[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]]
____________________