[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 124 (Tuesday, July 23, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4994-S4999]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





 NEVER FORGET THE HEROES: JAMES ZADROGA, RAY PFEIFER, AND LUIS ALVAREZ 
PERMANENT AUTHORIZATION OF THE SEPTEMBER 11TH VICTIM COMPENSATION FUND 
                             ACT--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. GARDNER. Madam President, this afternoon the Senate will vote on 
permanent reauthorization of the September 11th Victim Compensation 
Fund. I am proud to lead this legislation with Senator Gillibrand, and 
I thank all of the incredible first responders for their efforts to 
make this day happen and, day in and day out, to get this legislation 
to where it is today.
  This critical legislation would fully fund the September 11th Victim 
Compensation Fund and ensure that all those exposed to toxins and 
impacted by 9/11-related illnesses are thoroughly compensated, both now 
and as conditions are diagnosed in the future.
  Solving this problem is urgent as more and more people become sick--
people like Luis Alvarez, who came to Washington, DC, just a few months 
ago, postponing chemotherapy treatment to advocate for his fellow 
heroes. Luis is not here to watch from the Gallery today. He is 
watching from above.
  As we celebrate this vote today, we celebrate the lives of people 
like Luis Alvarez.
  The Never Forget the Heroes: James Zadroga, Ray Pfeifer, and Luis 
Alvarez Permanent Authorization of the September 11th Victim 
Compensation Fund Act is named in honor of these three first responders 
who lost their lives to 9/11-related illnesses. Today, the Senate has 
an opportunity to honor these three and so many others we have lost who 
never stopped fighting for 9/11 first responders and the country they 
loved by voting yes on this critical legislation.
  I have shared with many of my colleagues that I never had the 
privilege of going to New York City before September 11, 2001, but I 
will never forget my first visit after September 11, 2001. It was just 
a few weeks after the attack had happened. I will never forget the 
smell. I will never forget the smoke coming out of the debris piles. I 
will never forget the silent firetrucks--their lights on but no siren--
as they delivered even more heroes to the recovery efforts at Ground 
Zero. I will never forget the fierce dedication of the men and women 
who came when they were called, watching the firetrucks with their 
flags heading to continue the work that by then had become so 
emblazoned in people's minds across this country.
  The work they did in those days, those weeks, and those months wasn't 
just for those in Manhattan who suffered an incredible loss. The work 
they carried forward for our country became symbols of our security, 
symbols of our freedoms, symbols of this country's willingness, 
determination, effort, and tenacity to fight back.
  Law enforcement officers and firefighters from across the Nation, 
including the West Metro Fire Rescue in Colorado, home of Colorado Task 
Force 1, have been tireless advocates for this effort. Every State has 
people who served in one capacity or another during the rescue and 
recovery operations of September 11.
  West Metro Fire District chief Steve Aseltine was one of 64 
Coloradans with Colorado Task Force 1 who participated, as he said, 
searching through the rubble piles. Steve said: No one should be at 
risk of standing up and worrying, when this country needs them the 
most, whether the American Government has their back.
  If passed today, without amendments, the legislation will head 
straight to the President's desk for his signature. So I urge my 
colleagues today not to forget, to pass a clean bill, and to join me in 
opposing both amendments, and to stand with all of our first responders 
and heroes from that tragic day for this bill's final passage and 
ultimate enactment.
  I urge this Chamber to support those who have given so much to this 
country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Madam President, today I will offer an amendment to pay for 
the spending in this bill. This is not something unusual. I do this day 
in and day out. It has been part of the reason I ran for office--that 
we shouldn't add more debt to our country without trying to pay for it 
by maybe reducing spending from wasteful spending.
  In the last week or so, we have seen a manufactured crisis. Rarely 
has there been a manufactured crisis so intense--a fake furor 
instigated by partisans more concerned with scoring points than telling 
the truth. But, for some of us, the truth is still important.
  The mob and demagogues in this body accuse me of holding up this bill 
for political points. They obviously don't know much about politics, 
because there certainly hasn't been any political gain by my holding 
this bill for debate and amendment. But I think it is important we do 
this, rather than rush through and everybody says: No questions asked, 
please. It sounds a little more like an authoritarian atmosphere than 
it would be a democracy, to actually have debate, discussion, and 
amendments. That is all we have asked for.
  In fact, last week when we were granted the amendments, we said to 
the other side: Let's have the vote--last week. And all of those who 
were in such a furor, all those who were so hysterical that the world 
was ending said: Oh, we cannot vote on it--it was not convenient last 
week--because some of our Democrat Members have already gone home for 
the weekend. So when the mob was told last week they could have the 
vote, they said no. It is a manufactured crisis. As of today, the fund 
in question has $2 billion in it, and no one is being denied medical 
care.
  So let's have an honest debate. Let's have an honest debate about 
whether it matters to this country whether we are $2 billion in debt, 
and whether or not, when we have new spending programs--no matter 
how charitable, no matter how needed--whether or not we are going to 
pay for them by reducing spending in wasteful programs.

  It is perhaps a historical anomaly that this bill appropriates 
unlimited funds for a virtually unlimited time period.
  What would you think if someone came to you, they had a good cause, 
and they said: You know, my neighbors' house has burnt down, and I want 
to help them, and I want to give them unlimited money for an unlimited 
period of time?
  That wouldn't be wise. No one would do that. So why do we, in our 
hysteria, throw out all common sense and say that we are going to 
approach this as if we don't have a problem?
  We have this enormous problem in our country. We are borrowing over 
$1 million a minute. My amendment today is to offer to pay for the $10 
billion in the first 10 years. Realize that this bill as written is not 
a 10-year bill. It is a 72-year bill. It goes to the year 2092. To my 
knowledge, we have never, ever had a bill that was unlimited in the 
dollar amount and unlimited in the time period. Mine would be to pay 
for the first 10 years of this. The pay would come by reducing 
mandatory spending by 0.06 percent. That is 6/100th of 1 percent of 
other mandatory spending.
  At the same time, we would exempt Medicare, Social Security, and 
Veterans Affairs from cuts. We would exempt the vast bulk of mandatory 
spending, but we would still say: If this is a wise expenditure of 
money, if we need more money for this fund, we would simply take it 
from something that is less pressing.
  No matter how good a cause may be, it makes no sense to borrow from 
China to pay for our immediate concerns. Spending someone else's money 
is not charity. Spending borrowed money is just not wise or sound 
governance.
  Being a legislator should be about making choices, about deciding 
priorities.
  For example, which is more important--spending $275 million teaching 
foreign countries how to apply for U.S. foreign aid and teaching 
foreign countries how to get our money and how to fill out the grant 
process? Is that more important than the spending in this bill? We will 
never know because the people who promote this bill aren't willing to 
cut any spending. They are not going to look at waste.
  We wonder why we have waste run from top to bottom in our government? 
Because no one is willing, even for a good cause, to say: Why don't we 
cut out some of this waste? Why don't we

[[Page S4995]]

quit spending money teaching foreigners how to apply to get more of our 
money?
  To pay for more pressing concerns, shouldn't someone ask whether it 
is wise to spend $300,000 studying whether Japanese quail are more 
sexually promiscuous on cocaine? That is your money. So when somebody 
is being asked for a good cause, ask why we couldn't eliminate money we 
are spending on awful things that should never have been wasted in the 
Federal Government.
  To pay for more pressing concerns, shouldn't someone ask why we 
continue to spend $50 billion a year building bridges and roads and 
hotels and gas stations in Afghanistan? Perhaps that money could be 
better spent here at home.
  The debate today is not over the spending of the money. It is over, 
when we do spend money--even for a good cause--whether or not we should 
cut corresponding money that we are wasting around the world, much of 
it not helping American citizens and much of it going to foreign 
countries and foreign people.
  To pay for more pressing concerns, shouldn't someone ask why we had a 
study last year that spent $2 million seeking to know the question: If 
someone in front of you in the cafeteria line sneezes on the food, are 
you more or less likely to pick up the food and eat it?
  Seriously, this is where your tax dollars are going. If we have a 
better cause, and we want to fund this fund we are talking about today, 
couldn't we say we will not spend $2 million next year studying 
whether, if someone sneezes on your food, you are more or less likely 
to take the food?
  Shouldn't we be forced as a Congress to make decisions, instead of 
just saying: Well, it is a good cause. So, therefore, we should not use 
our brain. We should put on blinders. We shouldn't think about it, and 
we should just say: Well, it is a good cause so let's just borrow the 
money from China.
  Do you think that helps us as a country? Isn't part of legislating 
trying to prioritize spending, not just adding to the debt?
  The leftwing mob maintains that Republicans have lost the moral high 
ground and can't talk about debt anymore because we supported a tax 
cut. Poppycock. This is misinformation. This is fake news. This is 
plainly people just not paying any attention to what goes on around 
here.
  During the tax cut, which I supported, I offered cuts to mandatory 
spending to pay for the tax cut. The media seems to have forgotten 
this. But I forced a vote on the floor to say: Yes, we may be cutting 
taxes and, if it affects the deficit, we should pay for it.
  Interestingly, though, the leftwing mob doesn't want to admit that 
when we actually cut tax rates, we actually got more money. The revenue 
coming in last year was actually greater than the previous year. The 
tax cut didn't add to the deficit. The deficit went up because we 
continue to spend money and we actually added more spending. The curve 
of spending increases actually rose faster than the revenue coming in.
  When the tax cut happened, I offered an amendment to cut spending to 
pay for it. This is a fact. The leftwing mob and all of their buddies 
in the media can do and say whatever they want. It is a free country, 
but it is an absolute out-and-out lie that Republicans who voted for 
this tax cut also were not concerned with spending. I, for one was, and 
I offered an amendment to cut spending.
  The tax cut also was passed under a law we have had on the books for 
some time. It is called the pay-go law. This is a law that should be 
working even on a bill like this current bill. But we exempt ourselves 
from it all the time. The current bill actually exempts the pay-go 
rules: If you increase spending by $10 billion, you have to decrease it 
by $10 billion somewhere else.
  It has been on the books for a long time, but like everything else 
Congress does, they try to bring in rules to say: Do you know what? We 
are going to try to control the debt and spending by forcing ourselves, 
when we come up with some new spending of $10 billion, that we will 
have to come up with something to cut to pay for it.
  What happens is, Congress just waives the rules. It is not that we 
don't have rules that should help with the budget; we have hundreds of 
rules. The pay-go rule is a good rule, but it gets ignored. We passed 
the tax cut. If the projections were that the deficit was going to go 
up, guess what, the pay-go rules would say there has to be automatic 
spending cuts across the board. This is something I support.
  So what happened? About a month after the tax cut, a big spending 
bill comes through here. Both parties are guilty, Republicans and 
Democrats. They love to spend money more than anything else. A big 
spending bill comes through, and guess what. They waive the rule on 
pay-go.
  At that time, I also brought up an amendment that said: Hey, you guys 
shouldn't waive the pay-go rule. If the tax cut causes the debt to go 
up, we should cut spending across board.
  Let's be very clear around here. There are those of us who have been 
consistent from day one that the debt does matter. There is no 
particular animus toward this bill. In the last year, I have done this 
probably a half dozen times. In the last 2 years, I have probably done 
it two dozen times. That means every spending bill.
  A month ago, it was spending for the border. I support money to be 
spent on the border, but I don't support doing it if it adds to the 
deficit.
  The amendment I have today is identical to the amendment I had a 
month ago, saying: Border spending, even if you want to do it, we 
should cut money from somewhere else where it is not as much needed and 
where it is being wasted.
  I did it 3 months ago for the hurricane disaster relief. Every bit of 
new spending--it doesn't matter whether it is a good cause, bad cause, 
or an in-between cause, we need to not keep adding to the debt. This is 
a problem. We borrow over $1 million--close to $2 million every minute. 
This is a problem for our country. We are eroding the foundation of 
this country with so much debt--$22 trillion in debt.
  The tax cut was passed under the pay-go rules. I voted not to suspend 
the pay-go rules. I voted to actually have spending cuts to offset any 
increase in the deficit from the tax cut.
  The establishment of both parties moved to waive this pay-go 
requirement. I forced a vote, and only eight Senators voted, which 
shows you where the real problem is. Why does the deficit go up so 
much? There is not one Democrat in Congress who cares a flip about the 
deficit. Not one Democrat in Congress will lift a finger to refrain 
from government spending. Therefore, everything--you name it, they are 
for it.
  The problem is, Republicans aren't so good on this either. There are 
only a handful of Republicans who actually care about the debt, and 
many of them will vote consistently to raise the debt limit and vote to 
add new debt.
  Today's vote, though, is but a prelude of next week's vote. This is 
the preliminary. This is the introduction to our problem in our 
country, over $10 billion. Next week, it is the enormity of the entire 
budget. Next week, both parties--and watch this closely. People say: 
Oh, Republicans can't get along with Democrats. Guess what. They get 
along just swell when it comes to spending money and adding to the 
debt.
  This bill will pass overwhelmingly today without any concern for the 
debt or paying for it. Next week will be even worse. We have something 
called the debt ceiling. Every time we spend more money that comes in, 
in taxes, it approaches a debt ceiling, and the debt ceiling says you 
can't borrow any more money. So conservatives say: Well, we should 
reform our ways and quit giving away money to Afghanistan and Mexico 
and all these different countries. We should have reform involved with 
raising the debt ceiling.
  What is going to come about next week is no debt ceiling for 2 years, 
until after the next Presidential election. It is a terrible idea. It 
is fiscal insanity. They also will vote to forever get rid of the 
sequester caps.
  In 2011, amongst the tea party movement, when more people became 
concerned about the deficit spending, we actually came in and had a 
reform. For the first time, we didn't cut spending; we slowed down the 
rate of growth of spending. In doing so, the deficit was narrowing. For 
a couple of years, we were doing better. Then what happened

[[Page S4996]]

was basically both parties once again came together. The Republicans 
said: We want to be in every war overseas we can possibly get involved 
in, and we want to have more money spent on the military.
  The liberals said: We need more money for welfare.
  Guess what. They are not at odds. You scratch my back; I will scratch 
yours.
  The Republicans and Democrats agree on one thing: Spending money is 
the most important thing they can do. The deficit doesn't matter.
  So when we come back, when we address this issue next week, what we 
are going to find is they are going to explode the debt ceiling. There 
will be no limits on the debt ceiling for 2 years, and they are getting 
rid of all pretense of having any spending caps.
  A majority of Republicans, unfortunately, will even vote to get rid 
of the budget caps and to eliminate the debt ceiling for 2 years. This 
is sad.
  Today, though, the Senate has a chance to vote to pay for this $10 
billion bill with very modest reductions in mandatory spending--
reductions that actually exempt Medicare, Social Security, and Veterans 
Affairs.
  Americans, particularly conservatives, need to sit up and watch 
closely how their Senators vote, for today's vote is about whether your 
representative really cares at all about the disaster that is our $22 
trillion debt.


                           Amendment No. 929

  Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 929 and ask that it be 
reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Paul] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 929.

  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To require a sequestration of certain direct spending)

       At the end, add the following:

     SEC. 5. SEQUESTRATION.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) the terms ``direct spending'' and ``sequestration'' 
     have the meanings given such terms in section 250(c) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 
     U.S.C. 900(c)); and
       (2) the term ``nonexempt direct spending'' means all direct 
     spending except--
       (A) direct spending for benefits payable under the old-age, 
     survivors, and disability insurance program established under 
     title II of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et seq.);
       (B) direct spending for the Medicare program under title 
     XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.);
       (C) direct spending for net interest (all of major 
     functional category 900);
       (D) direct spending for any program administered by the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs;
       (E) direct spending for Special Benefits for Certain World 
     War II Veterans (28-0401-0-1-701); and
       (F) direct spending for the child nutrition program (as 
     defined in section 25(b) of the Richard B. Russell National 
     School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1769f(b)).
       (b) Sequestration Orders.--
       (1) In general.--For fiscal year 2020, as soon as is 
     practicable after the date of enactment of this Act, and on 
     the dates the Office of Management and Budget issues its 
     sequestration preview reports for each of fiscal years 2021 
     through 2025, pursuant to section 254(c) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 
     904(c)), the President shall order a sequestration, effective 
     upon issuance, that reduces all nonexempt direct spending by 
     the uniform percentage necessary to reduce the total amount 
     of nonexempt direct spending for such fiscal year by 
     $2,036,000,000.
       (2) Implementation.--When implementing the sequestration of 
     nonexempt direct spending under paragraph (1), the Office of 
     Management and Budget--
       (A) shall follow the procedures specified in section 6 of 
     the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (2 U.S.C. 935) and 
     the special rules specified in section 256 of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 
     906); and
       (B) shall not follow the exemptions specified in section 
     255 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act 
     of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 905).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I am speaking on the bill as well as 
the amendments. In a short time, the Senate will vote on and pass a 
permanent reauthorization of the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund.
  In my short time on the floor, I can't do justice to the years upon 
years of work by the first responders, by labor leaders, by advocates 
that led to this moment. Suffice it to say, this is not a day of joy 
for them or for this bill's authors; rather, it is a day of relief.
  For 18 years, those first responders, some of whom are in the 
Gallery, have watched their brothers and sisters get sick because they 
rushed bravely to the Towers at Ground Zero. At first, they were told 
by the government the air was safe.
  It was not safe. We began hearing of cancers that people never got 
when they were 38 or 40 or 42 occurring all of a sudden in 
firefighters, in police officers, and they only had one thing in 
common: They had all rushed to the Towers.
  They had to persuade people this was real because they saw their 
brothers and sisters dying. Then, they endured folks telling them they 
were crazy for thinking they had sicknesses they suffered that had 
anything to do with 9/11.
  They were not crazy, and the people who told them they were, shame on 
them, including government agencies and others. Then, once it was 
confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt that these cancers and respiratory 
illnesses were linked to the toxic dust and ash around the pile, it 
became an exhausting struggle to get Congress to provide the care they 
needed but they couldn't afford.
  There were numerous false dawns and delays, temporary 
reauthorizations. We were forced to wait and wait, ``compromise'' with 
people's lives. Excuse after excuse. Some Senators voted proudly for 
tax cuts, unpaid for, to the wealthiest of Americans but demanded 
offsets for these folks who had served us, like our soldiers have 
served us, like our armed services.
  Thank God those excuses, those delays end today for good, and our 
first responders can go home and do what they want to do--tend to their 
own health, their families' health, the health of their brothers and 
sisters who were suffering and ailing, and tend to the families who 
have lost loved ones but are still part of their families.
  The 9/11 health program is already permanent. Soon we will make the 
Victim Compensation Fund virtually permanent as well, and the twilight 
struggle of nearly two decades to get these brave men and women what 
they deserve will be, hopefully and finally, complete.
  Once we defeat the few amendments before us--amendments that will 
delay the bill further, if not kill it--we should pass this bill 
overwhelmingly so we can send the first responders--those here and 
everywhere--home where they belong, with their family and their 
friends.
  These are the same soldiers of valor who have selflessly risked their 
lives in our wars and conflicts overseas. There was a war right in the 
city I love, and these were our bravest soldiers. They rushed to the 
Towers. Maybe some people were alive. Maybe there were people who could 
be saved. We didn't know that then. We saw families holding signs: Have 
you seen my sister Mary? Have you seen my son Jim? These people rushed 
to the Towers to see if the Jim or Mary or the others were alive and 
didn't ask about themselves.
  Now we are asking America to stand by them, every American, every 
Senator--Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative--that shouldn't 
matter on an issue like this.
  We are now at the very end of a long struggle. The struggle may end 
for the people in this Chamber, including those of us, like Senator 
Gillibrand and myself, who worked so hard through the years for this 
legislation. The struggle does not end for those who are sick or who 
may get sick and for their families. At least we are giving them some 
degree of help because they gave us so much help on that horrible day, 
9/11, and those that ensued just afterward.
  Let's pass this bill once and for all. Let's do our duty to them, to 
America, and to our ideals.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I rise to join my colleagues in 
speaking about our 9/11 heroes. I thank Senator Schumer for his 
extraordinary leadership, his unwavering support, his dedication to 
taking this across the finish line, and his unbelievable willingness to 
lift up the voices of people who were not being listened to. Thank you 
to Senator Schumer.
  I want to first note that while we are debating this bill, there is a 
wake happening on Staten Island right now for

[[Page S4997]]

Detective Christopher Cranston. A father of 5, he was only 48 years 
old, but he will be buried on Thursday because of the months of work he 
did on the pile at Ground Zero at Fresh Kills Landfill. He spent his 
20th anniversary just a few weeks ago in chemotherapy.
  The eyes of the Nation are looking at this Chamber today to see if we 
finally will stand by our 9/11 heroes for the rest of their lives. In a 
few minutes, heroes such as James Zadroga, Ray Pfeifer, and Lou Alvarez 
will have their names etched into the history books forever, which is 
where they belong.
  Their families are in the Gallery today--here again, walking the 
halls of this Chamber and this Congress to be heard, here again to ask 
one more time that this body do what is right: to stand by them in 
their gravest time of need. Their families are here today to watch 
whether this Chamber will do what is right. They are standing here with 
so many others in the 9/11 community who have fought so hard to demand 
that Congress do the right thing.
  Let's honor their service today. Let's actually honor their 
commitment to coming here time and time again, not for themselves but 
for their brothers and sisters who are sick, who are still dying all 
across this country. Seven are dying a week. Let's honor the ultimate 
sacrifice they paid for responding to the call of duty when the Nation 
needed them most. Responders came from every State across this country.
  Last week, we lost Richard Driscoll, the 200th FDNY firefighter to 
succumb to a 9/11 illness. More police officers have died since 9/11 
than on 9/11. More than 10,000 people have been certified with a 9/11-
related cancer, with more being diagnosed every day. More will get 
sick. More will die. Some of them will not be diagnosed for years. That 
includes responders, and it includes the residents, teachers, and 
students who stayed downtown because the government told them the air 
was safe. They told them it was safe to breathe, even though it was 
not.

  This bill will not change any of that, but we can finally let the 
people in the Gallery, who are sitting here watching us today and 
witnessing this, go home knowing that the government will truly never 
forget. We owe them that promise. Today, we have the opportunity to let 
them get back to their lives, to be with their families, and to exhale. 
They at least deserve that.
  I thank Senator Gardner for his leadership on this bill. I thank 
Senator McConnell for staying true to his commitment. As I said 
earlier, I thank Senator Schumer for being a tremendous advocate, 
leader, and partner who never, ever, gave up. And I thank every single 
person who has spent their time and energy coming here again and again 
over these many years to advocate for this bill and for their brothers 
and sisters.
  I ask every Senator to have empathy--just that bit of care for 
someone else--to vote yes on this bill and stand by our first 
responders. I also urge every colleague of mine to reject the 
amendments that are being put forward.
  First is the amendment from my colleague from Utah. Unfortunately, 
this amendment would accomplish only one thing. It would make these 
first responders have to go through this entire process again in just a 
few years. It would force sick and dying police officers, firefighters, 
and other 9/11 first responders to waste even more of their precious 
time coming here, away from their families, away from their loved ones, 
away from their cancer treatments, away from their last moments in 
their homes and communities, traveling back and forth to Washington and 
lobbying Congress to pass the bill for the fourth time. Do not fall 
into this trap.
  Our 9/11 heroes deserve this program as it is written in the bill, 
without these amendments, which will only force them to have to come 
back here again and again. Stand up for our heroes. End the games. 
Let's reject this amendment, pass the bill, and let our heroes go home 
and live in peace, where they can breathe and finally exhale.
  I yield the floor to my colleague from Utah.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is expired.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to deliver my 
remarks and delay the onset of the votes until after my remarks have 
been completed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, for many years, the September 11th Victim 
Compensation Fund has compensated the brave men and women who responded 
to the horrific events of 9/11. It has been a worthy use of money.
  Of the $7.4 billion authorized for the fund since 2011, however, 
$25.4 billion has already been paid out. Since February of this year, 
money has gotten tight and claimants' benefits have had to be reduced. 
I believe it is only right for Congress to authorize and replenish the 
fund so that we can make those beneficiaries whole.
  But the bill before us today has a peculiar feature, one that I 
believe requires our attention. The bill authorizes the program for 72 
years and does not specify a dollar amount. If you look to page 2 of 
the bill, lines 8 through 10, it makes clear that this program is 
funded through 2092 and funded to the tune of ``such sums as may be 
necessary.'' In other words, without any finite authorization, it 
offers no way to ensure that the money actually gets to its intended 
beneficiaries and is not lost in government bureaucracy or misuse.
  That is, in fact, how we make sure that government programs get to 
where they need to go, by specifying not only the purpose of the fund 
but also identifying how much it is that we are spending.
  In 2011, the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund has always had finite 
authorizations, and it has always had an absolutely excellent, 
outstanding record of avoiding waste, fraud, and abuse. The 9/11 
survivors and responders deserve no less going forward.
  That is why I am offering a simple amendment to this bill, one that 
would authorize $10.2 billion in additional funding for the 9/11 Victim 
Compensation Fund over the next 10 years. To be clear, that is the full 
amount that the Congressional Budget Office has estimated is necessary 
for covering all claims through 2029.
  My amendment wouldn't end there. It would go further to authorize an 
additional $10 billion to be paid out in subsequent decades. It will 
not block or delay this bill's consideration, let alone its passage, 
nor does it have as its intended effect any kind of downgrading of the 
benefits we would be paying. But it would make sure that the money gets 
to the victims and the first responders who need it most--to the 
intended beneficiaries--rather than remaining vulnerable to the kinds 
of waste, fraud, and abuse that come about whenever we authorize 
something until 2092 with ``such sums'' language. This isn't the way we 
normally do things.
  My distinguished colleague and friend from New York has made the 
comment that if this amendment were to pass, it would somehow make the 
victims of 9/11 come back again and again and go through this process 
over and over again. I don't see that. Those facts are not borne out by 
the record, which, again, indicates that the Congressional Budget 
Office itself has acknowledged that the amount of money I would be 
setting aside would be sufficient to fund this program.
  This is how we make government programs work: We fund things for a 
period of time and for an amount of money that we believe is 
sufficient. This would do that. For that reason, I am proposing this 
amendment.


                           Amendment No. 928

  I, therefore, call up my amendment No. 928 and ask that it be 
reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Lee] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 928.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To limit the amount available for the Victims Compensation 
                                 Fund)

       Strike paragraph (1) of section 2(a) and insert the 
     following:
       (1) in subsection (c), by striking ``$4,600,000,000'' and 
     all that follows through ``expended'' and inserting 
     ``$10,180,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2019 through 
     2029, and $10,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2030 
     through 2092, to remain available until expended''; and


                       Vote on Amendment No. 928

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on

[[Page S4998]]

agreeing to the underlying amendment No. 928.
  Mr. LEE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. 
Isakson).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Blackburn). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 32, nays 66, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 222 Leg.]

                                YEAS--32

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Braun
     Cassidy
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Grassley
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Paul
     Perdue
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--66

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boozman
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Harris
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McConnell
     McSally
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Roberts
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Burr
     Isakson
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 32 and the nays are 
66.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of the 
amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 928) was rejected.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 929

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question occurs 
on amendment No. 929 offered by the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Paul.
  The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I would ask unanimous consent that the 
next two votes be 10 minutes in length.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the Paul amendment.
  Mr. GARDNER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 22, nays 77, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 223 Leg.]

                                YEAS--22

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Braun
     Cassidy
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Grassley
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Paul
     Risch
     Romney
     Sasse
     Scott (SC)
     Thune
     Toomey
     Wicker

                                NAYS--77

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Harris
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McConnell
     McSally
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Roberts
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Tillis
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Isakson
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 22, the nays are 
77.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 929) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak 
for 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, after this vote, the people in the 
Gallery above us, these brave men and women who have suffered 
unbelievably, will not have to come here again.
  This should never have been a fight. It should never have taken this 
long to pass this bill and make it permanent. It should never have been 
a question. But now, finally, we have the chance to get this job done 
for our 9/11 heroes once and for all--our firefighters, our police 
officers, our EMTs, our construction workers, our survivors, our 
families who stayed in their homes at Ground Zero because EPA told them 
the air was safe.
  This bill is a signal from our Nation, from this body, from Congress, 
that we are representing people in all 50 States and that the Senate 
will live up to the words it has said over and over again, ``never 
forget''--that we will never forget our 9/11 heroes and that we will 
never stop helping them when they are in need.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is expired.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. We will pass this bill for them, once and for all, 
so they can get back home where they belong.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the bill by title for the 
third time.
  The bill was ordered to a third reading and was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  Mr. RISCH. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
  (Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Expression of approval is not permitted in the 
Galleries.
  The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 2, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 224 Leg.]

                                YEAS--97

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Braun
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harris
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McConnell
     McSally
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--2

     Lee
     Paul
       

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Isakson
       
  The bill (H.R. 1327) was passed.

[[Page S4999]]

  

                          ____________________