[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.
____________________