[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14678-14682]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             CLOTURE MOTION

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to the motion to 
reconsider the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to 
proceed to H.R. 2685.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to reconsider the vote on the motion to invoke 
cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 2685.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the time until 12 noon be 
equally divided prior to the cloture vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

[[Page 14679]]

  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, almost exactly a year ago, President 
Obama addressed the Nation and declared his resolve to degrade and 
destroy ISIL. I will speak more on that in just a moment, but there are 
two lines in that speech of particular relevance to the vote we are 
about to take.
  This is what President Obama had to say:

       As Commander-in-Chief, my highest priority is the security 
     of the American people [and] our own safety, our own 
     security, depends upon our willingness to do what it takes to 
     defend this nation and uphold the values that we stand for.

  He was certainly right. It does. And doing what it takes requires 
many things--everything from amphibious shipping, Joint Strike 
Fighters, and forward presence, to preserving our gains in Afghanistan 
and investing in the naval systems required to balance against Chinese 
expansion in Asia.
  So when President Obama sent us a budget request asking for $612 
billion in defense spending, we worked across the aisle to craft a 
bipartisan appropriations bill at that level. Democrats hailed the 
defense spending as a win-win and a victory for their States. They 
voted to pass it out of the Appropriations Committee. This is how the 
Defense appropriations bill came out of the Appropriations Committee: 
27 to 3.
  But then, as the Washington Post put it, Democrats ``decided to block 
all spending bills starting with the defense appropriations measure'' 
as part of some ``filibuster summer'' strategy designed to pump more 
taxpayer cash into Washington bureaucracies such as the IRS. The same 
President who had lectured the Nation about doing ``what it takes to 
defend this nation'' seemed content to have our military held hostage 
to the whims of the far left. The White House cheered as they voted 
repeatedly to block the bill that funds pay raises and medical care for 
our troops. It was outrageous then, and it is outrageous now.
  China is deploying ships to the Bering Sea and to the coast of 
Alaska. Russia's military is positioning itself in Syria to attack 
anti-regime forces under the guise of a counterterrorism campaign. 
Refugees are pouring forth in the thousands, causing instability in 
Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, and Europe. And 1 year after the President's 
speech, ISIL is consolidating its gains within Syria and Iraq as it 
demonstrates an agility and an operational flexibility that threaten 
our country and our national security interests.
  The sad lesson of the last 7 years is that our global conventional 
drawdown and withdrawal from the Middle East emboldened Russia and 
China. Our ambitious train-and-equip and economy-of-force programs to 
train combat forces within Yemen, Afghanistan, and Iraq and our program 
to train an opposition to fight within Syria--all have failed to defeat 
the enemy. And Iran now appears free under the President's deal to 
inspect its own suspected nuclear site and to funnel more cash to 
Hezbollah.
  If President Obama is committed to protecting the American people, he 
will convince his party to end its blockade of funding our military. We 
are going to give our Democratic friends that chance again in a few 
moments.
  The goal of Democrats' ``filibuster summer'' was to force Congress 
back to the brink. They have succeeded in doing that. They think it is 
the only way to force America to accept their demands for more debt and 
more bureaucracy. But it is time Democrats started considering the 
needs of our country, not the wants of the far left or the IRS. Ending 
their blockade of funding for our military at a time of significant 
international threats would show they are ready to start putting 
Americans first.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have voted on this before. It seems that 
is what we have been doing the last few weeks--revoting. Vote once and 
vote again. The results are going to be the same. We have made it clear 
we are not going to proceed to appropriations bills under the 
Republicans' partisan budget. We have 12 appropriations bills, not 1. 
We have 12.
  We seek a budget agreement that fairly prevents mindless sequester 
cuts to defense and to the middle class. I am gratified that our votes 
on this measure have caused the Republican leader to acknowledge 
publicly that we need to negotiate an end to this fiscal crisis that 
has been created by the Republicans.
  As for this upcoming vote, there is no reason for Senators to change 
their votes from how they voted earlier this year. This is yet another 
case of the Republicans just wasting time rather than addressing the 
real deal. Another revote.
  We read in this morning's papers that the Republican leader intends 
to bring a clean continuing resolution before the Senate later this 
week. Congratulations. We appreciate that very much. But bringing it to 
a conclusion now is certainly very important because we are running out 
of time. The end of the fiscal year is now. On September 30, we need 
more money or the government will shut down. It is not as though we are 
making up something. They have done it before. And who has been hurt? 
The American middle class more than anyone else.
  I hope we will just move on to the business at hand. The business at 
hand is to make sure the government does not close. We have cooperated 
every way we can. We are not asking for revotes on tearing down the 
tree numerous times. We have agreed to that. We are not trying in any 
way to procedurally stop us from moving to important funding measures. 
So I hope we can move on past this as quickly as possible.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.


               Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Bill

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, unfortunately, our Democratic friends have 
now blocked another vital piece of legislation from moving forward by a 
vote of 54 to 42. The cloture vote on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child 
Protection Act has failed on that cloture vote. But I want to point out 
to our colleagues that this is not the end of this discussion. This is 
the beginning of the discussion once again.
  I would point out that over the years we have actually been making 
some progress in favor of an agenda that favors life. In 2007 eight 
Senate Republicans opposed defunding Planned Parenthood, by 2011 five 
Senate Republicans opposed defunding Planned Parenthood, and in August 
just one Senator opposed it by voting to filibuster the bill. Last time 
we had zero Democratic Senators vote on such a measure. In August we 
got two.
  The pain-capable bill that was blocked by Senate Democrats last year, 
of course, is what we just voted on again. Today we had an opportunity 
to be on the record and advocate for what is a top priority for pro-
life groups.
  There is legislation that has passed in the House of 
Representatives--namely, the born-alive piece of legislation, which 
really shouldn't divide Congress the way perhaps the defunding of 
Planned Parenthood bill has because at some point, whether you are pro-
choice or pro-life, hopefully we can agree that a child who is 
basically grown to full-term in their mother should be protected from 
the abortion industries. I think we are going to have other 
opportunities to vote on that issue.
  The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is really a moral 
imperative for our Nation. It says a lot about who we are as a country. 
This Chamber just had the opportunity to send a clear message that 
America is a nation that seeks to advance a culture of life and 
opportunity for everyone, particularly those who are the most 
vulnerable. As a father of two daughters, I don't understand the 
rationale of some of my colleagues on the other side. Do they believe 
there should be no limitation on access to abortion at all? No limit?
  Well, we will have an opportunity for another vote that perhaps will 
give them a chance to go on record on the born-alive bill that passed 
the House of Representatives last week. Unfortunately, I think it 
appears that by blocking this vote, some of our colleagues were simply 
unable to cast

[[Page 14680]]

aside the pressures of special interest groups to take a stand for 
life. But it is important to note for pro-life Members such as myself 
that protecting the sanctity of life is an ongoing mission, and it 
doesn't end with this one vote.
  Mr. President, briefly on another matter, we will shortly consider or 
reconsider another vote that should be a clear-cut issue. This vote 
would make sure that our military has what they need in order to 
protect our country and deal with the rising and diverse threats to 
national security occurring around the world. This will most pointedly 
help our troops maintain their status as the greatest military. The 
Defense appropriations bill includes simple initiatives that make sense 
and serve our troops well, such as giving them a well-deserved pay 
raise.
  I think it is worth reminding those here today that this will be the 
second opportunity to move this legislation forward. Earlier, our 
colleagues across the aisle blocked this Defense appropriations bill 
that provides critical funding for our troops and refused to allow it 
to move forward. That legislation, as the majority leader pointed out, 
was voted overwhelmingly out of the Appropriations Committee in June 
with the support of many of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle who then turned and voted against it on the floor. I guess, in 
the famous words of John Kerry, they were for it before they were 
against it.
  So the bill we will be considering and voting on shortly is not a 
piece of partisan legislation, but holding up this legislation is 
unfortunately indicative of a larger strategy of keeping the Senate 
tied in knots and making it impossible for it to function as intended. 
If the goal is to stymie real progress, I would have to congratulate 
our friends across the aisle. But unfortunately they have taken as a 
hostage in this partisan political fight the very military which they 
claim to support and which I believe they do support, but their vote 
certainly does not indicate that when they vote against funding our 
troops.
  I would point out that in 2013 the Democratic leader himself 
advocated for something we call regular order around here when it comes 
to setting our Nation's fiscal policy.
  Fortunately, this year, under the new majority, we were able to pass 
a budget for the first time since 2009. But then what should have 
happened after that is the Appropriations Committee should have done 
its work--in fact, it did do its work--and then those bills would come 
to the floor and they would be voted on by the Senate. But that is what 
our Democratic colleagues have blocked. I think they have gone a bridge 
too far in blocking the funding for our military, particularly with the 
headlines we see in the newspapers and the conflicts arising and 
spreading across the world.
  So this is the first time in 6 years that the Appropriations 
Committee has approved and reported out all 12 appropriations bills. 
But then these bills became hostage to something our Democratic friends 
called ``filibuster summer''--a political strategy telegraphed from the 
pages of the Washington Post just last June to block all appropriations 
bills.
  I said it then and it bears repeating that stifling debate and 
blocking votes is a pretty lousy political strategy, and it is not what 
the American people sent us here to do. It is what lost my friends 
across the aisle control of this Chamber nearly a year ago. It is a 
losing strategy, it is bad policy, and it is cynical politics. It is 
simply shameful to take these partisan political fights to the point of 
denying our troops the resources they need in order to do their job.
  So the Appropriations Committee has done its work on a bipartisan 
basis and painstakingly drafted, considered, and passed all 12 
appropriations bills. Now this Chamber should do our job and move those 
appropriations bills forward, starting with the Defense appropriations 
bill.
  Now that the majority leader has moved to reconsider that failed 
vote, earlier blocked by our Democratic colleagues, I hope our friends 
across the aisle have had a chance to reconsider and to think carefully 
about the ramifications of their decision and that they will join us in 
moving this bill forward. The world is far too dangerous and the 
threats are far too real to take this important piece of legislation 
hostage and prevent the resources going to the troops, who simply 
deserve it.
  Quite simply, we have no time to lose when it comes to fulfilling one 
of our most basic duties to the American people: defending against 
threats to national security. I would urge my fellow colleagues to join 
me in moving this important bill forward.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I respect my colleague from Texas, the 
majority whip. I disagree with his conclusion. I am vice chairman of 
the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. The chairman is Senator 
Cochran of Mississippi. The two of us and our staffs worked night and 
day to put together a good Defense appropriations bill. I think we did 
a good job.
  The problem is, there is a difference between the Democrats and the 
Republicans about the total amount to be spent on the defense budget. 
The Republicans suggest that we should take $38 billion and put it into 
the defense budget but not to add a similar amount to the nondefense 
budget. I could go onto the arcane language of OCO and all of the 
sequestration. I am going to try to avoid that and keep this at a level 
where most people understand what we are talking about.
  Our concern is not about funding the military on the Democratic side. 
We wholeheartedly support that, all of us. Not a single Democrat 
dissents from what I have just said, but the question is whether or not 
the money that is going to be invested in nondefense agencies is also 
going to be protected in this appropriations process. That is all we 
have asked for.
  We are willing to put $38 billion more into defense, let's put the 
same amount in nondefense. What is nondefense? Nondefense, frankly, 
includes a lot of appropriations programs that are critically important 
to middle-income families across America. Are we going to continue to 
fund educational programs so that the kids of working families have a 
shot at college? That is nondefense spending.
  Are we going to make sure that we make the basic processes of 
government be protected when it comes to investing in nondefense? May I 
give you an example? Medical research. Is that worth putting money 
into? From the Republican side, that is nondefense, that is not really 
that important. I think it is critically important. Once every 67 
seconds in America, one of
our citizens is diagnosed with Alzheimer's--once every 67 seconds.
  It is a tragedy. It is an expensive tragedy. It cost us over $200 
billion last year just to care for Alzheimer's patients in America 
under Medicare and Medicaid. That does not even come close to 
calculating the sacrifices made by family members on behalf of those 
who are suffering from Alzheimer's. So should we invest more money in 
Alzheimer's research? Should we put more money into an effort to delay 
the onset of Alzheimer's or, God willing, find a cure? Of course we 
should. That is nondefense spending. That is not a priority of the 
other side of the aisle.
  What we have said to them is: We need to sit down and work this out. 
Be fair to defense to keep us strong and safe as a nation, but make 
those critical investments in programs that make a difference to 
middle-income families across America. What we are asking for today is 
nothing new. As the Senator from Texas reminded us, we took a vote on 
this issue. It was over 3 months ago--the same vote. We took the same 
vote we are about to take at noon today as to whether or not we should 
have this lopsided appropriation, money to the defense budget but not 
to the nondefense budget. We said no. Balance it. Be fair. Be as 
concerned about middle-income families in America as you are about the 
defense of our Nation. Let the budget reflect that.
  But they said no. So we are back again. It was on June 18 when the 
leadership on the Democratic side of the aisle, aided by others who 
felt the same way, sent a letter to the Republicans

[[Page 14681]]

and said: Let's not waste any time shouting at one another and giving 
speeches on the floor. Let's sit down in closed, bipartisan 
negotiations and work out the budget, bring the President in. He is 
critical. We need his participation. But let's work it out.
  We wrote that letter on June 18. Here we are more than 3 months later 
in the same predicament. We should have taken the time before now--days 
before the end of the fiscal year, at the end of September--to sit down 
and work this out by budget negotiation. But they refused. They don't 
want to sit down.
  Instead, they want us to go through these show votes. Last week--last 
week we had five unnecessary separate votes on the Iran agreement. We 
had already established, by public announcement of every Senator and by 
an open public vote, where we stood. Senator McConnell insisted on 
spending another week and five more votes on exactly the same thing 
with exactly the same outcome. What a waste of Senate time.
  Look at this week. This week is a challenge because of the visit of 
the Pope and the Jewish holy day, but instead of dealing with 
substantive issues, this week we have allowed two Republican 
Presidential candidates who are Senators to have their day on the 
floor. I think we should be rolling up our sleeves and tackling this 
issue. I don't want to see a government shutdown. We allowed the 
Senator from Texas to do that a few years ago, and we paid a heavy 
price for it. He has now threatened to do it again. He likes shutting 
down our government, thinks that is a great expression of his 
effectiveness as a leader. So be it. Maybe it is to some, but not to 
most.
  Instead we should be involved in real budget negotiations. I want to 
tell you, this idea of a continuing resolution--what is a continuing 
resolution? It says: Spend the money this year the same way you spent 
it last year. What if your family had that charge? What if we said: 
Spend the same amount for groceries and utilities that you did last 
year, spend it this year. You would say: Wait a minute, that does not 
reflect the things that have changed in my family. My son is off to 
college. We are changing the place where we live and such.
  That is not the kind of thing that you would respect. That is what a 
continuing resolution does. It continues to spend money the same way. 
It wastes taxpayers' money. Senator Cochran and I, on a bipartisan 
basis, came up with a better approach. It is an appropriations bill 
which we think keeps us safe and spends our defense dollars wisely. So 
let's not get comfortable with a continuing resolution. It is not good 
for the Department of Defense, not good for the men and women in 
uniform who risk their lives for us every single day.
  It is important for us to do the responsible thing and move forward. 
Let's not waste any more time with repeat votes and show-boat votes; 
let's instead focus our time on negotiating a sound budget.
  On June 18, we sent an invitation to the Republicans to sit down and 
negotiate a budget. The invitation is still open, but we are running 
out of time. It is important that the President be in that negotiation. 
It has been 96 days since the last vote we had on this issue. We are 
going to face it again in just a few moments.
  There has not been any progress made on budget negotiations. I ask 
the Republican leadership of the House and Senate: What are you waiting 
for? When are you going to sit down and govern? When are you going to 
sit down and work out problems instead of dreaming up new ways to shut 
down the Government of the United States of America?
  There are signs we are headed back to the same old process that was 
used before. By the end of the week, they are talking about filibusters 
on the Republican side, and staying in all night, and maybe we will 
hear another Dr. Seuss book read to us in the middle of the night by 
the Texas Senator.
  I am not sure what lies ahead, but what the American people are sick 
and tired of is what they see on the Senate floor today. They want us 
to do our work. They want us to compromise, to agree, to do what is 
best for this Nation.
  Having one show vote after another does not accomplish that. I ask my 
colleagues: Work together. I ask the leaders on the Republican side: 
Instead of one more monotonous, predicable vote after another, should 
we not sit down and work out a budget negotiation that serves our 
Nation, not only the defense budget, but all of America, including 
middle-income families.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to support the motion 
to proceed to the Department of Defense appropriations bill for fiscal 
year 2016. The Committee on Appropriations approved the bill on June 11 
by a vote of 27 to 3. The bill provides $489.1 billion in base funding, 
and $86.8 billion in overseas contingency operations, which is 
consistent with both the fiscal year 2016 budget resolution and the 
Defense Subcommittee's allocation.
  The bill provides funding to protect the security interests of our 
country. The Senate should return to regular order starting with this 
national security legislation. It is a bipartisan bill that provides 
the President, as Commander in Chief, with the resources to protect our 
Nation. I urge the Senate to approve proceeding to this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes for the minority, 1 minute for 
the majority.
  Mr. DURBIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending 
cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to H.R. 2685, an act making appropriations for the 
     Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 
     30, 2016, and for other purposes.
         Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, James Lankford, Roger F. 
           Wicker, John Barrasso, Thom Tillis, Steve Daines, Tom 
           Cotton, Kelly Ayotte, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, John 
           Thune, Jerry Moran, Richard C. Shelby, Daniel Coats, 
           Jeff Flake, Rob Portman.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to H.R. 2685, an act making appropriations for the 
Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, 
and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close, upon 
reconsideration?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), 
the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), and the Senator from 
Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 54, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 269 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson

[[Page 14682]]


     Johnson
     Kirk
     Lankford
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--42

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Boxer
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 54, the nays are 
42.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion, upon reconsideration, is rejected.
  The majority leader.

                          ____________________