee voted to advance this 
bill--a very strong ratio that we should carry over here on the floor, 
instead of grounding it with demands for more and more spending.
  There is a lot in here that the Senate should like. My colleague from 
Tennessee has developed a good, balanced bill that will provide funding 
and direction to the Department of Energy, the Army Corps of Engineers, 
and the Bureau of Reclamation. It will allow the Senate to advance our 
Nation's energy security, nuclear waste cleanup, flood control, and 
infrastructure development.
  We hear a lot of talk about the importance of Federal energy policy 
around here. As the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee, I certainly agree that energy policy and stewardship of our 
public lands are worthy of our time and attention. And that is one of 
the reasons this bill should be allowed to go forward. It will support 
research and development for our conventional energy resources, for 
renewable resources, for nuclear energy, and for many other promising 
technologies.
  It includes a pilot program for the consolidated storage of spent 
nuclear fuel, a step in the right direction after years of stalemate 
that have placed our Nation's nuclear future in limbo.
  It focuses on the legacy wastes from the Manhattan Project and 
provides considerable funding for environmental cleanup at legacy sites 
around the country.
  It will also uphold our Nation's nuclear security, providing funds 
for nonproliferation efforts and weapons activities.
  But that is not all this bill will accomplish.
  It will also fund the Army Corps of Engineers, whose construction 
projects and maintenance operations are critical not only for Alaska's 
harbors, but for every port in the country. Dozens of communities in my 
home State depend on the sea for their livelihoods--it is a source of 
food, jobs, and income. Without a viable port, many Alaskans cannot 
maintain their traditional subsistence way of life, so this is 
particularly vital to our Alaska Native communities.
  I don't have time to tick through what this bill will do for all 50 
States--but I can tell the Senate a little about what it will do for 
Alaska.
  It will fund general investigations in Craig, Kotzebue, Perryville, 
and St. George.
  It will provide construction funds for Port Lions and fund the 
Continuing Authorities Program, which allows projects that are needed 
by small communities to take place far quicker than can occur through 
the usual congressional approval process.
  Operations and maintenance funds will go towards dredging in 
Anchorage, Homer, Nome, and other cities to ensure their harbors are in 
good working order and able to handle maritime traffic.
  This is a good bill. It spends a total of $35.4 billion--which used 
to be a big number around here. It makes important choices and wise 
choices and funds our priorities.
  So if you care about the national lab system or university research 
programs, you should support this bill.
  If you care about energy innovation and nuclear safety and 
nonproliferation, you should support this bill.
  If you care about ports, roads, harbors, and other infrastructure all 
around the country, you should support this bill.
  And if you think the Senate should lead in the Federal budgeting 
process--if you are serious about getting that back on track, serious 
about us playing a role instead of being a bystander--you should 
support this bill.
  Again, I thank the senior Senator from Tennessee for his hard work 
and encourage the Senate to move to full consideration of this 
important bill.
  Mr. CORNYN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S7238]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that during the 
Democratic-controlled time, Democratic speakers be allowed to speak for 
up to 3 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Gun Violence

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I come to the floor today to speak on 
an issue that hits far too close to home for far too many families in 
Washington State and across the country--in Roseburg, OR; in 
Blacksburg, VA; in Newtown, CT; in Seattle, WA, where a student at 
Seattle Pacific University opened fire just over 1 year ago; in 
Marysville, WA, where a teenager killed four students in a high school 
cafeteria before turning the gun on himself; and in so many other 
communities, too many to list.
  Madam President, in the hours and days and weeks after those 
shootings in my State, the community showed incredible resilience and 
strength. But I can tell you that anyone who has been affected by gun 
violence understands all too well that all the strength in the world 
will never erase the pain of the parents who lost a child or the 
students who lost friends and teachers.
  Today I echo the questions I have heard from so many people in 
Washington State: What will it take for this Congress to adopt simple, 
commonsense reforms? Why would this Congress hesitate at taking even 
the most basic steps to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous 
individuals? Why do we fail to act when children at school and young 
adults on campus and women in abusive relationships and so many others 
are so vulnerable to the threat of gun violence?
  I know this is a complex issue, but that doesn't mean we should do 
nothing. It is long past time for us to improve background checks. It 
is long past time for us to end the illegal pipeline of guns that 
contribute to crime.
  I think it is also important to note that too often those who commit 
terrible acts of violence needed help and intervention they did not 
get. To be clear, they represent a very small minority of the many 
people in our country who struggle with mental illness. But when so 
many lives are truly on the line, we need a comprehensive approach, and 
that should include strengthening our mental health care system so that 
it is available to anyone who needs it.
  Madam President, this issue isn't going to go away. I wish it would. 
I wish we never had to have this conversation again. I wish we had 
never had to hear about the latest child killed, the latest school 
upended. I know we all wish that. Wishing will not make it happen. It 
is time for Congress to listen to the American people and act.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, Congress has failed to protect the 
American people from the tragic gun violence that is plaguing our 
Nation. The mass shooting in Roseburg, OR, was the 297th in the United 
States this year alone. That is more than one mass shooting per day so 
far this year in our country.
  In fact, every year more than 30,000 Americans are killed by guns. 
Yet the Republicans have blocked any legislation to prevent future 
tragedies. It is past time for us to act. It is time for us to listen 
to the American people, who overwhelmingly support commonsense 
legislation on guns. Ninety percent of Americans support background 
checks before someone can buy a gun. Ninety percent of Americans 
support background checks before someone can buy a gun--90 percent of 
Americans.
  So let's close the loopholes that allow online gun sales and sales at 
gun shows without a background check. Ninety percent of Americans want 
background checks. Let's close the loophole that allows already proven 
domestic abusers to buy guns. That is overwhelmingly supported by the 
American people. Let's close the loophole that allows straw purchasers 
to buy guns and flood our streets with them. Overwhelmingly, Americans 
don't want these kinds of illicit sales with no background checks to be 
conducted across our country. Let's close the loophole that allows a 
gun sale before a background check is completed. At least let's 
complete it. Let's take our heads out of the sand on the causes of gun 
violence and how to prevent it.

  We have the power here on the floor of the United States Senate to 
pass legislation that pretty much all of America expects us to pass. It 
is time to end the NRA's vise-like control of this Chamber. The NRA 
says it is the National Rifle Association. Well, our goal should be, on 
this floor, to say that the NRA stands for ``Not Relevant Anymore'' in 
American politics.
  We should do this now. There is an epidemic of gun violence in our 
country. It is not preordained; it is preventable. I am proud to join 
with my colleagues in support of these commonsense gun safety measures.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I was born in a small rural 
community where deer season was as much a part of fall as football and 
falling leaves. I was raised in a household where my dad taught us that 
hunting was part of our culture in Missouri. I don't know any of my 
dad's friends, but I certainly know that my father, were he still 
alive, would be shaking his head about the massacres, about school 
shootings--45 school shootings in one year--of innocent children, 
innocent college students being mowed down. It is horrific and it is 
tragic.
  The American people want us to respect gun rights, but they want us 
to use common sense. They don't want terrorists to be able to buy a gun 
at a gun show. We should not be selling AK-47s to terrorists at gun 
shows. We should not be allowing someone who is convicted of stalking 
the ability to buy a gun.
  That is the only thing we are talking about, the principles of common 
sense that run deep in my State. Close the gun show loophole. Make 
background checks more effective in order to keep guns out of those 
hands that should never hold them.
  No one is trying to do anything other than protect the innocent. No 
one is trying to remove a gun from lawful citizens of the United 
States, but if we do nothing, if we shrug our shoulders and do nothing 
when an overwhelming majority of our country want us to try to close 
these loopholes and make background checks more effective, then we are 
part of the problem. We really need to look in the mirror at the 
billions we are spending to fight terrorists who are not mowing down 
our citizens, our innocent children sitting in classrooms, and the 
billions of dollars we are spending to try to make sure illegal 
immigrants don't come in this country when, among us, we allow 
terrorists to buy guns at gun shows, and we allow convicted stalkers to 
get a weapon. Fifty percent of murder victims in domestic violence have 
been stalked.
  I hope that Americans rise up and call their Congressman, call their 
Congresswoman, call their Senator, and get busy because we have to take 
action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I rise today to join my colleagues in 
calling for commonsense action to keep guns out of the hands of 
dangerous people who should not have guns, including domestic abusers, 
and to close loopholes in existing laws that are now being exploited by 
criminals who are prohibited by law from possessing guns.
  Like the Presiding Officer's State, my State is a big hunting State. 
We are proud of that tradition, so whenever I look at any of these 
proposals, I think: Would this somehow hurt my Uncle Dick in his deer 
stand? Would it do anything to take away the rights of those who hunt, 
the rights of legal gun owners? That is how I look at each proposal, 
and the proposals we are talking about today would not do that. I 
wouldn't be supporting them if I thought they did.
  We know that no single policy can prevent every tragedy that has been 
caused by gun violence, but there is one area--what I call the silent 
victims--the women and the children who

[[Page S7239]]

are killed in their homes every single day due to acts of domestic 
violence. According to domestic violence experts, more than three women 
per day lose their lives to their partners. More than half of those are 
killed--are shot--with a gun. This means that thousands of women--
thousands and thousands of women in the United States--were murdered by 
an intimate partner using a gun between 2001 and 2012 alone. These 
crimes don't discriminate. They impact people across all backgrounds, 
ethnicities, and income levels. They are serious crimes, and the 
numbers tell the story of the work left to do.
  I am a former prosecutor. Before I came to the Senate, I spent 8 
years running an office of 400 people. We made prosecuting felons in 
possession of guns one of our major priorities, and I am proud of the 
work we did. I will say that some of the disturbing cases that were 
murders, that were shootings, did not always involve felons, but they 
involved criminals. They involved people who, over a series of crimes, 
had racked up a number of convictions, maybe in the misdemeanor area, 
maybe for restraining orders and other things.
  I remember one case where a woman was shot to death by her boyfriend. 
He killed her and then killed himself while both of their children were 
still in the house. It was ultimately his 12-year-old daughter who went 
to the neighbors for help. The worst part of the story: It could have 
been prevented. In the 2 years leading up to the murder-suicide, the 
police had been called at least five times to resolve domestic 
disputes. Yet somehow this man managed to have a gun in his hands that 
day and kill his girlfriend.
  Consider the police officer who was called to a domestic scene. The 
guy there had mental health problems.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I ask unanimous consent for 30 more seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. The man there shot the police officer in the head--
shot him in the head. I was at that scene, and what I will never forget 
are the three little kids, including the little girl with a blue dress 
with stars all over it, going down the aisle of that church after being 
in that church a week before for a nativity play with her father. That 
is what we are talking about, and we are very glad that this proposal 
will be in the package of proposals along with the background check.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I am very proud to stand up with my 
colleagues and say: It is time to act. Enough is enough. Close 
loopholes that are being used by people who are not following the law, 
unfortunately resulting in death and injury to children and families 
across the country.
  Like a lot of my colleagues, I grew up in a small rural town in 
Northern Michigan. My family members are all hunters. We enjoy the 
outdoors and gun ownership. I purchase and own guns myself. That is not 
what this is about. My family goes through background checks. We don't 
want people being able to use loopholes and not to have to follow the 
law. So this is simply about making sure that the law makes sense and 
that we are enforcing it.
  I also think it is very important to stress the fact that we know 
there are tremendous mental health needs in this country. In fact, 
Senator Blunt and I offered legislation--the Excellence in Mental 
Health Act--before this body that was passed as a pilot project to get 
started about 18 months ago. If we had the full support of our 
Republican colleagues in the House and the Senate, we could quickly 
make comprehensive quality mental health services available all across 
the country. Instead, because we have not yet--I hope we can get that 
support. I would love to see that support. If we had that support, we 
would have more than eight States that are going to have emergency 
mental health services available, 24-hour services available, so 
families or law enforcement or individuals have a place to take someone 
or someone can go in themselves and ask for help--24-hour psychiatric 
services available on an emergency basis.
  That is what is in the Excellence in Mental Health Act. We have begun 
the process to make sure it is available in these States. It needs to 
be available in 50 States. We need to make sure comprehensive services 
are available in the community for behavioral health just as we have 
for federally qualified health centers.
  We came together on a bipartisan basis to extend funding for 
federally qualified health centers. We now have a new category called 
federally qualified behavioral health clinics, and funding will be 
available to comprehensively provide those services in eight States 
under our pilot project. It needs to be in 50 States.
  I welcome colleagues coming to the floor and talking about what we 
need to do in mental health. We have colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Ms. STABENOW. If I may ask for 15 more seconds.
  We have colleagues on both sides of the aisle on bipartisan proposals 
on a number of different issues. Let's get that done, too. Let's fully 
fund comprehensive community mental health services. Let's work 
together on the other issues. It is time to pass commonsense gun safety 
laws.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, today Democrats, from the most moderate 
and conservative Members of our caucus to the most liberal, are united 
around a series of principles. They are principles that are 
overwhelmingly supported by over 90 percent of the American people--
universal background checks. They are principles that are supported, 
according to Pew, a nonpolitical poll, by 85 percent of gun owners. 
They will save tens of thousands of lives without impinging on the 
rights of any legitimate gun owner.
  The gun owners know it. That is why 85 percent of them support it. 
Gun owners don't want felons to get guns. Gun owners don't want people 
who have been convicted of stalking and abuse to get guns. We know 
that. Yet our colleagues on the other side of the aisle refuse to move 
on anything. Senator Cornyn--I know Senator Stabenow and Senator Murphy 
and others have done great work on mental health. Senator Cornyn came 
to the floor today and talked about mental health. First, we want to do 
things on mental health. We should. It is a huge problem. I would like 
to see my good friend from Texas support the money that is needed--not 
a pilot program, but the money that is needed.
  The more important point is this: Doing things on mental health--
which we should--is not a substitute for closing the gun show loophole. 
Some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are feeling the 
heat, but instead of taking the action they should, supporting closing 
the gun show loophole, they say let's focus on mental health without 
giving any good reason why we shouldn't close the gun show loophole. 
Let's do both.
  Today we are calling on the American people to create a groundswell. 
President Obama was exactly correct. The gridlock in Congress on guns--
which befuddles almost all American people in every State, purple, red, 
or blue--is because the overwhelming support of the American people is 
not translated into action here. We are calling on the American people 
to raise their voices in the next few months. We are calling on the 
American people to write. We are calling on the American people to 
call. We are calling on the American people to tweet. We are calling on 
the American people to post on Facebook. We are calling on the American 
people to march and tell Washington: Enough--enough of these terrible 
shootings that all of us grieve over.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent for an additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Let's put the other side on notice. We will get a vote 
on this legislation. We will use all the procedural means in our 
ability. Once the groundswell occurs and people on both sides of the 
aisle have to study the issue, they will have to vote. We will do it 
either toward the end of this term

[[Page S7240]]

or early in the next term of this Congress, and we believe we have a 
chance to win. The American people have said enough. A small group in 
the House and Senate, who are so unrepresentative of the views of their 
constituents, will not hold things up any longer. That is my belief. I 
hope and pray it becomes a reality.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, democracy doesn't work like this. 
Democracy doesn't work such that 90 percent of the American public can 
support the pretty simple concept that you should not get a gun if you 
are a criminal and have Congress ignore its will. Democracy doesn't 
work like that.
  As Senator Schumer said, this is really about making sure the 
American public are engaged at the highest level and are making it 
absolutely clear that silence in the face of these mass murders, 
silence in the face of young men and women--predominantly young men 
getting gunned down in the streets of our cities every day--isn't 
acceptable.
  We are hopeful that over the course of the next several weeks and 
months Congress is going to hear loud and clear that our silence has 
effectively become an endorsement for these murders. I know that is 
hard to hear. But the reality is that when the Nation's most esteemed 
deliberative body does absolutely nothing in the face of this 
slaughter--we don't even hold one single public hearing--those whose 
minds are becoming unhinged start to think that those in charge have 
quietly endorsed it, because if they didn't, they would be doing 
something about it.
  The outline that we have laid before our colleagues today is 
reasonable, commonsense, and exists side by side along with the 
protection of the Second Amendment, and we should adopt it as quickly 
as possible. But at the very least, we should get started on a 
conversation about how we can end our silence on this issue.
  I live every day with the memory of standing before the parents of 
Sandy Hook Elementary School on that morning on which 20 first graders 
were gunned down. I live every day with the thought of a young man, 
disturbed in his mind, walking in with a military-style assault weapon, 
and in less than 5 minutes, killing every single little boy and girl 
that he shot. Twenty little boys and girls were shot in under 5 
minutes. Every single one of them was dead because of the power of that 
gun, because it was being loaded by cartridges of 30 bullets at a time. 
It is something no hunter needs in order to enjoy his sport or his 
pastime.
  I talked to my first grader this morning as he was heading off to 
school. I told him that I was coming to talk about keeping guns out of 
the hands of criminals. He looked at me with this vision of puzzlement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 3 minutes.
  Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, I ask for 1 additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURPHY. He didn't understand why it was already the law of the 
land. A 7-year-old had enough common sense to know that criminals 
should not be able to own guns. As he went off to his first grade 
classroom--not unlike the first grade classroom that those little boys 
and girls walked into in December of 2012--I was reminded of the fact 
that if little boys and girls in a quiet town in Connecticut or young 
men and women in a quiet town in Oregon are not safe, then my son is 
not safe either. In the face of political opposition, which is real, 
that is why we are coming together to say: Enough is enough. It is time 
for us to understand that without a change in the law, the reality on 
the ground for those who are being affected by this plague, this 
epidemic of gun violence, will not end either.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, we are saying today not only enough 
is enough but also: Rise up, America, and demand action from this 
Congress, which for too long has been complicit--in fact, an aider and 
abettor in the mass killings that have taken place at Virginia Tech, 
Columbine, Charleston, Sandy Hook, and now Roseburg.
  If America rises up, Congress will hear and heed that message, just 
as it would in any public health crisis, and today we face a public 
health crisis as real and urgent as a contagion of flu or tuberculosis 
or, yes, Ebola. The same kind of urgency and immediacy in response is 
necessary--commonsense, sensible measures to fill gaps, close 
loopholes, and expand existing law to keep guns out of the hands of 
dangerous people. One of those principles should be this: no background 
check, no gun; no check, no sale.
  Let us close the gap that permits countless criminals to buy guns 
because the background check isn't complete within the required 72 
hours. One of the 15,729 ineligible purchasers over the last 5 years--
people who were barred by law from buying guns--was Dylann Roof in 
Charleston. He used his gun to kill nine people in a church in 
Charleston. He was ineligible to buy a gun, but the background check 
was not completed within 72 hours.
  We are igniting and activating a silent majority in America. More 
than 90 percent of the American people want background checks on every 
gun buyer, along with other commonsense measures, such as a ban on 
illegal trafficking and straw purchases and a mental health initiative 
in school safety. Let us give America its say, and this moment is one 
we should seize to say: Rise up, America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, it wasn't long ago that towns such 
as Columbine, Aurora, Blacksburg, Newtown, and now Roseburg were 
unknown outside their States. But today, these towns have witnessed the 
worst kind of tragedy: mass shootings, bodies torn to pieces, families 
shattered. The common element in each has been an unstable individual 
who had easy access to deadly weapons.
  I stood here 2\1/2\ years ago to argue for restrictions on the 
manufacture, transfer, and importation of military-style assault 
weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. That vote failed.
  I stood here to argue for universal background checks. It makes sense 
that there be a process to ensure a firearm isn't purchased by someone 
who can't legally possess it, such as a felon. Even that bill, 
supported by the overwhelming majority of the public, failed.
  Here we are once again, standing on the Senate floor, demanding 
action in the wake of another deadly shooting. As frustrated as I may 
be, I have not lost hope that the American people will rise up and 
force their elected representatives to take real action to help stop 
these senseless murders. I hope they pick up their phones and call 
every Senator, every Representative, and every Presidential candidate 
and demand to know where they stand.
  President Obama noted this week that the United States is the only 
country--the only country--that so frequently suffers these deadly 
attacks. Let me quote some figures. In 2013, we had 33,636 people 
killed by guns. In 2011, there were 146 gun deaths in the United 
Kingdom and 698 in Canada. In 2012, Australia saw 226 gun deaths. Last 
year, there were 6 gun deaths in Japan. Our number is 33,636.
  We cannot let that continue. Gun laws work in other countries, and 
they can work here too. There are simple actions that Congress can take 
to make a difference. An individual should not be able to buy any 
weapon they want online or at a gun show with no background check. An 
individual should not be able to purchase weapons and then immediately 
resell them, without background checks, to criminals. An individual who 
has committed domestic violence should not be able to purchase 
firearms.
  These are not drastic changes. In fact, all of these proposals are 
already law in some States. Congress simply must take some action. The 
longer we delay, the more innocent people, including children, will be 
killed in our schools, our office parks, our movie theaters, and our 
streets.
  I wish to conclude with a story written by blog writer Glennon Doyle 
Melton. She offers up a powerful tale, and I would like to read a 
portion of it.
  ``Two weeks ago, my second and fourth grade daughters came home from 
school and told me that they'd had a code red drill.''
  She recalled her daughter saying:


[[Page S7241]]


  

       [The drill was] in case someone tries to kill us. We had to 
     all hide in the bathroom together and be really quiet. It was 
     really scary but the teacher said if there was a real man 
     with a gun trying to find us, she'd cover us up and protect 
     us from him. Tommy started crying. I tried to be brave.

  Glennon continues:

       My three-year-old nephew had the same drill in his 
     preschool in Virginia. Three-year-old American babies and 
     teachers--hiding in bathrooms, holding hands, preparing for 
     death. We are saying to teachers: arm yourselves and fight 
     men with assault weapons because we are too cowardly to fight 
     the gun lobby.
       We are saying to a terrified generation of American 
     children--WE WILL NOT DO WHAT IT TAKES TO PROTECT YOU. WE 
     WILL NOT EVEN TRY. So just be very quiet, hide and wait. Hold 
     your breath. Shhh.

  This is chilling. To hear what our children and grandchildren must 
endure, even in their earliest years. I wish to say to all of us that 
we must have the courage to stand up and do what it takes to provide 
some commonsense protection for our constituents and for our country.
  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.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I rise to talk about the topic of 
gun violence. Time and again we have heard calls in this Chamber for 
tougher gun safety laws. We have debated ideas that have ultimately 
fallen short of passage. These were basic reforms that would better 
protect all Americans, and every time these proposals have failed, more 
of our communities have fallen victim to gun violence. There are more 
and more vigils, more funerals, and more questions about how these 
tragedies keep happening.
  Today lawmakers in Washington put forward a set of general principles 
to guide us as we work to stop the enormous amount of gun violence and 
gun deaths in our country. These principles include more thorough 
background checks, which the vast majority of Americans support. They 
include closing the various loopholes that make it so easy for 
criminals--not law-abiding citizens--to buy guns, and they include 
cracking down on gun trafficking and making it a Federal crime.
  I have introduced a bipartisan bill with Senator Kirk. The bill 
called the Hadiya Pendleton and Nyasia Pryear-Yard Gun Trafficking and 
Crime Prevention Act of 2015. It was named after two young girls who 
lost their lives when stray bullets from gang violence killed them.
  This bill is bipartisan. My main cosponsor is a Republican. Gun 
trafficking is recognized all around this country as a major source of 
fuel for American gun violence. Our bill would finally make gun 
trafficking a Federal crime. It would give law enforcement the tools 
they need to get illegal guns--we are not talking about legal guns--off 
the streets and prosecute those who make money dealing in trafficked 
weapons.
  Right now there is no Federal law that prevents someone from loading 
their truck in Georgia, driving up I-95, and reselling those guns to 
gang members in New York. These guns go to dangerous criminals. They 
are not going to our law-abiding citizens. They are not going to 
hunters in upstate New York. They are going to gang members in New York 
City, Chicago, and big cities across this country.
  We need to make it possible for our law enforcement to do their jobs. 
I have said it over and over again, nothing ever happens in Washington 
until regular people stand up and demand action. They want this 
nonsense to stop. They want innocent lives not to be lost because of 
criminals and the mentally ill who can so easily get access to weapons. 
It is insane that we cannot do commonsense gun reform that the vast 
majority of Americans and gun owners actually support.
  If you, God forbid, are a parent who has lost a child, we need to 
hear your voice. If you are a member of law enforcement, we need to 
hear from you about what has worked and what has not worked. What 
resources do you need for us to help you do your job? If you are a law-
abiding gun owner, we need to hear your ideas about how to prevent 
criminals from getting their hands on guns. If your life has been 
affected by gun violence, we need to hear your ideas about how to 
prevent other people from having to live through the horror you have 
lived through.
  The only way we are going to make our country safer from gun violence 
is through Federal action. Right now, we are stuck with a patch of 
State and local laws which make it very hard for law enforcement to do 
their jobs to keep us safe. We urgently need Federal gun safety reform. 
Month after month, year after year illegal guns tear apart communities 
in New York and across our country.
  According to the last Federal data, there were 8,539 firearms 
recovered and traced in my home State in 2013 alone, and of those more 
than 8,500 guns, nearly 70 percent of them came from out of State.
  I cannot say this more strongly: We have to make gun trafficking a 
Federal crime. Give law enforcement the tools they need to keep our 
communities safe. Stop handing guns over to criminals. We can do this.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 338

  Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I come to the floor to urge my 
colleagues to permanently reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund. This has been a very important program for preserving our outdoor 
spaces and the beauty of our country. It is particularly important to 
my home State of New Hampshire, where this fund actually comes from 
leasing revenues from oil and gas, and so these are dollars that are 
supposed to be designated for this purpose since the law was passed in 
1965. I am very disappointed that this body has allowed the LWCS 
authorization to expire.
  We have a bipartisan bill, which is cosponsored by Senator Burr, 
Senator Bennet, and myself--the Burr-Bennet-Ayotte bill, which is one 
that I will seek unanimous consent on in a moment. It has a number of 
cosponsors. This is a very bipartisan bill. Senator Tester, Senator 
Shaheen, Senator Alexander, Senator Collins, and Senator King have also 
cosponsored this bill. This bill would permanently reauthorize the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund.
  We know from a previous vote in the Senate, we have 60 votes for 
permanent reauthorization. People on both sides of the aisle feel very 
strongly about preserving our great outdoors in this country.
  In New Hampshire, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has been used 
on 650 projects, from every aspect of our State--from Sunapee to 
Ossipee, to Berlin, to Seabrook, to my home city of Nashua, and the 
Mine Falls Park that I run in every day whenever I am home.
  According to travel officials, 660,000 visitors are expected to 
travel to New Hampshire this weekend over the Columbus Day holiday. We 
welcome them, but they are coming to experience the beauty and iconic 
fall foliage of New Hampshire, and the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
has given them opportunities to enjoy our great outdoors, whether it is 
hiking, bicycling or hunting, whatever they like to do in the great 
outdoors.
  Protecting our treasured outdoor spaces is not a partisan issue. We 
should work together on this issue and extend this important fund. I 
urge this body to immediately take up and pass the reauthorization for 
the Land and Water Conservation Fund and to continue to preserve our 
great outdoors, this beautiful country, and my beautiful State of New 
Hampshire. The Land and Water Conservation Fund has helped to preserve 
our beauty not only in New Hampshire but across this country and our 
Nation.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 
the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 10, S. 338; 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?
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I want to be very clear about what it is we 
are

[[Page S7242]]

talking about today. We are discussing the expiration of the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund's ability to accrue additional revenues to the 
fund and nothing more.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund currently has an unappropriated balance of around $20 
billion that can be appropriated in implementing LWCF projects. If you 
assume the current rate of appropriations is roughly $300 million per 
year, it would take around 60 years before that fund is exhausted.
  Meanwhile, we have both the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee and its House counterpart, the House Natural Resources 
Committee, working on reforms to the LWCF to address some of the issues 
that are causing a lot of people to be concerned with the LWCF. These 
issues involve, for instance, the maintenance backlog that we have with 
regard to many of our national parks and public lands and also with 
regard to the manner in which the Federal Government acquires new land. 
This is of concern to many of us, especially those of us who come from 
a State like mine where the Federal Government owns nearly 70 percent 
of the land.
  On that basis, Madam President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I am obviously disappointed that an 
objection has been rendered by my colleague from Utah, but I will say I 
appreciate his interest in making sure we maintain our public parks and 
lands, and this is certainly an interest that we all share together. It 
is my hope that we reauthorize this program--I know there are some very 
important projects that can go forward not only in New Hampshire but 
across the country--because you can't do anything new unless you 
reauthorize it.
  I am disappointed that there is an objection, but I am hoping this is 
something we can overcome and make sure we can work together and get 
this reauthorized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, just to clarify. We have two committees, 
one in the Senate and one in the House, looking at the possibilities 
for reforming this program. I am confident we can find agreement on how 
this program ought to be reformed. That is my goal, and I will continue 
to work toward that end. I want to make sure we have reforms put in 
place as we reauthorize this.
  In the meantime, I want to be clear: This doesn't do anything to halt 
the program as a whole. This just deals with the accrual of revenue to 
a fund that has an accumulated unappropriated balance of $20 billion. 
We certainly have time. This shouldn't be rushed through. We need to 
give the committees the time they need in order to work out the reforms 
needed.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I join the Senator from New 
Hampshire, Ms. Ayotte. I thank her for her leadership on the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund. She has been out front on this, she cares 
about it, she is effective, and works well with other Members of the 
Senate. My bet is that she will succeed before very long.
  In 1985 and 1986, at President Reagan's request, I was chairman of 
the President's Commission on Americans Outdoors. It was our job to 
look ahead for a generation and try to see what kind of recreational 
facilities Americans would need in the next generation. Our principal 
recommendation was that we fully fund the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund. It was created in the 1960s and has worked with States, as well 
as through the Federal Government, to create city parks and 
opportunities to enjoy one of those aspects of the American character 
that makes us exceptional; that is, the great American outdoors.
  Senator Burr of North Carolina and Senator Ayotte of New Hampshire 
have been among the most vigorous supporters of the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund. I join with them, and I look forward to their 
success.
  Now, on another subject, Madam President, in about 15 minutes, the 
full Senate will have an opportunity to vote on whether we want to 
consider the Energy and Water Appropriations bill this year. We are 
voting on the motion to proceed to the bill.
  I will try to put that in plain English. That means our 
Appropriations Committee, which consists of 30 Members of the Senate, 
has finished its work on the Energy and Water Appropriations bill. In 
fact, we finished it on May 21. We voted in a bipartisan way, 26 to 4, 
to send it to the floor of the Senate.
  Senator Feinstein, who is a wonderful partner to work with from 
California, is the ranking Democrat on the Energy and Water 
Subcommittee. She helped write the bill. I helped write the bill. 
Thirty other members of the Appropriations Committee helped write the 
bill. This will be an opportunity for the other 70 Members of the 
Senate to get involved in our first responsibility, which is the Senate 
appropriations process.

  So the question is that a ``yes'' vote means yes we want to debate 
the bill.
  As a Member of the Senate, I would like to be involved in the Energy 
and Water appropriations process. I would like to have a say about 
where we put our nuclear waste. I would like to have a say about our 
National Laboratories and what they are doing to create new jobs for 
our country. I would like to have a say about whether we will be first 
or whether we will be in the middle of the pack on supercomputing. I 
would like to have a say about whether the harbors along our coasts are 
dredged and deepened so that the big ships from the Panama Canal, which 
is being widened, will come to the United States and bring cargo and 
jobs here instead of other places. I would like to have a say about 
nuclear weapons. I would like to have a say about whether to move ahead 
with a new class of submarines.
  All of that is in this bill. All 30 Senators on the Appropriations 
Committee have had our say, but the other 70 Senators have not. The way 
the Senate works is this is the time for Senators to stand up and say 
yes or no. I want to have my say on behalf of my State about national 
defense and about growth, about jobs, about our country. Why wouldn't a 
Senator want to do that? It is hard for me to understand this.
  The Democrats are saying: No, we don't even want to talk about it. 
They are saying: No, we don't want to debate it.
  That is our job. It is our job to debate it. They say: Well, we have 
a difference of opinion over spending. Do my colleagues know how big 
our difference of opinion is? Three percent. This bill that we are 
about to vote on spends 97 percent as much money as the Democrats want 
to spend. They want to spend 3 percent more. I actually think this is a 
pretty good way to appropriate. That means we at least been able to 
squeeze 3 percent out. And if later on, in a few weeks, we have a way 
of negotiating an agreement that says we will spend 3 percent more, we 
can add that 3 percent in 24 hours. It would not take long at all. That 
would be the way to do it.
  The way we are supposed to do an appropriation is to bring the bill 
to the floor and let all 100 Senators vote on it--not just the 30 who 
are on the Appropriations Committee--and have a conference with the 
House of Representatives. They have had their say. Then we send it to 
the President and he has his say.
  Now, the President has said he will veto it because it needs to spend 
3 percent more. That is his prerogative under the Constitution. It is 
the prerogative of the minority Democrats in the Senate to say we will 
uphold the President's veto because we agree with him on spending. But 
we don't start the process at the beginning and not even allow the full 
Senate to do its appropriations job. We go through the whole process 
and let the President have his say and then we sit down and talk about 
what to do.
  This is a very bad precedent that really insults the Senate. What 
this means is that if the Republicans are in the minority of the Senate 
in the next Congress and we have a difference of opinion with the 
Democrats over how much to spend, we won't have an appropriations 
process, some might say. They will say: We have a difference of

[[Page S7243]]

opinion, and since we have 41 Senators, we will just stop the 
appropriations process at the beginning. We won't let the rest of the 
Senate have its say.
  That is not the way we are supposed to do our job. We are sent here 
to have our say on behalf of the people.
  Let me give an example or two, if I may. Senator Feinstein and I 
worked very hard on this bill. It provides a total of $35 billion; $1.2 
billion more than last year and $668 million below the President's 
budget request. The bill is consistent with the Federal law that is 
called the Budget Control Act. We didn't just make up out of thin air 
how much to spend. The law tells us how much to spend. That is the law 
of the Senate, which the House and the Senate all voted for, passed, 
and signed, and which governs what we spend. Our friends on the other 
side would like to spend more. That is their prerogative and they can 
vote to spend more. But why would they stop us from having a discussion 
about spending more?
  Half the bill is nondefense spending that supports scientific 
research and laboratories, harbors, locks, and dams. Half the bill is 
defense spending. It funds nuclear weapons, life extension programs. It 
maintains our nuclear weapons stockpile. As I said earlier, the Senate 
Appropriations Committee fully considered it and approved the work that 
Senator Feinstein and I had done, 26 to 4, on a bipartisan basis. 
Defense spending is higher this year, primarily because of an agreement 
we made a few years ago when we enacted the START treaty to modernize 
our nuclear weapons program. It funds several other important agencies, 
including the Department of Energy, the Army Corps of Engineers, and 
the National Nuclear Administration. It reduces wasteful spending 
because of our oversight. Every year, Senator Feinstein and I cut out 
of our budget at least one program that we consider low priority. We 
did that again this year. And if the Senate would allow us to have the 
bill on the floor and discuss it and vote on it and approve it, we 
could save $150 million from the U.S. contributions to the 
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor in France. But, no, we 
are not going to discuss that, say our friends on the other side.
  The bill helps our economy. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben 
Bernanke wrote a good column in the Wall Street Journal earlier this 
week. He said: Don't count on the Fed alone to make the economy better. 
We have to do some other things.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thought I had until 12:45 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democrats have 9 minutes remaining.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I am sorry. If I may have 30 more seconds to wind up--
no one told me that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Chair.
  So I would say to my friends on the other side, if you want to have a 
say about nuclear waste, about nuclear defense, about National 
Laboratories, about flood control, about waterways, and about locks and 
dams, then vote yes, because that will give you a say and you will be 
doing your job. Voting no sets a dangerous precedent for the Senate 
that says we are not interested in doing our job on appropriations.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise as the vice chair of the 
Appropriations Committee to urge my colleagues to vote no on the motion 
to proceed to the Energy and Water appropriations bill.
  I wish to comment about the remarks of the Senator from Tennessee. 
First of all, I have such admiration for him and for his advocacy for 
Tennessee, the skilled legislator that he is. He has been an advocate 
for his State and for the United States of America. He is an 
outstanding chair of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. 
I know he and my colleague, the ranking member, Senator Feinstein, have 
worked very well together.
  I don't dispute many of the things the Senator said in terms of what 
impact this would have on the economy. Certainly, if one is the Senator 
from Maryland, the Corps of Engineers is part of our economy, 
particularly because of the role it plays in helping to keep our 
waterways open and able for the Port of Baltimore to be viable and 
accept the new Panama Canal shipments. We could go through item after 
item.
  We need a bipartisan budget agreement. While the Senator says he 
wants to have his say, which I appreciate, we have been trying to get 
budget negotiations going since May. In the committee I voted to move 
this bill forward because I wanted to move the process forward. I was 
hoping that the leadership of both bodies would move to a new top line 
302(b) allocation and lift the caps. We need leadership on both sides 
of the aisle and on both sides of the dome. We wanted that five months 
ago, yet here we are for yet another parliamentary maneuver that just 
pits well intentioned, hard-working people against each other over 
process. We need a new top line so we can have a better bottom line for 
our national security and our economic security.
  I am deeply worried that the trajectory we are on is hollowing out 
our America, that we are hollowing out the much-needed infrastructure 
that we need, part of which comes from the Army Corps of Engineers, 
which includes our waterways.
  Look at the whole issue of dam safety. Our colleagues in South 
Carolina now are worried about the rivers. The Corps of Engineers is 
working 36-hour days with Governor Haley to really try to help South 
Carolina. But we need investments in our infrastructure, not only for 
crisis response. And by the way, of course we are going to stand with 
the people of South Carolina to help them. We need to be able to cancel 
sequester, and we need to be able to do it for defense and for 
nondefense.
  In the Energy and Water bill that is before us, the increases are in 
the defense side. Some of the national security issues have been 
outlined by the Senator from Tennessee. But in the area of nondefense, 
it has just gone up a couple of hundred million dollars--excuse me, $8 
million. The bill is short on infrastructure and it is short on 
research funding.
  Now, I believe we should have a sensible approach to spending. I know 
that we agree with the budget caps, but these budget caps are placing a 
cap on our national security. They are placing a cap also on our 
compelling infrastructure needs that every State is crying out for. The 
Senator from Tennessee knows the requests have come his way, along with 
Senator Feinstein.
  We are also capping innovation. We need to be able to have more 
breakthroughs, whether it is in life science--we had a wonderful 
hearing yesterday that we both attended regarding the breakthroughs at 
NIH, but we need breakthroughs in energy.
  We need to maintain our Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We need the 
Corps of Engineers to have the resources it needs for flood control, 
waterways, and harbors. My port depends upon it.
  We also need adequate funding for the cleanup of uranium enrichment 
plants such as in Portsmouth, OH, where 500 workers will lose their 
jobs.
  We need to stop talking and engaging in parliamentary dueling.
  My hope is to encourage our leadership to come up with a new budget 
deal that lifts the caps so that the Senate appropriations committees 
can get on with their job.
  I have worked now with our colleague, the full committee chairman, 
Senator Cochran. The Senator from Mississippi, a gentleman of the old 
school, has done a good, solid job running the committee. As to the 
chairman that we have worked with, we feel we have good relations. But 
it is not how well we get along; it is how much we get done. And the 
way to get it done this year is to be able to lift the budget caps, 
come up with a sensible agreement with appropriate offices, and then 
let's let the appropriators do our job.
  I wish to say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, we do look 
forward to working with you, but when all is said and done, we want to 
get more done than we get said.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, we yield back any remaining time on 
our side.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, we yield back our remaining time.

[[Page S7244]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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 senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 96, H.R. 2028, a bill making 
     appropriations for energy and water development and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and 
     for other purposes.
         Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Mike Crapo, Richard C. 
           Shelby, Richard Burr, Daniel Coats, Ben Sasse, Thom 
           Tillis, Roger F. Wicker, Steve Daines, Chuck Grassley, 
           Susan M. Collins, Thad Cochran, James Lankford, Lamar 
           Alexander, John Hoeven, Roy Blunt.

  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. 2028, a bill making appropriations for energy 
and water development 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 senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Florida (Mr. 
Rubio), and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 49, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 278 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

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

                                NAYS--47

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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Graham
     Reid
     Rubio
     Scott
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 49, the nays are 
47.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.

                          ____________________