[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 17464-17467]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2016--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 2685, which the 
clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 118, H.R. 2685, a bill 
     making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other 
     purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 11 
a.m. will be equally divided in the usual form.
  The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I come before the Senate to express my 
strong support for proceeding to the fiscal year 2016 Defense 
appropriations bill. This bill provides vital funding for the men and 
women of our armed services at a time of serious and growing threats to 
our own national security and at a time of troubling instability and 
violent conflicts in many countries around the world.
  Proceeding would allow the Senate an opportunity to debate defense 
funding in an open and transparent manner and to meet our 
constitutional obligations. I am truly perplexed to hear some of my 
dear friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle suggest that 
there is a Republican plan to enact only the Defense appropriations 
bill and then proceed to a continuing resolution for all of the other 
vital appropriations bills. It would be an understatement to say that 
continuing resolutions are certainly not the preferred option of the 
Appropriations Committee, and I say that as a proud member of that 
committee. Continuing resolutions create uncertainty, they lock in last 
year's priorities, and they continue to fund programs that should be 
eliminated. They are not effective ways to govern.
  I want to be clear. Supporting an individual appropriations bill in 
no way suggests that the Senate is somehow giving up on passing the 
other 11 subcommittee appropriations bills, whether they are brought to 
the floor individually or as an omnibus package.
  Members of the Appropriations Committee now have working numbers as a 
result of the budget agreement. We are working together diligently in a 
bipartisan, bicameral manner to craft a bipartisan omnibus that can be 
supported by both Chambers.
  Democrats and Republicans came together to pass a budget agreement 
just a few short days ago, and our ongoing negotiations prove our 
sincerity and determination to move ahead with individual bills and in 
crafting an omnibus. We have already made great progress this year. As 
our chairman, Thad Cochran, has noted previously, this is the first 
time in 6 years that the Appropriations Committee has approved all 12 
of its bills. Many of those bills, due to the leadership on the 
Democratic side of my dear friend Barbara Mikulski, and others, have 
been bipartisan when they were reported by our committee. I would note 
that we completed our work despite terribly strict budget constraints 
months ago.
  Now, we are in a new stage. We have a bipartisan, 2-year budget 
agreement that has provided some much needed relief to some of the 
budget caps, while keeping us on a fiscally responsible path.
  This is the third time the Senate has attempted to take up this vital 
appropriations bill. The last time, my Democratic friends objected 
because there was no bipartisan, bicameral budget agreement. In the 
absence of such an agreement, they said they could not proceed with a 
bill. Now, I didn't agree with that rationale, but I understood it. I 
do not understand the situation we find ourselves in today. We have a 
budget agreement--a bipartisan, bicameral budget agreement. I do not 
understand why we cannot move forward with the Defense appropriations 
bill and, I hope, other bills individually and then ultimately an 
omnibus bill for those that we simply run out of time to consider this 
year. Next year, due to this budget agreement, I hope we can bring each 
and every one of the individual appropriations bills before the Senate 
for debate and amendment the way we used to do, and that is our goal.
  December 11 is quickly approaching, and that is the date when the 
current continuing resolution expires. We must act before then to 
ensure that the Federal Government remains open. We must act to ensure 
that vital Federal programs are funded and not operating under yet 
another continuing resolution, which is such poor policy. That is what 
we are trying to prevent.
  Let's get the Defense appropriations bill approved. Then, I hope we 
can bring up at least one or two or perhaps three other appropriations 
bills. In the meantime, we are already working on the omnibus bill.
  As chairman of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and 
Related Agencies Subcommittee, I have already met with my ranking 
member, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, and with our counterparts on 
the House side to begin the negotiations on our bill. We are operating 
under a very tight timeframe that will require Members to work around 
the clock and a good-faith effort from all sides. That is what I am 
asking for today: for Members on the other side of the aisle to take 
the majority leader, the Republican leader, at his word, to pass this 
bill--this vitally needed bill--and then to go on to a second 
individual appropriations bill, all the while we are working in a 
bipartisan way to craft an omnibus bill.

[[Page 17465]]

  I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the importance of advancing 
the fiscal year 2016 appropriations bills. Let me reiterate that it is 
simply wrong for any of my Democratic colleagues to assume that 
proceeding to the Defense appropriations bill somehow suggests that 
there is no interest by our leader in passing an omnibus that will 
include the other vital bills funding essential education, biomedical 
research, transportation, housing, agriculture, energy, environmental, 
and other important programs.
  I urge my colleagues to support proceeding to this vital bill. To 
fail to do so once again, for the third time, despite the existence of 
the budget framework that we have agreed to, and to fail to do so just 
days before we honor our Nation's veterans would be a grave disservice 
to those who serve in our military today.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Seeing no one seeking the floor, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rounds). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, for months, we have called for Senate 
Democrats to stand and support our troops and pass the Defense 
appropriations legislation. In fact, this is the first time--the first 
time since 2009--that all 12 appropriations bills were reported out of 
committee, and most with strong bipartisan support.
  I serve on the Appropriations Committee. In fact, I serve on the 
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. But today we are once again 
considering opening debate on the Department of Defense Appropriations 
Act of 2016, a bill that passed out of the Appropriations Committee on 
June 11 with a very strong bipartisan vote of 27 to 3.
  As we approach Veterans Day next week, today could mark the third 
time that Democrats have blocked this critical legislation to fund our 
troops. This comes at a time when our troops are actively engaged in 
multiple theaters abroad and they need the critical support of our 
Nation's growing mission overseas. But rather than passing this vital 
funding bill, my Democratic colleagues would rather play politics and 
perpetuate the obstruction that plagues their party. The minority 
leader's constituents in Nevada deserve more. They deserve better. 
Montanans deserve more. The American people deserve more.
  So here we are debating, for the third time, simply to proceed on 
Defense appropriations legislation and to open it up for debate. Let's 
be clear. The way the process works is we have to have first a vote to 
bring the bill to the floor to begin deliberation. This, the greatest 
deliberative body in the world, can't even deliberate on the Defense 
appropriations bill because our friends across the aisle are blocking 
it. It is time to open it up for debate, open it up for amendments. 
This is the process of the Senate. The American people and the troops 
deserve more.
  It appears that the Democratic leader and his Democratic colleagues 
would rather huddle in back rooms somewhere and concoct yet another 
deal behind closed doors versus in full daylight in transparency on the 
Senate floor because they would rather negotiate in private than engage 
in an open and honest debate in front of the American people.
  Unfortunately, today the Senate Democrats will put partisan politics 
ahead of funding the troops. The senior Senator from New York, the 
likely next Democratic leader, has already foretold that Democrats 
would rather throw together another massive spending package than to 
allow open consideration of each part of the Nation's budget. No wonder 
we are $19 trillion dollars in debt. Senator Schumer said:

       We could pass a defense bill and then they could say, 
     ``Well, we'll do a [continuing resolution] on the rest of 
     it,'' violating the 50-50 deal. We need to negotiate an 
     omnibus all at once and all together.

  I reject that. Montanans know firsthand the importance of supporting 
our men and women in uniform. The passage of this legislation is 
critical to carrying out our missions in an increasingly dangerous 
world, and it is important regarding missions we support in Montana. 
This Defense appropriations bill protects the Montana Air National 
Guard C-130 mission by moving forward with the Avionics Modernization 
Program, or AMP Increments 1 and 2, which are improvements from the 
original costly AMP program. This will ensure the C-130s at the Montana 
National Guard will be certified to continue flying by 2020 and provide 
a pathway for a full-scale avionics upgrade that addresses outdated 
components. It also funds key engine modifications for those C-130s.
  The Senate Democrats would prefer to once again obstruct regular 
order in the same fashion they did during the past few years, which 
became the hallmark--it became the trademark of a failed Democrat-led 
Senate majority. So as the Senate heads home for the weekend, I 
challenge my Democratic colleagues to look at their veterans, to look 
their active duty troops and military families in the eye and ask 
themselves: Did I serve these selfless men and women or the Washington 
establishment? I think we know which one they will choose.
  I encourage my Senate Democratic colleagues to change course. We have 
a chance to change course on this upcoming vote. Vote yes on moving 
this critical defense legislation forward.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time in a 
quorum call before the 11 a.m. vote today be charged equally against 
each side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DAINES. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, at 11 o'clock the Senate is going to vote 
on the Defense appropriations bill. This is a bill I have worked on 
with Senator Cochran of Mississippi. He not only chairs the 
Appropriations Committee but the Subcommittee on Defense, which I serve 
as ranking member on as well.
  The effort in this bill is extraordinary because it comprises 
virtually 60 percent of the domestic discretionary spending of our 
government. It, of course, deals with the Department of Defense and 
intelligence agencies. I just want to say we have worked on this on a 
bipartisan basis from the start. It has been a real pleasure to work 
with Senator Cochran. I commend him for his leadership and his 
gentility and thank him for all of the good work he has put into this 
bill.
  It is going to be a procedural vote that we anticipate is not going 
to allow this bill to go forward. It is not a reflection on the 
substance of the bill at all. Though we may disagree with one or two 
provisions in the bill--and even as one of the authors I can say that--
the fact is that what we are trying to do now is position ourselves to 
complete the work of last week's budget agreement.
  I think there is an understanding, at least at this moment, of how we 
will move forward, but I say to my colleagues that we can stand behind 
the substance of this bill. Procedurally, we may be delaying it today, 
but ultimately it will pass and I look forward to supporting it at that 
time.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page 17466]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak up to 
10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I would like to address my remarks to 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, my Democratic colleagues. 
Yesterday I spent almost a whole day working with Democratic colleagues 
on a variety of proposals to try to get bipartisan results in the 
Senate. We have had more bipartisan results this year than most people 
think, whether it is the progress we have made on No Child Left Behind 
or on the trade bill or on the doc fix or on changing the way we pay 
doctors or on the USA Freedom Act, or on the Defense authorization 
bill. It is a long list.
  I was working to get bipartisan results yesterday because that is 
what I am supposed to do as a United States Senator. I am not sent here 
to posture or to make a political point. I am sent here--given this 
privilege--in order to create an environment where we can solve 
problems for the benefit of the taxpayers, for the benefit of the 
American people. So that is how I spent my time yesterday. I do not 
think any other Republican spent more time than I did working with 
colleagues on the Democratic side to do that, which is why I am 
addressing my remarks to my Democratic friends.
  What they have proposed to do is block our moving to the 
appropriations bill for the defense of this country for the third 
time--for the third time. There is no justification whatsoever to do 
that. What I am saying to my friends is don't go there, because if you 
continue to block appropriations bills, you are going to set in motion 
an irreversible trend toward partisanship in this Senate and I am going 
to lead it. I am going to lead it.
  Instead of spending my time working with Democrats to get bipartisan 
results, we are going go in another direction. Now, why would I say 
that? Because I am not here to be partisan. Let me give you the example 
of the appropriations bill that Senator Feinstein from California and I 
have worked on. We worked on that bill in a bipartisan way. I think 
even she would say she wrote about as much of it as I did. There's a 
page full of things she thought are important for our country that are 
part of the bill. There are probably more than 75 Senators who wrote us 
letters--about half of them Democratic Senators--who wrote us letters 
saying: These are important provisions in the Energy and Water 
Appropriations bill. Those provisions are in our bill. They are ready 
to be considered.
  Twice, the Democrats have kept us from considering the Defense 
Appropriations bill. Today, they are going to do it again. What they 
are saying to us is that we are going to come up with any reason--any 
excuse--not to have a normal appropriations process. The last time 
Democrats argued: We did not have enough money. The way you deal with 
not enough money, if that is your opinion, is you bring a bill to the 
floor, you vote on it, you pass it if you can, you send it to the 
President, if the President disagrees with you, he vetoes it. It comes 
back and we negotiate and we have a compromise.
  That is the way it works. You don't just jam something through 
because you have the power to stop something or the power to jam it 
through. That is the way you pass ObamaCare. That is the way you make 
sure the country has no respect for what we are trying to do. But that 
is what the Democrats did with appropriations this year and they got a 
result. I am not unhappy with the result, and I voted for the budget 
agreement. But what it does is it creates additional spending for 
defense and nondefense discretionary funding for the Energy and Water 
appropriations bill. I am pleased to see that because that money goes 
for ports, locks, and dams. That money goes to the Office of Science so 
we can have revolutions in manufacturing that create jobs. Money that 
can help with our biomedical research that we need to do. There are 
important things we need to do, and this bill will help us do them. But 
why would we not begin to debate that? Why would we not let the other 
Senators debate it? All we are proposing is to begin to do some of what 
in December we should have done in June and July.
  The majority leader knows he can't put every one of the 12 
appropriations bill on the floor. There is not enough time left this 
year. Why is there not enough time? Because Democrats blocked it in 
June. They kept us from going to the bills even though this is the 
first time in 6 years that all 12 appropriations bills have passed the 
Appropriations Committee.
  Why is that important? That is what we do here. Our job is to review 
the purse, to decide what to spend--more for this lock, less for that 
project--and keep the budget in balance when we can. That is our job. 
They blocked it twice and they are getting ready to block it again with 
a vote today.
  I'm saying, don't go there because you are going to set in motion an 
irreversible course in this Senate, and I'm going to lead it. I am 
going to use whatever skills and powers I have to do that.
  All of these Democratic provisions don't have to be in the Energy and 
Water appropriations bill. They don't have to be in any of the bills 
because we have the majority and you don't. So if they're going to play 
that kind of game, we can play it too. I am not one who usually does, 
but I am able to play. I am able to play or I wouldn't have gotten 
here.
  So I want to say to my friends on the other side: Don't go there. 
Vote to put the bill on the floor. Vote to give us a chance to have 
amendments.
  Why would the other 70 Senators not want to have a chance to have a 
say about the appropriations bill? Thirty of us are on the 
Appropriations Committee. We did our work. We approved the bill--in our 
case by a vote of 26 to 4. It is a bipartisan bill. Why would we not 
put bills like that on the floor and let the other 70 Senators have 
their say? What are they here for if they don't want to have a say 
about appropriations? They might as well be home watching television. 
They should be here deciding the issues that face our country.
  I hope my friends on both sides of the aisle can tell I am not happy 
this morning with the direction things are taking. I don't like the 
fact that I spent all day working with Democratic colleagues to get 
bipartisan results and they come along with a tactic--for the third 
time--that says: If we don't get everything we want, we are not going 
to have an appropriations process.
  Well, we will see how that goes. And it will go not in a way that is 
good for the country, not in a way that is good for the Senate, but it 
will allow the people who have a majority in the Senate a chance to 
assert themselves and write the bills. At least we can do that.
  There is really no reason we need to have 75 Senators' ideas about 
priorities in the Energy and Water appropriations bill if the majority 
doesn't want to. There is no reason to have the ranking members' 
opinions in any of these appropriations bills if the majority doesn't 
want to.
  The way we have worked in our committee is--and I have worked with 
the Senator from California for several years, and she is a terrific 
person and a wonderful Senator--we work together. Now why should we 
stop that process when the bills come to the floor?
  So through the Chair I respectfully ask my colleagues to think again. 
Don't do this. Don't send us a signal that we are never going to have 
another normal appropriations process in the United States Senate. The 
American people don't want that. We don't want that, and I can assure 
you my friends on the other side don't want that.
  So my hope is that one way or another the majority leader and the 
Democratic leader have a conversation.

[[Page 17467]]

And that the Senate comes to its rational senses and begins a normal 
appropriations process, with as much time as we have between now and 
the end of our time here in December. Which would be a signal to all of 
us that we are going to work in a bipartisan way on a normal 
appropriations process for the good of the country. And that we are not 
just going to try to think up any excuse we can not to move an 
appropriations bill to the floor.
  Two years ago the majority leader simply wouldn't bring the bills to 
the floor. This time the minority leader has blocked the bills from 
coming to the floor. Let's get back to work. For heaven's sake, that is 
what we are here for. I am ready to go to work. I much prefer the way I 
worked yesterday, working with my colleagues. But I am prepared to work 
in another way if that is what we need to do to get some balance in the 
Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I compliment the distinguished Senator 
from Tennessee for his remarks. I extend my appreciation for his strong 
leadership in developing and bringing to the floor of the Senate the 
Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 2016.
  Specifically, I urge the Senate to do as he suggests. Let's get this 
bill before the Senate, offer amendments if Senators have suggestions 
for changes in the bill, and move ahead to completing action on this 
bill on time so we can predict with some certainty what our obligations 
are going to be and we can more thoughtfully with a sense of confidence 
know that we are doing the right thing to protect the security 
interests of our country, our citizens, and our interests around the 
world.
  We have before us an effort to move to the consideration of the 
Department of Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 2016. The 
bill provides $514.1 billion in base budget funding and $58.6 billion 
in overseas contingency operations funding for the Department of 
Defense.
  The Senate Appropriations Committee has worked on a bipartisan basis 
to write and approve 12 individual appropriations bills this year for 
the first time since 2009. Senators should have the opportunity to 
debate, amend, and approve the Defense appropriations bill. The 
legislation is a bipartisan national security measure that provides the 
resources that are necessary to protect our Nation, support our 
servicemembers and their families, and meet current and future threats 
to our national security.
  We have no greater priority than protecting our national security 
interests here at home and abroad. I urge Senators to cooperate and 
support our efforts and to vote to proceed to the consideration of this 
bill. I am hopeful that the leadership can get together and work out a 
time that is convenient and appropriate for carrying out this 
responsibility.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  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, a bill making appropriations for the 
     Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 
     30, 2016, and for other purposes.
         Mitch McConnell, James M. Inhofe, John Hoeven, John 
           Thune, Lamar Alexander, Richard Burr, Jerry Moran, John 
           Cornyn, James E. Risch, Mike Crapo, Steve Daines, Jeff 
           Flake, Cory Gardner, John Boozman, Thad Cochran, Pat 
           Roberts, David Perdue.

  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, a bill 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?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Florida (Mr. 
Rubio), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) 
and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 51, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 298 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kirk
     Lankford
     Lee
     McCain
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker

                                NAYS--44

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

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Boxer
     Graham
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Vitter
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 51, the nays are 
44.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I enter a motion to reconsider the 
cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the Defense appropriations 
bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I withdraw the motion to proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is withdrawn.

                          ____________________