[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 72 (Monday, May 9, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2611-S2615]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2016

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 2028, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2028) making appropriations for energy and 
     water development and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2016, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Alexander/Feinstein amendment No. 3801, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Alexander amendment No. 3804 (to amendment No. 3801), to 
     modify provisions relating to Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
     fees.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all time 
during quorum calls until 5:30 p.m. today be charged equally between 
both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I wish to address the distinguished 
chairman of this subcommittee. Working with Senator Alexander on this 
bill has been a very good experience for me, and I think my friend 
knows that. We take great pride in getting things done.
  I very much appreciate his mentioning the standoff on the nuclear 
cruise missile legislation in some form of analogy, but I will say 
this: I have been in this body a long time, as has the Senator from 
Tennessee, and we both know that not everybody gets their vote. It just 
doesn't work that way. I can remember having an amendment on a bill 
year after year after year, and I never got a vote for it. That is not 
an unusual thing to happen. What has been unusual is to have one person 
take down a bill--particularly an appropriations bill.
  We were hoping we could demonstrate that we worked out our 
difficulties with this legislation. The Senator from Tennessee gave on 
some points, and I gave on some points. As my friend was good enough to 
mention, one of the points I gave on is something that I consider to be 
a very big issue which has not yet been settled, and that is a standoff 
nuclear cruise missile--and it has not yet been satisfactorily 
demonstrated to me that it is necessary--and that we do not have a 
satisfactory conventional weapon that can go through air defense 
systems. I believe we do. In any event, there is a strong constituency 
that feels as I do. Senator Alexander has been good enough to give me a 
hearing and some report language which contains some questions which 
the Defense Department will hopefully answer forthwith. I appreciate 
that, and that was enough for me. The standoff nuclear cruise missile 
is something we need to look more deeply into.
  The amendment that our side is so strongly opposed to, accompanied by 
the White House, is where one Senator is essentially hitting at the 
Iran nuclear agreement. The Iran nuclear agreement is not something 
that all of us don't know a lot about. A great deal of time was spent 
on it. There was a great deal of discussion both in subcommittees and 
on the floor, and there was a vote on it. So to a great extent, in my 
mind, it is very much a settled issue. The President has the right to 
go ahead with it, and I think that is very important. More importantly, 
Iran has kept the agreement and Iran has lived up to the terms of this 
nuclear-related agreement. If one thinks Iran doesn't know what is 
going on, one is wrong. Some of us went to meet with the Iranian 
Foreign Minister, and there was a question as to what is happening now, 
and of course there was concern.
  Having said that, the chairman gave me a hearing and some report 
language. I certainly would have no objection to giving the Senator 
from Arkansas a hearing, and yet I would not stand here and say that we 
should not protect the sanctity of that agreement, because I believe we 
should.
  I think the administration has done the right thing with the sale of 
this heavy water because we know if that heavy water is used in the 
United States of America, it will be used for peaceful purposes. A lot 
of it will go to a distinguished lab in the State of the Senator from 
Tennessee as well as other places. It can be sold to licensed 
businesses that do medical research and other kinds of manufacturing, 
such as carbon fiber, et cetera, where the nuclear component of heavy 
water is helpful. We know that if it goes on the open market, North 
Korea--if they were to be a buyer--would not use it for peaceful 
purposes; they would use it to help enrich plutonium for a bomb. So it 
makes imminent sense to me.
  The reason I oppose what is happening so strongly is because it is a 
strike at the Iran nuclear agreement, and it is seen that way by the 
administration. The administration has said they will veto the bill if 
this is in it. I don't want to lose the bill because of this--because 
of one Senator who wants to strike out with that agreement. I think 
that is the wrong thing to do.
  The Senator from Tennessee has been good enough to discuss this with 
me, and I really do appreciate that. We have discussed it in our 
caucus. There are very strong feelings about not moving to cloture 
until this issue is settled. I would certainly be happy to help settle 
it. From the conversation Senator Alexander and I had yesterday, it is 
my understanding that he is willing to oppose it. I trust that is still 
the case.
  I wish to ask a question to the chairman of our subcommittee through 
the Chair.
  Is it correct that the Senator from Tennessee would stand in 
opposition to this amendment?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, the answer to that question is yes, 
and

[[Page S2612]]

I wish to continue my answer to the question. While I defend Senator 
Cotton's right to have a vote, I see it a little differently than 
Senator Feinstein. Senator Feinstein supports the Iran agreement; I 
oppose it. In my opinion, this is not a vote about the Iran agreement; 
this is a question about what we should do with Iran's heavy water.
  I will oppose the Cotton amendment, No. 1, because if it were 
adopted, it would create the possibility that Iran's heavy water might 
be purchased not by the United States for peaceful purposes but will be 
purchased by countries like North Korea that might use it to make 
nuclear weapons; and No. 2, I think it would be more appropriate to 
have the Foreign Relations Committee, the Armed Services Committee, or 
the Intelligence Committee consider it. For those reasons, I intend to 
vote against the Cotton amendment.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I thank the Chair and I thank the 
Senator. I think that is a very wise response, and I think it is a 
correct response. I think it does belong in the Foreign Relations 
Committee.
  We have worked so hard to get a bill that could set a standard for 
this body so we could go back to regular order and begin to get 
appropriations bills passed in this house. Candidly, I don't want to 
lose that opportunity, and I think we still have it. Hope still reigns 
eternal, in my view, and I hope Senator Cotton will see that this is 
not worth taking down this bill, because I believe that would happen. I 
believe there are enough votes to deny cloture, and that is too bad. I 
don't want to see it because that means it is going to happen with 
other bills. It means that we are going to have what some term as 
poison pill amendments. The administration views this as a poison pill 
amendment. We know at Interior there are poison pill amendments. Both 
Senator Alexander and I have chaired that committee, and we know what 
happens. We are trying to set an example on this floor by working 
things out.
  It would seem to me that a reasonable Senator might say: All right. I 
am not going to hold up this bill. I made my point. I realize what is 
happening. I know this heavy water is going to be put to good use in 
this country. I know that Iran has to limit its supply at 130 metric 
tons, so we know this heavy water is out of Iran. As a matter of fact, 
it is in a storehouse in Oman. It is on the market, and the United 
States has said we would buy it. That is the right thing to do to set 
an example so that nuclear proliferation does not take place, and this 
is part of that. It is my hope that we will be able to resolve that.
  The Senator from Tennessee is imminently reasonable, and I like to 
believe that I am reasonable, I say to my colleague. I am hopeful that 
maybe before the hour of 5 p.m., we might be able to come to some 
agreement; otherwise, I think the cloture motion will be defeated.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I thank the Senator from California. 
She and I will talk some more. I think we have stated the similarity in 
our positions, which is our opposition to the Cotton amendment, and the 
difference in our positions. She sees it as intricately related to the 
Iran nuclear agreement, which she passionately supports, and I see it 
as a separate issue because I oppose the Iran agreement. I don't think 
we will work that out in public here over the next hour and a half, so 
I suggest we continue our conversations between us, the majority, and 
the Democratic leader, and see where we get by 5:30 p.m. My hope is 
that we can dispose of the Cotton amendment, finish the bill, and get 
on with the other important business of the Senate sooner rather than 
later.
  I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


                        Remembering Bob Bennett

  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I wish to make some remarks about our 
wonderful colleague who passed away last week, Senator Bob Bennett. Two 
of Senator Bennett's favorite Senators are here on the floor this 
afternoon--Senator Feinstein and Senator Alexander. What Senator 
Bennett liked so much about Senator Alexander and Senator Feinstein is 
what we have seen this afternoon. The two of them have a difference of 
opinion with respect, I gather, to the Iran deal. I happen to share 
Senator Feinstein's view, but the two of them are trying to find common 
ground here in the Senate. That is the Senate at its best, and that is 
exactly what Bob Bennett liked so much about both my colleague from 
California and my colleague from Tennessee. So I think it is very 
fitting that I open my remarks about Senator Bennett after having 
listened once again to the Chair and ranking member talk about how the 
Senate is supposed to do business.
  There are so many wonderful things to say about Bob Bennett, but I 
thought I would begin by talking about Senator Bennett's favorite 
subject because of something he created. He saw it is a great 
opportunity for the Senate, and he called it the grand bargain. 
Whenever I had a chance to sit down and talk with him--I had joined the 
Finance Committee--he would talk about the opportunities that were 
related to taxes. He often talked with Senator Alexander and me, as my 
colleague remembers.
  He talked to us about health care and taxes. He was very interested 
in innovation. By the way, I think he was one of the first Senators who 
purchased a hybrid vehicle close to 20 years ago, and he used that 
discussion to branch into the kinds of building connections that you 
have to do when you are talking about how you are going to increase the 
standard of living for Americans in a constantly changing world where 
you are really dealing with global economics. We don't just sell stuff 
to people down the street; we are competing against economic forces 
from all over the world.
  When Senator Bennett talked about his idea of a grand bargain--and 
you could be sitting with him in the Senate dining room, for example, 
and he probably took out a napkin if he couldn't find a piece of 
paper--what he was interested in was what I call principled 
bipartisanship. In other words, nobody gets everything they want, but 
what you try to do is find principles that you feel strongly about and 
principles that the other side feels strongly about--and that is what 
Senator Alexander and Senator Feinstein were talking about this 
afternoon--and you find some common ground.
  It was very fortunate, as I look at my career in public service, that 
I had a chance to work with Bob Bennett. I will tell you, the way I see 
it, there was no better grand bargain in life than a friendship with 
Bob Bennett. We differed on plenty of stuff, just as I am sure Senator 
Feinstein and Senator Alexander differ on matters. Bob would always 
say: Ron is pro-choice, I am pro-life; Ron was against the Iraq war, I 
was for the Iraq war. But we didn't spend our time arguing about those 
kinds of things. What we were interested in was finding ways to solve 
problems.
  I remember one example that I think my colleagues on the floor 
remember as well. Back at the time of Y2K, the turn of the century--oh, 
my goodness, one would have thought that western civilization was going 
to end. We were going to have this technology meltdown. It was going to 
be chaos around the world. Well, there were two bills at the time, two 
pieces of legislation. There was a bill from our former colleague, 
Senator Dodd, and Senator Bennett. I was a young upstart member of the 
Commerce Committee. Senator McCain, knowing my interest in technology 
policy, basically gave me a great honor by saying ``Why don't you be my 
running mate?'' because he was the chairman of the committee. So there 
were two bills; one was Senator McCain and I as the junior running 
mate, and the other was Bob Bennett and Chris Dodd. Everybody said 
there was going to be all kinds of fighting among the four of us. 
Nobody is going to agree. Nobody will pass a piece of legislation, and 
the country, as a result, will not be prepared.
  Well, because of Bob--I basically was the newcomer to the Senate. 
This was a big, important piece of legislation. Bob and Chris Dodd and 
Senator McCain basically said: We are not going to have any part of 
some bickerfest here in the U.S. Senate; we are going to solve a 
problem. And they did. You bet, it picked up opposition. There were 
some folks on the progressive side who had reservations about some 
provisions, and there were some folks on the conservative side who had 
reservations about the legislation. We

[[Page S2613]]

passed a bill. I remember going down to the Y2K center that night and 
staying up all night. I can't claim that our legislation was 
responsible for such a smooth-running transition, but we like to think 
that the fact that the Senate decided to set aside partisanship and 
actually get something done was constructive.
  The reality is that Bob Bennett firmly believed that he was elected 
to do more than just get reelected. I think that was right in the core 
of how he worked in the U.S. Senate.
  I have been in public life awhile. I was the director of the Gray 
Panthers for a number of years when I was a young man with a full head 
of hair and rugged good looks. I was always dreaming about being a 
major part of health reform, so I put together a bill. I said: I think 
my party is right that we are never going to get health care fixed 
unless we have universal coverage; otherwise, it will be cost shifting, 
and there won't be prevention. But the Republicans had a valid point, 
too, that there ought to be a role for the private sector.
  So I was talking to Republicans, and Senator Alexander remembers 
these visits. I went in to see Senator Bennett, whom I watched on the 
floor talking about health care, and he sounded like someone who might 
be interested, but I still thought it was a long shot. I said: My God, 
he is a really conservative fellow from Utah. He and a progressive 
fellow from Oregon probably don't have much in common, except for the 
fact that they are both tall. I talked to him in his office. He later 
said to a newspaper person: I gave the closest thing that you do in the 
Senate to convey that I really wasn't interested because you never say 
no, especially to somebody sincere. He said that a number of times. So 
he thought about it, and he spent time talking to people.
  I remember this as if it were yesterday because his seat was across 
the aisle, just a few seats away. He and Senator Rockefeller were the 
tallest Senators at the time; Senator Kerry and I kind of came in--I 
don't know--third or fourth or something like that. He came bounding 
over and he said: I want to do this with you. And I did a kind of 
double take because I thought, I don't think I am hearing this right. 
He said: Yes, you are talking about how the Democrats are right about 
universal coverage, and I am going to have to get my side kind of 
acclimated to that, but you acknowledge that there ought to be a role 
somehow, some way for the private sector. I said: You bet, that was the 
point. He said: I am in.
  So one of his newspapers--in looking at all the kind things that have 
been said--said that Bob Bennett did so much good work. We hope what 
his career stood for was that you could find common ground and that the 
Senate would remember going forward that bipartisanship is not a death 
sentence. Bipartisanship is a chance to find a way to solve problems, 
whether it was Y2K, which was exciting, or something else.
  I think it is worth mentioning, because I did a stint as chairman of 
the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, that Bob Bennett put 
together a truly impressive public lands bill. It involved one of his 
fast-growing counties--Washington County--and several hundred thousand 
acres of wilderness, of land management, by the Bureau of Land 
Management and the National Park Service alike. Suffice it to say that 
when I heard about it for the first time, Senator Bennett asked for my 
help, and I thought, man, there is no way he is going to be able to 
move something like this because you had all the progressive 
environmental organizations, you had lots of people from the counties 
who of course resisted these sorts of things, and you had lots of 
challenges in the West putting together public lands policies. We saw 
it again here recently in eastern Oregon. But Bob Bennett pulled it 
off. He pulled it off because he pretty much just smothered both sides 
with attention. Each side would have a point. He would respond. He 
would send his staff down to talk to people. And those who wouldn't 
normally possibly agree came together and found common ground on public 
lands policy.
  I remember because the President signed it in 2009, Senator Bennett 
and I were in the back--I guess largely because we were the tallest--
and we talked about how unlikely it was that we would be there and that 
we would have all of these opportunities to serve together.
  As we remember Bob Bennett, my hope is we will understand, as did 
Senator Bennett, that, much like today, neither side had enough votes 
to get everything it wanted. That was the case then, and it continues 
to be the case today. He understood that no single party had a lock on 
all the good ideas, but rather than just shrug his shoulders or go out 
and race for a microphone in order to score some sort of quick 
political advantage, Bob Bennett, in his career in the Senate, stood 
for what we call principled bipartisanship.
  I imagine there are going to be a number of farewells this week to a 
wonderful friend, a terrific Senator, in my view, and an even better 
person. I just hope that apropos of what we have seen with Senator 
Feinstein and Senator Alexander, as they approach another big vote, 
let's put as much of our time and effort into finding common ground as 
possible. Sometimes it can't be done. I get that, and Bob Bennett did 
too. But certainly we can put vastly more time and effort into finding 
common ground, pursuing what Bob Bennett was all about because he was a 
U.S. Senator who gave public service a good name.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, if I may, I want to thank the 
Senator from Oregon for those remarks.
  My colleagues might be interested to know that I was chairman of 
Rules, and Bob was the ranking member, and this was during the period 
before the first inauguration of Barack Obama. As we all know, the 
Rules Committee is in charge of making the arrangements for the 
occasion.
  Bob was really just a wonderful person to work with. In the first 
place, we worked really well together. We sat down, we went over the 
problems, and we talked about solutions. Then came the subject of the 
Senate lunch following the inaugural. Well, I didn't pay much attention 
to it. Then I realized that this was a huge thing. It was in National 
Statuary Hall. There were decorations. We had to get a fine painting. 
In this case, I arranged for it to be a great California landscape by 
Thomas Hill, which came from the museum in New York. To plan for it, 
there is something that has been traditional, which is the meal 
tasting, and Senator Bennett and his wonderful wife Joyce and my 
husband and I went up to the fourth floor, and the table was set as it 
would be set at this lunch. We did a tasting from every culinary 
caterer who was bidding to do the lunch, believe it or not, and I think 
there were four of them. So there were four entrees and four salads and 
four desserts. And Joyce and Bob and Dick and I sat there, and we went 
through the motions and did it. But it was with great humor. And the 
two of them together really were a very special couple.
  The Senator from Oregon knew him in a different way than I knew him. 
Bob Bennett truly was a man among men. He had a humility about him, but 
he also had a real can-do sense, and he really cared about his Senate 
term. I know Senator Alexander knew him well. It was really wonderful 
for me on the Rules Committee because it was much the way the Senator 
from Tennessee is on Energy and Water appropriations.
  I had a chance to meet Joyce and get to know her, and it was very 
special. I think we put on a very good inaugural--a bipartisan 
inaugural, if you will--and I just want to say thank you, Senator.
  Mr. WYDEN. Thank you.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Because this really was a man who didn't participate 
in any obstruction or any difficulty. He was always positive and always 
willing to do his part and to help. That is really very special.
  I would like to give my best to his family and his friends. The State 
of Utah had a wonderful Senator in Bob Bennett, and he will be missed.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  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.

[[Page S2614]]

  

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


               American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak in 
support of legislation reforming the MTB, or the miscellaneous tariff 
benefit process. I am pleased to help this legislation advance. It is 
my hope that this bill will soon be on the President's desk. As many 
will remember, a dark cloud hung over the Congress with regard to the 
practice of earmarking in early 2009.
  The feeding at the earmark trough had long since expanded to the 
point of ridiculousness. Earmarks exploded to their annual record of 
$29 billion in 2006. They were long a problem before that, but it had 
become much, much worse at that time.
  Congress had become accustomed to powerful Members getting a large 
chunk of the earmark pie, and rank-and-file Members would fight over 
the scraps.
  We saw less and less true oversight as more and more spending was 
doled out in congressional back rooms. It wasn't just spending on 
earmarks that we didn't have good oversight on. It was the entire 
Federal budget. It was largely a problem because so much of our time in 
Congress was spent doling out earmarks and making sure that every 
Member got a few and that they were scattered around. We really gave up 
on the oversight that we should have been conducting.
  At the same time, earmarks opponents had ample opportunity to shame 
the process by highlighting bridges to nowhere, teapot museums, and the 
National Cowgirl Hall of Fame, for example, receiving these earmarks.
  But attention on the issue focused sharply in early February of 2009, 
when reports surfaced that a lobbying firm specializing in defense 
appropriations had been raided by the FBI. The New York Times noted 
that the firm ``set up shop at the busy intersection between political 
fund-raising and taxpayer spending, directing tens of millions of 
dollars in contributions to lawmakers, while steering hundreds of 
millions of dollars in earmarks contracts back to his clients.''
  The cloud over Congress darkened even further with suggestions of 
pay-to-play straw-man contributions, the reimbursing of employees for 
political contributions, and pressuring others for political giving. In 
quick succession, both the House and the Senate rightly put in place a 
moratorium over all earmarks, a ban that has remained intact ever 
since.
  While we gladly said goodbye to the bad old days of congressional 
porkbarrel spending, we soon found out that there were several things 
that Congress only knew how to do through earmarking. This included the 
so-called miscellaneous tariff benefits, or MTBs.
  MTBs are provisions that, when signed into law, provide tariff and 
duty relief for imports that are not domestically produced. The 
historic MTB process benefited from a consensus-driven process 
administered by the International Trade Commission that, for the most 
part, set it apart from the much ridiculed Federal largesse doled out 
by earmarking. Unfortunately, the original process also required that 
an original bill be introduced by a Member of Congress--a specific bill 
for a specific tariff reduction, often to benefit a particular for-
profit company.
  I have long held that doing away with these individual bills and 
establishing an MTB process that relies on the ITC to accept and review 
proposals over which Congress has final say would be preferable. Such 
an approach would both comply with the earmark moratorium while 
providing taxpayers a measure of confidence that undue influence was 
not being inappropriately exerted.
  I am pleased to have the opportunity to work with both House and 
Senate leadership and with members of the Senate Finance Committee and 
the House Committee on Ways and Means on moving such a proposal 
forward.
  To be clear, my goals of being an original cosponsor of the American 
Manufacturing Competitiveness Act of 2016 and vocally supporting moving 
forward with legislation reforming the MTB process is twofold. First 
and foremost, cutting tariffs is the right thing to do. In fact, I 
would support permanent tariff reductions as a means of furthering the 
benefits of free trade and lightening the burden on U.S. producers. In 
addition, the longer we go without being able to move forward with MTB 
bills, the more threatened the earmark moratorium is.
  I wish I could say that all Members of Congress are willing to 
permanently walk away from this wayward process of congressional 
earmarking, but that is not the case. Those wishing to go back to the 
bad old days will use any excuse to support ending the earmark 
moratorium.
  Reforming the MTB process not only provides a path for much needed 
tariff relief and a modicum of confidence for taxpayers, but it is also 
good for the long-term survival of the earmark moratorium.
  I am pleased to be a part of this effort moving forward. The House 
companion legislation passed with overwhelming support. I believe there 
were only two dissenting votes in the House. It is my hope that the 
Senate will soon follow suit.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. 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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Senate amendment 
     No. 3801 to Calendar No. 96, H.R. 2028, an act making 
     appropriations for energy and water development and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and 
     for other purposes.
         Mitch McConnell, Tim Scott, Marco Rubio, Michael B. Enzi, 
           Daniel Coats, Cory Gardner, Roy Blunt, John Cornyn, 
           Mike Rounds, James Lankford, Roger F. Wicker, Thad 
           Cochran, Lamar Alexander, Johnny Isakson, David Vitter, 
           Patrick J. Toomey, Rand Paul.

  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 
amendment No. 3801, offered by the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. 
Alexander, as amended, to H.R. 2028, 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. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and 
the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) 
would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) 
would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), the 
Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill), and the Senator from Vermont 
(Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 50, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 66 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Lankford
     Manchin
     Menendez
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions

[[Page S2615]]


     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--42

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lee
     Markey
     McConnell
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Cornyn
     Cruz
     Durbin
     Kirk
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Sanders
     Toomey
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 50, the nays are 
42.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the 
vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
  The Senator from Tennessee.


                      Amendment No. 3804 Withdrawn

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment No. 3804.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
  The majority leader.


                Amendment No. 3878 to Amendment No. 3801

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I offer the Cotton amendment No. 3878.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for Mr. Cotton, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3878 to amendment No. 3801.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be obligated or expended to 
     purchase heavy water produced in Iran.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk for 
the Cotton amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Senate amendment 
     No. 3878 to amendment No. 3801 to Calendar No. 96, H.R. 2028, 
     an act making appropriations for energy and water development 
     and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2016, and for other purposes.
         Mitch McConnell, Thad Cochran, Lamar Alexander, Johnny 
           Isakson, Marco Rubio, David Vitter, Patrick J. Toomey, 
           Steve Daines, Richard C. Shelby, James Lankford, John 
           Thune, James M. Inhofe, Lisa Murkowski, Tom Cotton, Pat 
           Roberts, John Barrasso, John Hoeven.

  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum be 
waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk for 
the Alexander substitute amendment No. 3801.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Senate amendment 
     No. 3801 to Calendar No. 96, H.R. 2028, an act making 
     appropriations for energy and water development and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and 
     for other purposes.
         Mitch McConnell, Bob Corker, Tom Cotton, Thom Tillis, 
           Mike Crapo, Joni Ernst, Jerry Moran, John Boozman, 
           Lindsey Graham, John Thune, Daniel Coats, Chuck 
           Grassley, Shelley Moore Capito, Thad Cochran, Lamar 
           Alexander, Richard Burr, Roy Blunt.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
mandatory quorum be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________