[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 165 (Thursday, November 5, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7776-S7779]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 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. 2685, which the
clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 118, H.R. 2685, a bill
making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other
purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 11
a.m. will be equally divided in the usual form.
The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I come before the Senate to express my
strong support for proceeding to the fiscal year 2016 Defense
appropriations bill. This bill provides vital funding for the men and
women of our armed services at a time of serious and growing threats to
our own national security and at a time of troubling instability and
violent conflicts in many countries around the world.
Proceeding would allow the Senate an opportunity to debate defense
funding in an open and transparent manner and to meet our
constitutional obligations. I am truly perplexed to hear some of my
dear friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle suggest that
there is a Republican plan to enact only the Defense appropriations
bill and then proceed to a continuing resolution for all of the other
vital appropriations bills. It would be an understatement to say that
continuing resolutions are certainly not the preferred option of the
Appropriations Committee, and I say that as a proud member of that
committee. Continuing resolutions create uncertainty, they lock in last
year's priorities, and they continue to fund programs that should be
eliminated. They are not effective ways to govern.
I want to be clear. Supporting an individual appropriations bill in
no way suggests that the Senate is somehow giving up on passing the
other 11 subcommittee appropriations bills, whether they are brought to
the floor individually or as an omnibus package.
Members of the Appropriations Committee now have working numbers as a
result of the budget agreement. We are working together diligently in a
bipartisan, bicameral manner to craft a bipartisan omnibus that can be
supported by both Chambers.
Democrats and Republicans came together to pass a budget agreement
just a few short days ago, and our ongoing negotiations prove our
sincerity and determination to move ahead with individual bills and in
crafting an omnibus. We have already made great progress this year. As
our chairman, Thad Cochran, has noted previously, this is the first
time in 6 years that the Appropriations Committee has approved all 12
of its bills. Many of those bills, due to the leadership on the
Democratic side of my dear friend Barbara Mikulski, and others, have
been bipartisan when they were reported by our committee. I would note
that we completed our work despite terribly strict budget constraints
months ago.
Now, we are in a new stage. We have a bipartisan, 2-year budget
agreement that has provided some much needed relief to some of the
budget caps, while keeping us on a fiscally responsible path.
This is the third time the Senate has attempted to take up this vital
appropriations bill. The last time, my Democratic friends objected
because there was no bipartisan, bicameral budget agreement. In the
absence of such an agreement, they said they could not proceed with a
bill. Now, I didn't agree with that rationale, but I understood it. I
do not understand the situation we find ourselves in today. We have a
budget agreement--a bipartisan, bicameral budget agreement. I do not
understand why we cannot move forward with the Defense appropriations
bill and, I hope, other bills individually and then ultimately an
omnibus bill for those that we simply run out of time to consider this
year. Next year, due to this budget agreement, I hope we can bring each
and every one of the individual appropriations bills before the Senate
for debate and amendment the way we used to do, and that is our goal.
December 11 is quickly approaching, and that is the date when the
current continuing resolution expires. We must act before then to
ensure that the Federal Government remains open. We must act to ensure
that vital Federal programs are funded and not operating under yet
another continuing resolution, which is such poor policy. That is what
we are trying to prevent.
Let's get the Defense appropriations bill approved. Then, I hope we
can bring up at least one or two or perhaps three other appropriations
bills. In the meantime, we are already working on the omnibus bill.
As chairman of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and
Related Agencies Subcommittee, I have already met with my ranking
member, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, and with our counterparts on
the House side to begin the negotiations on our bill. We are operating
under a very tight timeframe that will require Members to work around
the clock and a good-faith effort from all sides. That is what I am
asking for today: for Members on the other side of the aisle to take
the majority leader, the Republican leader, at his word, to pass this
bill--this vitally needed bill--and then to go on to a second
individual appropriations bill, all the while we are working in a
bipartisan way to craft an omnibus bill.
[[Page S7777]]
I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the importance of advancing
the fiscal year 2016 appropriations bills. Let me reiterate that it is
simply wrong for any of my Democratic colleagues to assume that
proceeding to the Defense appropriations bill somehow suggests that
there is no interest by our leader in passing an omnibus that will
include the other vital bills funding essential education, biomedical
research, transportation, housing, agriculture, energy, environmental,
and other important programs.
I urge my colleagues to support proceeding to this vital bill. To
fail to do so once again, for the third time, despite the existence of
the budget framework that we have agreed to, and to fail to do so just
days before we honor our Nation's veterans would be a grave disservice
to those who serve in our military today.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Seeing no one seeking the floor, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rounds). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, for months, we have called for Senate
Democrats to stand and support our troops and pass the Defense
appropriations legislation. In fact, this is the first time--the first
time since 2009--that all 12 appropriations bills were reported out of
committee, and most with strong bipartisan support.
I serve on the Appropriations Committee. In fact, I serve on the
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. But today we are once again
considering opening debate on the Department of Defense Appropriations
Act of 2016, a bill that passed out of the Appropriations Committee on
June 11 with a very strong bipartisan vote of 27 to 3.
As we approach Veterans Day next week, today could mark the third
time that Democrats have blocked this critical legislation to fund our
troops. This comes at a time when our troops are actively engaged in
multiple theaters abroad and they need the critical support of our
Nation's growing mission overseas. But rather than passing this vital
funding bill, my Democratic colleagues would rather play politics and
perpetuate the obstruction that plagues their party. The minority
leader's constituents in Nevada deserve more. They deserve better.
Montanans deserve more. The American people deserve more.
So here we are debating, for the third time, simply to proceed on
Defense appropriations legislation and to open it up for debate. Let's
be clear. The way the process works is we have to have first a vote to
bring the bill to the floor to begin deliberation. This, the greatest
deliberative body in the world, can't even deliberate on the Defense
appropriations bill because our friends across the aisle are blocking
it. It is time to open it up for debate, open it up for amendments.
This is the process of the Senate. The American people and the troops
deserve more.
It appears that the Democratic leader and his Democratic colleagues
would rather huddle in back rooms somewhere and concoct yet another
deal behind closed doors versus in full daylight in transparency on the
Senate floor because they would rather negotiate in private than engage
in an open and honest debate in front of the American people.
Unfortunately, today the Senate Democrats will put partisan politics
ahead of funding the troops. The senior Senator from New York, the
likely next Democratic leader, has already foretold that Democrats
would rather throw together another massive spending package than to
allow open consideration of each part of the Nation's budget. No wonder
we are $19 trillion dollars in debt. Senator Schumer said:
We could pass a defense bill and then they could say,
``Well, we'll do a [continuing resolution] on the rest of
it,'' violating the 50-50 deal. We need to negotiate an
omnibus all at once and all together.
I reject that. Montanans know firsthand the importance of supporting
our men and women in uniform. The passage of this legislation is
critical to carrying out our missions in an increasingly dangerous
world, and it is important regarding missions we support in Montana.
This Defense appropriations bill protects the Montana Air National
Guard C-130 mission by moving forward with the Avionics Modernization
Program, or AMP Increments 1 and 2, which are improvements from the
original costly AMP program. This will ensure the C-130s at the Montana
National Guard will be certified to continue flying by 2020 and provide
a pathway for a full-scale avionics upgrade that addresses outdated
components. It also funds key engine modifications for those C-130s.
The Senate Democrats would prefer to once again obstruct regular
order in the same fashion they did during the past few years, which
became the hallmark--it became the trademark of a failed Democrat-led
Senate majority. So as the Senate heads home for the weekend, I
challenge my Democratic colleagues to look at their veterans, to look
their active duty troops and military families in the eye and ask
themselves: Did I serve these selfless men and women or the Washington
establishment? I think we know which one they will choose.
I encourage my Senate Democratic colleagues to change course. We have
a chance to change course on this upcoming vote. Vote yes on moving
this critical defense legislation forward.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time in a
quorum call before the 11 a.m. vote today be charged equally against
each side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DAINES. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, at 11 o'clock the Senate is going to vote
on the Defense appropriations bill. This is a bill I have worked on
with Senator Cochran of Mississippi. He not only chairs the
Appropriations Committee but the Subcommittee on Defense, which I serve
as ranking member on as well.
The effort in this bill is extraordinary because it comprises
virtually 60 percent of the domestic discretionary spending of our
government. It, of course, deals with the Department of Defense and
intelligence agencies. I just want to say we have worked on this on a
bipartisan basis from the start. It has been a real pleasure to work
with Senator Cochran. I commend him for his leadership and his
gentility and thank him for all of the good work he has put into this
bill.
It is going to be a procedural vote that we anticipate is not going
to allow this bill to go forward. It is not a reflection on the
substance of the bill at all. Though we may disagree with one or two
provisions in the bill--and even as one of the authors I can say that--
the fact is that what we are trying to do now is position ourselves to
complete the work of last week's budget agreement.
I think there is an understanding, at least at this moment, of how we
will move forward, but I say to my colleagues that we can stand behind
the substance of this bill. Procedurally, we may be delaying it today,
but ultimately it will pass and I look forward to supporting it at that
time.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak up to
10 minutes.
[[Page S7778]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I would like to address my remarks to
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, my Democratic colleagues.
Yesterday I spent almost a whole day working with Democratic colleagues
on a variety of proposals to try to get bipartisan results in the
Senate. We have had more bipartisan results this year than most people
think, whether it is the progress we have made on No Child Left Behind
or on the trade bill or on the doc fix or on changing the way we pay
doctors or on the USA Freedom Act, or on the Defense authorization
bill. It is a long list.
I was working to get bipartisan results yesterday because that is
what I am supposed to do as a United States Senator. I am not sent here
to posture or to make a political point. I am sent here--given this
privilege--in order to create an environment where we can solve
problems for the benefit of the taxpayers, for the benefit of the
American people. So that is how I spent my time yesterday. I do not
think any other Republican spent more time than I did working with
colleagues on the Democratic side to do that, which is why I am
addressing my remarks to my Democratic friends.
What they have proposed to do is block our moving to the
appropriations bill for the defense of this country for the third
time--for the third time. There is no justification whatsoever to do
that. What I am saying to my friends is don't go there, because if you
continue to block appropriations bills, you are going to set in motion
an irreversible trend toward partisanship in this Senate and I am going
to lead it. I am going to lead it.
Instead of spending my time working with Democrats to get bipartisan
results, we are going go in another direction. Now, why would I say
that? Because I am not here to be partisan. Let me give you the example
of the appropriations bill that Senator Feinstein from California and I
have worked on. We worked on that bill in a bipartisan way. I think
even she would say she wrote about as much of it as I did. There's a
page full of things she thought are important for our country that are
part of the bill. There are probably more than 75 Senators who wrote us
letters--about half of them Democratic Senators--who wrote us letters
saying: These are important provisions in the Energy and Water
Appropriations bill. Those provisions are in our bill. They are ready
to be considered.
Twice, the Democrats have kept us from considering the Defense
Appropriations bill. Today, they are going to do it again. What they
are saying to us is that we are going to come up with any reason--any
excuse--not to have a normal appropriations process. The last time
Democrats argued: We did not have enough money. The way you deal with
not enough money, if that is your opinion, is you bring a bill to the
floor, you vote on it, you pass it if you can, you send it to the
President, if the President disagrees with you, he vetoes it. It comes
back and we negotiate and we have a compromise.
That is the way it works. You don't just jam something through
because you have the power to stop something or the power to jam it
through. That is the way you pass ObamaCare. That is the way you make
sure the country has no respect for what we are trying to do. But that
is what the Democrats did with appropriations this year and they got a
result. I am not unhappy with the result, and I voted for the budget
agreement. But what it does is it creates additional spending for
defense and nondefense discretionary funding for the Energy and Water
appropriations bill. I am pleased to see that because that money goes
for ports, locks, and dams. That money goes to the Office of Science so
we can have revolutions in manufacturing that create jobs. Money that
can help with our biomedical research that we need to do. There are
important things we need to do, and this bill will help us do them. But
why would we not begin to debate that? Why would we not let the other
Senators debate it? All we are proposing is to begin to do some of what
in December we should have done in June and July.
The majority leader knows he can't put every one of the 12
appropriations bill on the floor. There is not enough time left this
year. Why is there not enough time? Because Democrats blocked it in
June. They kept us from going to the bills even though this is the
first time in 6 years that all 12 appropriations bills have passed the
Appropriations Committee.
Why is that important? That is what we do here. Our job is to review
the purse, to decide what to spend--more for this lock, less for that
project--and keep the budget in balance when we can. That is our job.
They blocked it twice and they are getting ready to block it again with
a vote today.
I'm saying, don't go there because you are going to set in motion an
irreversible course in this Senate, and I'm going to lead it. I am
going to use whatever skills and powers I have to do that.
All of these Democratic provisions don't have to be in the Energy and
Water appropriations bill. They don't have to be in any of the bills
because we have the majority and you don't. So if they're going to play
that kind of game, we can play it too. I am not one who usually does,
but I am able to play. I am able to play or I wouldn't have gotten
here.
So I want to say to my friends on the other side: Don't go there.
Vote to put the bill on the floor. Vote to give us a chance to have
amendments.
Why would the other 70 Senators not want to have a chance to have a
say about the appropriations bill? Thirty of us are on the
Appropriations Committee. We did our work. We approved the bill--in our
case by a vote of 26 to 4. It is a bipartisan bill. Why would we not
put bills like that on the floor and let the other 70 Senators have
their say? What are they here for if they don't want to have a say
about appropriations? They might as well be home watching television.
They should be here deciding the issues that face our country.
I hope my friends on both sides of the aisle can tell I am not happy
this morning with the direction things are taking. I don't like the
fact that I spent all day working with Democratic colleagues to get
bipartisan results and they come along with a tactic--for the third
time--that says: If we don't get everything we want, we are not going
to have an appropriations process.
Well, we will see how that goes. And it will go not in a way that is
good for the country, not in a way that is good for the Senate, but it
will allow the people who have a majority in the Senate a chance to
assert themselves and write the bills. At least we can do that.
There is really no reason we need to have 75 Senators' ideas about
priorities in the Energy and Water appropriations bill if the majority
doesn't want to. There is no reason to have the ranking members'
opinions in any of these appropriations bills if the majority doesn't
want to.
The way we have worked in our committee is--and I have worked with
the Senator from California for several years, and she is a terrific
person and a wonderful Senator--we work together. Now why should we
stop that process when the bills come to the floor?
So through the Chair I respectfully ask my colleagues to think again.
Don't do this. Don't send us a signal that we are never going to have
another normal appropriations process in the United States Senate. The
American people don't want that. We don't want that, and I can assure
you my friends on the other side don't want that.
So my hope is that one way or another the majority leader and the
Democratic leader have a conversation. And that the Senate comes to its
rational senses and begins a normal appropriations process, with as
much time as we have between now and the end of our time here in
December. Which would be a signal to all of us that we are going to
work in a bipartisan way on a normal appropriations process for the
good of the country. And that we are not just going to try to think up
any excuse we can not to move an appropriations bill to the floor.
Two years ago the majority leader simply wouldn't bring the bills to
the floor. This time the minority leader has blocked the bills from
coming to the floor. Let's get back to work. For heaven's sake, that is
what we are here for. I am ready to go to work. I much prefer the way I
worked yesterday, working with my colleagues. But I am
[[Page S7779]]
prepared to work in another way if that is what we need to do to get
some balance in the Senate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I compliment the distinguished Senator
from Tennessee for his remarks. I extend my appreciation for his strong
leadership in developing and bringing to the floor of the Senate the
Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 2016.
Specifically, I urge the Senate to do as he suggests. Let's get this
bill before the Senate, offer amendments if Senators have suggestions
for changes in the bill, and move ahead to completing action on this
bill on time so we can predict with some certainty what our obligations
are going to be and we can more thoughtfully with a sense of confidence
know that we are doing the right thing to protect the security
interests of our country, our citizens, and our interests around the
world.
We have before us an effort to move to the consideration of the
Department of Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 2016. The
bill provides $514.1 billion in base budget funding and $58.6 billion
in overseas contingency operations funding for the Department of
Defense.
The Senate Appropriations Committee has worked on a bipartisan basis
to write and approve 12 individual appropriations bills this year for
the first time since 2009. Senators should have the opportunity to
debate, amend, and approve the Defense appropriations bill. The
legislation is a bipartisan national security measure that provides the
resources that are necessary to protect our Nation, support our
servicemembers and their families, and meet current and future threats
to our national security.
We have no greater priority than protecting our national security
interests here at home and abroad. I urge Senators to cooperate and
support our efforts and to vote to proceed to the consideration of this
bill. I am hopeful that the leadership can get together and work out a
time that is convenient and appropriate for carrying out this
responsibility.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
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 H.R. 2685, a bill making appropriations for the
Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September
30, 2016, and for other purposes.
Mitch McConnell, James M. Inhofe, John Hoeven, John
Thune, Lamar Alexander, Richard Burr, Jerry Moran, John
Cornyn, James E. Risch, Mike Crapo, Steve Daines, Jeff
Flake, Cory Gardner, John Boozman, Thad Cochran, Pat
Roberts, David Perdue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to proceed to H.R. 2685, a bill making appropriations for the
Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016,
and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Florida (Mr.
Rubio), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer)
and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 51, nays 44, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 298 Leg.]
YEAS--51
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kirk
Lankford
Lee
McCain
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
NAYS--44
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Reid
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--5
Boxer
Graham
Rubio
Sanders
Vitter
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 51, the nays are
44.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I enter a motion to reconsider the
cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the Defense appropriations
bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
Mr. McCONNELL. I withdraw the motion to proceed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is withdrawn.
____________________