[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18895-18900]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    INSULAR AREAS AND FREELY ASSOCIATED STATES ENERGY DEVELOPMENT--
                               Continued

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays 
before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will 
state.
  The bill 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, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 
     83.
         Harry Reid, Barbara A. Mikulski, Brian Schatz, Benjamin 
           L. Cardin, Martin Heinrich, John E. Walsh, Richard J. 
           Durbin, Thomas R. Carper, Patty Murray, Tim Johnson, 
           Angus S. King, Jr., Mark R. Warner, Tom Udall, Dianne 
           Feinstein, Bill Nelson, Mark L. Pryor, Tammy Baldwin.

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 
83 shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. 
Feinstein) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Coburn), and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 77, nays 19, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 352 Leg.]

                                YEAS--77

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Markey
     McCain
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Walsh
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--19

     Brown
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Franken
     Heller
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Vitter
     Warren

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Feinstein
     Inhofe
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote, the yeas are 77, the nays 
are 19.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Cloture having been invoked, the motion to refer falls.


                        agricultural exemptions

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a 
colloquy with my colleague, Senator Mikulski.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to discuss an important matter 
related to H.R. 83, the omnibus bill, with my colleague from Maryland, 
Senator Mikulski. As you know, section 111 of this bill for the Corps 
of Engineers discusses the agricultural exemptions under section 
404(f)(1)(A),(C) of the Clean Water Act.
  There has been some confusion as to exactly what this provision does 
and doesn't do. I would like to clarify that this provision does not 
expand or modify the current agricultural exemptions that are contained 
in the Clean Water Act nor does it impact the ``recapture'' provision 
in section 404(f)(2).
  Mr. President, can the Senator from Maryland provide a further 
explanation of the issue?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. First and foremost, I wish to thank the Senator from 
California for her efforts in negotiating the difficult issues within 
the Energy and Water portion of the omnibus bill.

[[Page 18896]]

  As the Senator knows, the original House language would have kept the 
Corps of Engineers from regulating the agricultural exemptions as well 
as essentially eliminating the recapture provision where permits are 
needed if an exempted activity impacts waters of the U.S. by impairing 
circulation of or reducing the reach of such waters.
  I was pleased that the language that we were able to work out with 
Chairman Rogers and include in the omnibus dropped the language in the 
original House provision. The compromise language does not change 
current law and preserves the current scope of agricultural exemptions. 
The simple fact remains that if you needed a permit before, you will 
need to get a permit under this provision; if you didn't need one 
before, you won't under this provision.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank my colleague so much for this clarification. 
This is a very important clarification.


                        lead content regulation

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a 
colloquy with my colleage, Senator Mikulski.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am joined by the chair of the 
Appropriations Committee to discuss a provision in the fiscal year 2015 
Omnibus appropriations bill, which we will vote on shortly in the 
Senate.
  The provision is section 425 of division F of the fiscal year 2015 
Omnibus appropriations bill, which preserves the status quo with regard 
to the regulation of the lead content of certain items. As House Report 
113-551 and the Omnibus Joint Explanatory Statement each explain, 
section 425 prohibits the use of funds to regulate the lead content of: 
(1) ammunition, (2) ammunition components, and (3) fishing tackle. The 
Toxic Substances Control Act regulates the chemical content of 
products. However, the Environmental Protection Agency has denied 
petitions to regulate the lead content of ammunition and fishing tackle 
under this statute. The omnibus provision simply reaffirms EPA's 
decision not to regulate the lead content of ammunition or fishing 
tackle under TSCA.
  While I oppose restricting EPA's ability to regulate the content of 
bullets and fishing tackle, I think it is important to be clear about 
what this provision does. I would ask my colleague, Senator Mikulski, 
if she agrees with this interpretation of section 425.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank Senator Boxer. As chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee and lead author of the fiscal year 2015 
Omnibus appropriations bill, I agree with her understanding of section 
425.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today we face a difficult choice. The 
appropriations bill before us today contains a lot of good for Michigan 
and for our country, and it will provide most of our Federal agencies, 
and the people who rely on them, with the certainty needed to plan and 
invest. But it also contains some very troubling provisions.
  We shouldn't use appropriations bills like this one to weaken our 
financial protection laws and to open the floodgates to campaign 
donations from millionaires. We shouldn't fund our financial regulators 
far below what they need to do their jobs. We shouldn't meddle with the 
will of the majority of residents in our Nation's Capital. And we 
shouldn't let tax cheats walk free by funding the IRS at the lowest 
level in years. I could go on and on about the flaws in this bill, and 
there is one in particular that I will highlight further.
  But despite these significant flaws, the alternatives to this bill 
are also deeply problematic. Passage of a continuing resolution, which 
would put the Federal Government on autopilot, or worse, a government 
shutdown, are the two alternatives to passage of this bill. So that 
leaves us with the terrible decision we face today. So this bill 
appears poised to pass because it must and because it is better than 
the terrible alternatives I just discussed. If my vote were needed to 
pass this bill, I would, grudgingly, vote in favor. But it appears that 
this bill will pass regardless, and so I will not vote in favor of it 
today because I wish to express my deep concern about a number of 
provisions.
  That provision, which guts the swaps pushout rule, will repeal an 
antibailout section of the Dodd-Frank act and risk putting taxpayers 
back on the hook for Wall Street banks' risky bets. As chairman of the 
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, just last month I held a 
hearing on bank involvement in the commodities markets. As chairman of 
the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, just last month I held a 
hearing on bank involvement in the commodities markets. We found that 
Wall Street had huge, wide-ranging ownership and control of and inside 
information about oil, copper, aluminum, uranium, and electricity 
markets at the same time they were engaging in financial transactions 
related to those same commodities posing big risks to the banks and, as 
a result, to the taxpayers who could be called on to bail them out in 
the event that those bets go awry.
  Less than 14 years ago, the seeds of our financial crisis were 
planted in a derivatives provision planted in the 2001 appropriations 
bill. This provision, which like the provision in the bill before us, 
was added at the last minute and not subject to debate on its own, 
exempted derivatives from regulatory scrutiny, and left regulators, 
banks, and the American public on the hook when risky bets went bad.
  As a result, Congress voted to enact a prohibition against Federal 
Government bailouts of swaps entities, or the swaps pushout rule, as 
part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. 
This provision bans big banks from conducting risky derivatives trading 
in their insured banking units--the units that taxpayers would have to 
bail out if their bets went wrong.
  Now we risk repeating the same mistake of 2001.
  The language of the provision was written--literally written--by 
lobbyists for the big banks. According to a New York Times report, 70 
of the 85 lines of the provision came directly from Wall Street's 
recommendations. Even more surprisingly, according to the Times, ``two 
crucial paragraphs, prepared by Citigroup in conjunction with other 
Wall Street banks, were copied nearly word for word.''
  The Senate has long operated under rules that prevent legislative 
changes from being made on an appropriations bill. This provision runs 
completely against that longstanding precedent. The swaps pushout 
provision is bad policy, and it is bad procedure. And if I could vote 
against that provision by itself, I certainly would.
  But, unfortunately, because of where we are today and because of the 
decision to insert the unrelated, lobbyist-drafted provision into this 
bill at the last minute, we won't be able to considering that provision 
on its merits. Instead, we are considering this as part of an all-or-
nothing package, with the threat of a continuing resolution or a 
government shutdown looming.
  So, I will vote against this bill despite much good that it would do 
for my State and for our country in hopes that the next Senate will 
heed the warnings of myself and many of my colleagues that the 
provision in this bill weakening our country's banking regulations may 
sow the seeds of another taxpayer funded bank bailout and another 
financial crisis.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the fiscal year 2015 
Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act that is 
currently before the Senate.
  For the last year, members of the Appropriations Committee have 
worked hard to develop bipartisan bills that establish priorities and 
responsibly fund the government. While I would have much preferred each 
of these bills to have been brought to the floor individually so they 
could be debated and amended, passage of this compromise legislation to 
keep government open and provide vital services to Americans who depend 
on them is essential.
  While the legislation funds nearly all government operations, 
programs, and agencies through the remainder of the fiscal year, 
notably, this bill funds the Department of Homeland Security only 
through February 27, 2015, giving Congress time to thoughtfully respond 
to

[[Page 18897]]

the President's unilateral action on immigration. While I supported the 
bipartisan legislation to reform our immigration laws that passed the 
Senate last year, I believe President Obama's recent Executive action 
on immigration circumvents Congress and undermines the separation of 
powers in our Constitution. This bill gives Congress time to formulate 
an appropriate response.
  In addition to the regular funding contained in this bill, the 
legislation also provides more than $5 billion in emergency funding to 
address the Ebola crisis at home and abroad. The scope and urgency of 
this crisis require continued attention, and this funding will build on 
the important initial investment for the Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention and the Department of Health and Human Services that 
Congress provided in September.
  I want to highlight the important work that Chairman Murray and I 
have accomplished as the leaders on the Transportation and Housing and 
Urban Development Subcommittee on Appropriations. Over this past year, 
Senator Murray and I worked together to craft a bipartisan bill that 
includes input from Members on both sides of the aisle and provides the 
necessary resources to meet our nation's transportation and housing 
needs. Every Member of Congress has unmet transportation and housing 
needs in his or her home State, from crumbling roads and bridges to a 
growing population of low income families, elderly, and disabled 
individuals in need of housing assistance.
  There are a number of key programs that I would like to highlight. 
With regard to transportation infrastructure, we secured funding to 
address the safe transportation of crude oil and other hazardous 
materials by rail, strengthening three components: prevention, 
mitigation, and response. These safety measures will help to prevent 
disasters like the horrific derailment in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, last 
year--so very close to the Maine border.
  We also provide $500 million for the TIGER program, an effective 
initiative that helps advance transportation infrastructure projects. 
We all have seen firsthand how TIGER projects create jobs and support 
economic growth in our home States. In fact in Maine this highly 
competitive program has supported more than $90 million in funding for 
roads, bridges, ports, and rail projects.
  Turning to air travel, the aviation investments included in the bill 
will continue to modernize our Nation's air traffic system and keep 
rural communities connected to the transportation network. These 
investments are creating safer skies and a more efficient airspace to 
move the flying public.
  Also included in the bill are provisions I authored, which were 
adopted by the Appropriations Committee by a bipartisan vote of 21 to 
9, to respond to potential safety concerns related to DOT regulations 
governing truck drivers. As a result of unintended consequences of 
these regulations, more trucks have been forced on our Nation's roads 
during the most congested morning hours--when commuters are traveling 
to work and children are traveling to school. The bill provides 
temporary relief until the DOT Secretary conducts a comprehensive study 
on the impacts of these unanticipated outcomes.
  In addition to these transportation programs, our bill provides 
sufficient funding to keep pace with the rising cost of housing 
programs for our most vulnerable families. More than four million 
families will continue to receive critical rental assistance for 
housing. Without it, many of these families would otherwise become 
homeless.
  The bill reflects our strong commitment to reduce homelessness and 
includes more than $2 billion for Homeless Assistance Grants. Since 
2010, we have reduced overall chronic homelessness by 21 percent and 
veterans' homelessness by 33 percent. This program works. That is why 
we build on these successes and provide an additional 10,000 HUD-VASH 
vouchers to serve our Nation's veterans.
  While we continue to help families in need, we also recognize the 
struggles facing our local communities. Boosting local economies is 
critical to job creation and helping families obtain financial 
security. Our bill supports these local development efforts by 
providing $3 billion for the Community Development Block Grants 
program. This is an extremely important program for States and 
communities because it allows them to tailor the Federal funds to 
support local economic and job creation projects.
  Other provisions of the bill make equally important investments in 
our national security, energy infrastructure, veterans, and health and 
human services.
  For our military and our national security, I particularly appreciate 
that the bill fully funds the Arleigh Burke-class DDG-51 and Zumwalt-
class DDG-1000 destroyers. The destroyers are known as the real 
workhorses of the fleet and are critical to maintaining the robust 
forward naval presence our nation requires especially in a time of 
increasing threats to our security. The continued support of the 
destroyer programs is also a strong testament to the hard work and 
dedication of the men and women at Bath Iron Works in Maine. Bath-built 
truly is best built.
  The bill also includes funding for the procurement of 38 F-35s and 
for four additional aircraft. The F-35 is vital to maintaining air 
superiority, and components of the aircraft are built by skilled 
workers at Pratt & Whitney in North Berwick, General Dynamics Ordnance 
and Tactical Systems in Saco, Hunting Dearborn, Inc. in Fryeburg, and 
Fairchild Semiconductor in South Portland. Neither the bill, nor the 
report, recommends an unnecessary study of an extra engine for the F-35 
fighter, which would have wasted billions of dollars.
  Turning to our Nation's public shipyards, I am pleased that this bill 
funds our Navy's facility maintenance and modernization efforts, 
including projects at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, ME. The 
agreement contains language I secured that ensures the capital 
investment for the Navy's four public shipyards, including the 
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, is funded at the level required by law.
  For the men and women serving in uniform all over the world, the bill 
also rightly rejects many of the President's proposals that would have 
imposed burdens on many servicemembers and their families.
  For our Veterans, I am pleased that this bill provides funding for 
the highly successful Access Received Closer to Home program, or ARCH, 
which provides critical care to our veterans living in rural areas, 
including those living in Northern Maine. The ARCH pilot program 
provides VA-covered health care services through non-VA providers and 
has been crucial to increasing access to care for rural Maine veterans.
  The funding bill also provides additional resources to implement the 
reforms included in the recently enacted Veterans Access to Care 
through Choice, Accountability, and Transparency Act.
  We must increase our investment in biomedical research, and this bill 
provides $72 million in new funding for Alzheimer's Disease research, 
treatment, and caregiver programs. This important step takes us closer 
toward the goal of doubling funding for Alzheimer's research and 
eventually reaching the level of $2 billion a year in federal 
investment. This is the amount that the chairman of the Alzheimer's 
Advisory Council has said will be necessary if we are to reach our goal 
of having a way to prevent or effectively treat Alzheimer's Disease by 
2025. At a time when Alzheimer's is costing our Nation $214 billion a 
year, including $150 billion in costs to Medicare and Medicaid, we are 
spending less than $600 million a year on Alzheimer's research. While 
this bill does take a step forward, clearly we need to do more given 
the tremendous human and economic toll this devastating disease takes 
on our Nation.
  In addition, this funding bill makes important investments in 
agricultural research and extension activities, from potatoes to wild 
blueberries to aquaculture and forest products, while maintaining a 
commitment to nutrition and food security. The agreement

[[Page 18898]]

finally allows all fresh vegetables, including the fresh, white potato, 
to be included in the WIC program while USDA carries out an evaluation 
of the nutrient value of all vegetables, helping to ensure that any 
long-term policy is transparent and reflects the latest science.
  This bill also makes important commitments to our energy 
infrastructure and provides robust funding for the Department of Energy 
wind program. This program funds the offshore wind demonstration 
projects, including the R&D project being carried out by the University 
of Maine. Federal seed money is helping overcome barriers to the 
development and implementation of new and innovative technologies, such 
as deepwater offshore wind, which can position the U.S. as a global 
leader in innovative clean energy.
  To help address the high cost of residential energy, particularly for 
those living in northern, rural States like Maine, funding is provided 
in this bill for the Weatherization program. This program plays an 
important role in permanently reducing home energy costs for low-income 
families and seniors. Moreover, the funding included for LIHEAP will 
help ensure that many of our most vulnerable families and seniors do 
not have to choose between paying for heat and paying for other 
necessities such as food or medicine.
  Helping to meet the water infrastructure needs of smaller states and 
regions is another vital piece of our National infrastructure. This 
bill includes funding for the operation and maintenance of Army Corps 
projects at smaller harbors, which are the economic lifeblood for many 
rural communities, a fact not fully accounted for under the Corps' 
budget metrics, which tend to favor larger ports.
  The bill also continues to support our nation's fisheries, which are 
so important to the economies of our coastal communities, particularly 
in Maine. From funding for annual stock assessments, surveys and 
monitoring, and cooperative research, the bill supports key State and 
Federal partnerships. It provides funding to ensure fisheries data 
collection accurately reflects stock sustainability and funding for 
NOAA to invest in the science and research necessary to sustainably 
manage our fisheries in a way that continues to support our fishing 
fleets.
  Finally, I am pleased to see that the bill includes full funding for 
the Trade Adjustment Assistance programs that are so important in 
Maine, and for which Senator King and I both advocated. As we continue 
to deal with the recent job losses at paper mills in Maine, this 
assistance to displaced workers is extremely important.
  Completing action on this bill will keep government open and provide 
essential services to Americans who depend on them. While there are 
aspects of this compromise legislation that should have been subject to 
debate and amendment in an open process by the full Senate, including 
provisions that affect significantly multi-employer pensions and our 
campaign finance laws, we simply cannot allow a government shutdown. 
For that reason, I will be voting for this compromise legislation, and 
I urge my colleagues do so as well.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my opposition to 
the spending bill we are being forced to vote on. I am not voting to 
shut down the government. I am voting to negotiate on a bill where we 
are at least able to participate. I am voting to stay here, work with 
all my colleagues on a better bill, and put an end to the dysfunctional 
process we are forced to endure every year. I have read through the 
bill, and I am sure everyone can find something in here that they like.
  I certainly have some items in the bill that will help my little 
State of West Virginia. But there is just too much waste, too much 
taxpayer risk, and too little transparency for me to stomach.
  In the 4 years I have been in the Senate and on the Armed Services 
Committee, I have heard from officials on the damage done by the 
sequester and how it has cannibalized the Armed Forces. And yet, while 
DOD officials were forced to absorb across-the-board cuts in 2013, I 
have made it a point to ask if they are being forced into projects they 
don't want or need. This bill, however, completely ignores what the 
Department of Defense has said.
  We are wasting $5 billion on Department of Defense spending that the 
Pentagon did not ask for and does not need. They didn't ask for some of 
these ships, tanks and airplanes, but we are forcing them to purchase 
those projects anyway. And not only are we wasting this money, but we 
are denying it from other important programs that desperately need 
those funds.
  In this bill, we gut hard-working Americans' pensions, and instead of 
using the $5 billion to fund the Care Act, which ensures that the 
UMWA's Pension Plan remains solvent to benefit miners who have helped 
power this Nation, we give the Pentagon tanks and ships and planes they 
don't need or even want. We have seen our political process become more 
corrosive than ever in recent years.
  We have already seen the negative effects that the Citizens United 
ruling has had on our elections. It has allowed unlimited and dark 
money to distort the records of our colleagues, flood our airwaves with 
negative advertisements and shrink our campaigns to sound bites instead 
of ideas.
  And what does this bill do to address this? It increases the limits 
for individual contributions to political parties by 10 times the 
current limit--10 times. The current limit of $32,400 was already too 
high for most West Virginians and Americans to be able to take full 
advantage. The new limit of $324,000 is inconceivable for the vast 
majority of Americans. That means that our political process will only 
be available to a small number of wealthy individuals who will have 
more influence on our government than the hard-working Americans we are 
sent here to represent.
  Main Street America is still hurting from the fallout of Wall 
Street's greedy behavior. Americans lost 8.8 million jobs and our GDP 
fell by at least $7.2 trillion. We lost a generation of jobs and 
economic progress. And while our economy is still trying to recover and 
millions of Americans are still out of work, Wall Street has seen 
record profits.
  Instead of working to help our small businesses, community banks, and 
credit agencies, this bill allows Wall Street banks to go back to the 
same risky behavior that drove us into the great recession in the first 
place. If we pass this bill, we will allow Wall Street banks to trade 
risky derivatives and once again force American taxpayers to bail them 
out if they lose their bets.
  Haven't we learned our lesson yet? If big banks want to trade in 
risky derivatives and act with greed, then they should bear the cost of 
their mistakes, not the American taxpayer.
  Mr. President, I understand omnibus bills are made out of negotiation 
and compromise, but negotiations start with participation. Here, most 
Members of the Senate were not even consulted on this bill, nor was 
there an opportunity to offer amendments.
  Senator Robert C. Byrd, a man who defined what it meant to be a 
representative of the people and one of the most dedicated and 
passionate United States Senators to date, told me what it was like to 
work in the Senate before the process was broken. Upon arriving in the 
Senate, I assumed those same rules of conduct applied until Members 
here in this body explained to me just how much has changed.
  We used to consider individual appropriations bills that were 
carefully deliberated by committee members, and then we brought those 
smaller bills to the floor and were given an opportunity to offer 
amendments and debate the bill in a timely, proper manner. Somehow, the 
Senate process has gotten away from the days of regular order. Instead, 
here we are today, where we were given two days to read a 1,600-page 
bill loaded with provisions that we cannot even amend.
  Since we are forced to consider this bill as a whole, I have 
determined that it is simply too flawed for me to support.
  I urge my colleagues to stay here another week and truly draft a 
bipartisan omnibus package that fairly represents American values.

[[Page 18899]]

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, 1 month ago President Obama announced 
unprecedented Executive amnesty, in direct conflict with the 
immigration laws passed by Congress. Tonight is the first opportunity 
that Congress has to express its disapproval.
  A dozen Democrats have publicly criticized the Executive amnesty. 
Tonight, both Democrats and Republicans will have the opportunity to 
show America whether they stand with the President, who is defying the 
will of the voters, or with the millions of Americans who want a safe 
and legal immigration system.
  This point of order is targeted not to the entire omnibus but 
specifically to the DHS funding that the President has announced will 
be spent unconstitutionally.
  If you believe President Obama's amnesty is unconstitutional, vote 
yes. If you believe President Obama's amnesty is consistent with the 
Constitution, then vote no. Accordingly, I raise a constitutional point 
of order against Division L of the pending House amendment, on the 
grounds that it violates the following provisions of the Constitution: 
the separation of powers embodied in the vesting clauses of article I, 
section 1, and article II, section 1; the enumerated powers of Congress 
stated in article I, section 8; and the requirement that the President 
take care that the laws be faithfully executed as stated in article II, 
section 3.
  It is incumbent on this body to resolve those constitutional 
questions and to honor and protect the constitutional authority of the 
United States Congress.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the junior Senator from Texas raises a point 
of order attacking the pending legislation on the grounds that the 
President has acted unconstitutionally. The junior Senator from Texas 
is wrong, wrong, wrong on several counts. But most importantly for us 
this evening, it is an attack on this bill because this is not an 
appropriate place to debate the constitutionality of any executive 
branch action. Under the precedents of the Senate, the Senate 
determines whether it is constitutional to consider the legislation 
before it.
  The House of Representatives passed this legislation before us in an 
exercise of its powers under article I of the United States 
Constitution. This bill has, thus, originated in the House within the 
meaning of the origination clause of the Constitution.
  Voting on this measure is no different from thousands of other 
measures on which the Senate has voted. The Constitution objection is 
completely--completely--without merit and should be rejected.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield back all time.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. All time has expired.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, regular order.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. All time has expired. Regular order has 
been requested.
  Under the precedents and practices of the Senate, the Chair has no 
power or authority to pass on such a point of order. The Chair, 
therefore, under the precedents of the Senate, submits the question to 
the Senate, Is the point of order well taken?
  The yeas and nays were previously ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. 
Feinstein) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Coburn), and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).
  The result was announced--yeas 22, nays 74, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 353 Leg.]

                                YEAS--22

     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Fischer
     Grassley
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Lee
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Vitter

                                NAYS--74

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Walsh
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Feinstein
     Inhofe
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question was put to the Senate, Is the 
point of order well taken?
  On this vote, the yeas are 22, the nays are 74.
  The point of order is not well taken.
  Under the previous order, the motion to concur with amendments is 
withdrawn.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the motion 
to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 83.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this will be the last vote tonight. We hope 
to be able to start at 9:30 Monday morning with the next vote. We will 
let everyone know for sure.
  Mr. WICKER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. 
Feinstein) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Coburn), and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 354 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Graham
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Walsh
     Warner
     Wicker

                                NAYS--40

     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Corker
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Heller
     Hirono
     Johnson (WI)
     Klobuchar
     Lee
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Tester
     Vitter
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Feinstein
     Inhofe
  The motion was agreed to.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page 18900]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________