[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3045-3053]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2015

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the House message to accompany H.R. 240, which 
the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       House Message to accompany H.R. 240, an act making 
     appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for 
     the fiscal

[[Page 3046]]

     year ending September 30, 2015, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       McConnell motion to insist upon the Senate amendment, agree 
     to the request by the House of Representatives for a 
     conference, and authorize the Presiding Officer to appoint 
     conferees.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


            The Israeli Prime Minister's Speech To Congress

  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, our strongest and most loyal ally in the 
Middle East faces a growing existential threat under the specter of a 
nuclear Iran. I am deeply troubled that our President's solution won't 
work. Rather than enforcing punitive measures that would stem Iran's 
nuclear progress, this administration has opted for a policy of 
conciliation that does nothing to curb this growing threat. All the 
while, the threat to Israel grows stronger every day.
  Now more than ever the Congress and the American people must stand 
with our Israeli allies to ensure the safety and security not only of 
our two nations, but the Middle East as a whole. Far from being a 
political stunt, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to 
a joint session of Congress provides our Nation with a vital 
opportunity to demonstrate our unyielding resolve to stand with Israel 
and oppose Iran's development of nuclear weapons.
  To demonstrate our solidarity with Israel, Congress should complement 
the Prime Minister's address with the threat of sanctions that properly 
secure both of our countries against the Iranian threat. We must 
achieve three commonsense objectives:
  First, we must prevent Iran from developing or otherwise acquiring 
nuclear weapons.
  Second, we should reaffirm that Iran does not have an inherent right 
to enrichment and reprocessing capabilities and technologies under the 
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
  Third, we must seek to reverse the development of Iran's illicit 
nuclear infrastructure and bring Iran into compliance with all United 
Nations Security Council resolutions.
  President Obama has failed to realize that Iran poses a serious 
threat to the West, and our response to that threat must be equally 
serious. Prime Minister Netanyahu understands the precariousness of the 
current situation, and he is doing his best to help us here in the 
United States understand. As the Prime Minister stated: ``I am going to 
the United States not because I seek a confrontation with the 
president, but because I must fulfill my obligation to speak up on a 
matter that affects the very survival of my country.''
  The Prime Minister has good reason to be concerned. According to the 
Heritage Foundation, since the Obama administration began to relax 
sanctions after an interim agreement was implemented, the Iranian 
economy grew by an estimated 4.6 percent in the first quarter of Iran's 
calendar year--the first time it has grown after shrinking for the last 
2 years under sanctions.
  As we lose leverage by relaxing sanctions, we must not forget the 
most likely reason Iran agreed to negotiations in the first place was 
economic restrictions. When the Iranian President Hassan Rouhani is 
reported to have said after the announcement of the Joint Plan of 
Action that ``the centrifuges are spinning and will never stop,'' 
should we curtail our efforts in the one area that appears to give Iran 
pause?
  Times such as these require strength of purpose, which is why we 
should clearly lay out a series of sanctions that will be imposed on 
Iran if negotiations fail. We should provide for short but reasonable 
periods of time for Congress, and, therefore, the American people, to 
consider if the Obama administration has succeeded in accomplishing the 
three objectives necessary to prevent Iran from developing nuclear 
weapons.
  Tomorrow, the Congress will hear from Prime Minister Netanyahu. In 
his message, I believe, he will tell us how we together can confront 
the growing Iranian threat. This is the time to rally as one Nation 
with one of our strongest allies to ensure a safe and secure world.
  Madam President, 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. BOOZMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam President, tomorrow we will gather in the House 
Chamber to listen to an address from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin 
Netanyahu. I welcome Prime Minister Netanyahu to Capitol Hill and 
eagerly await his speech. It is expected that he will paint a very 
vivid and very real picture of the danger a nuclear Iran poses not just 
to Israel but to the international community as a whole. This threat 
seems of little concern to the administration--so little, in fact, that 
the President almost immediately dismissed the idea of meeting with 
Prime Minister Netanyahu while he is in Washington. This is 
disappointing, to say the least.
  Instead of taking the opportunity to join with us to reaffirm our 
support for the State of Israel, the administration has chosen to send 
the wrong message to our strongest ally in the region. Unfortunately, 
this has become a pattern. While the administration's official policy 
has been supportive of Israel, actions speak louder than words, and 
regrettably this administration's actions are often too quiet. This has 
not always been the case. During his first term, President Obama fought 
Palestinian efforts to delegitimize Israel at the U.N. He made clear 
that such tactics were counterproductive to the peace process and that 
the Palestinians would put their relationship with us in jeopardy if 
they sought action against Israel at the International Criminal Court.
  Many Israelis are rightfully concerned that we will not have their 
backs when the Palestinian Authority becomes a full member of the 
International Criminal Court and follows through on this threat. I 
raised this issue with Secretary Kerry during an Appropriations 
Committee hearing last week, reminding him that the law explicitly 
prohibits funding for the Palestinian Authority if they initiate or 
actively support an International Criminal Court investigation into 
alleged Israeli war crimes. The Secretary said that the Palestinian 
Authority's actions amounted to a ``terrible exercise in judgment'' but 
stopped short of saying they have violated the law in a way that 
triggers the cutoff of aid.
  Three-quarters of this body--Republicans and Democrats alike--don't 
see it that way. We sent the Israeli people a strong bipartisan message 
of support when we called on Secretary Kerry to suspend economic aid 
while the State Department reviews the Palestinian Authority's actions. 
According to Secretary Kerry's response at the hearing, the State 
Department will wait to see what the Palestinians do after the first of 
April before making a decision on economic aid. By then it might be too 
late.
  This is exactly why the people of Israel are uneasy with the ongoing 
nuclear negotiations. The same administration that once spoke out 
forcefully against these types of tactics now plays a game of wait-and-
see with the Palestinians, somehow expecting them to be an honest 
partner this time around.
  Israel's lack of confidence in the administration's support is 
certainly understandable. Let's not forget that this same 
administration employs high-level officials who publicly disrespect our 
ally, including at least one willing to use derogatory language to call 
Prime Minister Netanyahu names during a media interview. Every time 
that happens, the administration carries on

[[Page 3047]]

as though these breaches of diplomatic protocol are irrelevant to the 
U.S.-Israeli relations. The administration sees these actions as having 
no bearing on the deteriorating state of relations between the two 
heads of state. Yet, if Prime Minister Netanyahu dares to speak up, the 
administration labels Israel a problem child--case in point: the 
President's National Security Adviser calling this upcoming address 
from Prime Minister Netanyahu ``destructive of the fabric of the 
relationship.'' Accepting an invitation from the Speaker of the House 
to address Congress on the severity of the nuclear threat posed by the 
regime in Tehran is only destructive for U.S.-Israeli relations in the 
President's eyes because he wants to keep Congress in the dark about 
the ongoing negotiations. This administration seems intent on doing 
just that.
  Not content with the message the Prime Minister is likely to deliver, 
the administration has moved from actively trying to subvert his 
address to Congress. According to the Associated Press, the Obama 
administration is actively considering ways to undermine the Prime 
Minister's visit. Why is that? Could it be that the Prime Minister sees 
the flaws of any agreement the Paris talks will yield, and does the 
administration want to keep this from Congress?
  As the talks extend on and Tehran engages in more delay tactics, it 
is apparent that the Obama administration is pursuing a weaker deal 
with Iran that will allow the country to continue its illicit nuclear 
program. This agreement has become a must-win for President Obama, so 
he is willing to concede key requirements that Congress and members of 
his administration have previously outlined in order to get the 
Iranians to sign on the dotted line. Any agreement will be a victory in 
the Obama administration's eyes.
  Our longstanding policy that the Iranian regime must abandon its 
nuclear ambitions is itself being abandoned. As former Secretary of 
State Henry Kissinger noted in his recent testimony to the Armed 
Services Committee, the Paris talks have long moved from eliminating 
Iran's ability to enrich uranium to limiting and monitoring a smaller 
program that would be unable to produce the material for a warhead in 
less than a year's time. This is a far cry from the starting point 
Secretary Kerry once argued when he said: ``No deal is better than a 
bad deal'' with Iran. Now we seem to be moving the goalposts from the 
dismantling of Iran's nuclear program to containing it. That is not 
what the President told us these talks were going to accomplish. That 
is not what six U.N. resolutions intended to prevent. That is certainly 
not something this Congress should allow to happen without our say.
  Nothing short of full elimination of Iran's nuclear program could 
honestly be considered a victory. If these talks fail to produce an 
agreement that requires that of Iran, Congress must have the authority 
to reject it.
  With that, 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. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, in an hour and a half the Senate will vote 
on the House request to go to conference on the Department of Homeland 
Security appropriations bill. This push by House Republicans to go to 
conference is the very definition of an exercise in futility. I have 
been very clear for days now that we will not go to conference. The 
majority knows that, and the Speaker of the House knows that. Senate 
Democrats will not support going to conference because it would be 
totally counterproductive.
  House Republicans have no intention of using that conference to craft 
legislation that will pass both Houses of Congress, and in so doing 
they would make sure we had a shutdown of Homeland Security, and that 
would be very bad for the country.
  House Republicans want to take a bill that they negotiated, a bill 
that was written by House and Senate Republicans and Democrats last 
December--it was a bipartisan, bicameral bill, and now they want to 
take that bill and turn it into something that cannot pass. That won't 
happen. We will not be a party to yet another charade by House 
Republicans because that would inevitably shut down Homeland Security 
and put our Nation at risk--and that is an understatement.
  The Senate should reaffirm our bipartisan vote last Friday for a 
clean bill to prevent a shutdown. We had 68 votes. We can do it again, 
and we should do it again. That vote will happen at 5:30 p.m. this 
afternoon.
  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. McCONNELL. Madam 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

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The 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 
     insist upon the Senate amendment, agree to the request by the 
     House for a conference, and authorize the Presiding Officer 
     to appoint conferees with respect to H.R. 240, an act making 
     appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and for other 
     purposes.
         Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Tom Cotton, John Barrasso, 
           Bob Corker, Susan M. Collins, Michael B. Enzi, John 
           Hoeven, John McCain, Lamar Alexander, Lindsey Graham, 
           Shelley Moore Capito, Deb Fischer, Thad Cochran, Orrin 
           G. Hatch, Joni Ernst, John Boozman.

  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum 
under rule XXII be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam 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. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


            The Israeli Prime Minister's Speech To Congress

  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, during the 2012 Presidential campaign, 
President Obama made a claim. His claim was: ``I have Israel's back.'' 
This week President Obama and his administration are turning their back 
on Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, and they are doing it 
right here during the Prime Minister's visit to Washington.
  While he won't have a meeting in the White House, he will have a very 
supportive audience right here on Capitol Hill. The Prime Minister will 
receive a warm welcome from Members of Congress who are concerned about 
Israel's security and the value of this very important relationship.
  In his speech to Congress tomorrow, the Prime Minister is going to 
address the ongoing negotiations with Iran over illicit nuclear 
programs. If President Obama's past negotiations with our adversaries 
are any guide, Israel is right to be apprehensive. The Obama 
administration started negotiating with Iran more than five years ago. 
A series of increasingly tough sanctions have damaged the Iranian 
economy and have finally convinced them to discuss their nuclear 
program seriously. In 2013 the President announced his 6-month interim 
agreement. The United States would suspend enforcement of some of the 
sanctions that had brought Iran to the table. In exchange the Iranians 
would freeze and reverse specific elements of their nuclear program. 
This

[[Page 3048]]

was supposed to provide time for a final agreement to be negotiated 
within a year. That 6-month interim agreement has now extended to 17 
months.
  President Obama mishandled these negotiations from the very beginning 
by conceding Iran's right to enrich uranium. In my opinion the 
President is compounding the problem as he chases the comprehensive 
agreement maybe to justify his Nobel Peace Prize. Information has 
leaked out occasionally about the negotiations. Each time there seems 
to be another point on which the United States has given in to the 
Iranian position. Iran has gotten about $10 billion in much needed hard 
currency since signing the interim agreement. It has gotten additional 
income from the suspension of other sanctions. We have no way to stop 
Iran from using this money to support terrorists around the world or to 
prop up Bashar al-Assad in Syria.
  What I heard, along with a number of Senators who went to Saudi 
Arabia a little over a month ago to meet with some of the Free Syrian 
Army, is that the freedom fighters from Syria who had come down to 
Saudi Arabia to meet with us said that this is exactly what Iran is 
doing with some of the money gained from the relief of sanctions. They 
are using it to prop up al-Assad and also to fund Hezbollah and Hamas.
  The Obama administration has said its goal is to keep Iran 1 year 
away from being able to construct a nuclear weapon. That is the same 
level the administration said Iran was at in 2013 when sanctions were 
still fully in force. Apparently, the Obama administration is aiming 
for a final deal that suspends sanctions on Iran and does not constrain 
its nuclear program any more than it was before the interim agreement.
  Let me be clear. If the Obama administration allows Iran to continue 
with its illicit nuclear program, the global community will be less 
safe, less stable, and less secure. Any treaty that we sign with Iran 
must be accountable, enforceable, and verifiable. So far, it doesn't 
appear to me that the Obama administration is negotiating a deal that 
would meet that standard.
  The administration has also undermined Israeli security in other 
areas as well, specifically, when it comes to Middle East peace 
negotiations with the Palestinians. U.S. law prohibits sending any 
money to international organizations that admit the Palestinians as a 
state. The idea was to support the peace talks by letting the two sides 
work out their differences without others putting their thumb on the 
scale. So it was a problem when the Palestinians sought and received 
recognition as a full member state in the United Nations group UNESCO. 
This happened in 2012. That is the United Nations Educational, 
Scientific, and Cultural Organization. The Palestinians triggered that 
law, and that stopped U.S. money from going to UNESCO. In every budget 
request since, President Obama has tried to restore the money in spite 
of the law. This would excuse the Palestinians and the United Nations 
from the consequences of their actions. It sends a signal that the 
United States does not, in fact, have Israel's back.
  Vice President Biden said: ``Don't tell me what you value. Show me 
your budget, and I'll tell you what you value.''
  By that standard, it is obvious that President Obama does not value 
supporting Israel in the international peace negotiations. National 
Security Advisor Susan Rice said just last week that Prime Minister 
Netanyahu's visit is too partisan and ``destructive of the fabric of 
the relationship'' Israel has with the United States.
  Members of Congress disagree. We welcome the Prime Minister. We are 
eager to show our support, and Republicans will continue to push for 
additional sanctions to keep the pressure on Iran. We intend to do all 
that we can to ensure that the vital alliance between the United States 
and Israel remains strong.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time under the 
quorum calls this afternoon be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BARRASSO. I yield the floor and 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. COATS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Wasteful Spending

  Mr. COATS. Madam President, last week I came to the floor to launch 
what I have called Waste of the Week. I will put my prop up here. Waste 
of the Week is designed to provide awareness in simple ways to our 
colleagues here, how we can look at government spending that doesn't 
stack up in terms of something that is needed. Perhaps it was needed at 
one particular time, or perhaps it is something the taxpayers shouldn't 
be paying for in the first place.
  I would like to raise awareness, and I am going to do that each week. 
This is my second week. This evening I wish to present the second Waste 
of the Week. Last week we talked about the $6 billion that could be 
saved if we simply fixed a program that was duplicating checks to 
taxpayers who only qualified for payments from one of those programs, 
not both. If you are disabled and can't work, you can qualify for 
Social Security disability. Alternatively, you can qualify for 
unemployment insurance if you can work, but you are not able to find a 
job. You can qualify for unemployment insurance, but you can't get 
both. You either can work, or you can't work. Here are two Federal 
programs that shockingly cost the taxpayers $6 billion.
  This is the second week of Waste of the Week, and I would like to 
talk about duplication in government. While it is a little harder to 
put a specific fiscal number on the savings, clearly we can save the 
taxpayer money and start this process. We can do this even in small 
ways to reduce our debt and deficit and not load all this debt on our 
children and grandchildren. We have tried the big stuff for years, and 
I was directly engaged as much as I possibly could be the last 4 years, 
all to be rejected by the President. Let's at least look at the smaller 
stuff and do something to get started with this process of getting us 
back on track to fiscal health.
  What we have found is there are 52 separate programs that provide 
workplace training, financial instructions, and preparation for people 
so they can find a job--52 separate programs. You have to ask yourself, 
how in the world did we ever get to 52? I think some stems from good 
intentions. They'll say let's get a training program put together 
through some agency in the government that can better prepare people 
for employment and job opportunities.
  The Small Business Administration puts one together, and the 
Department of Agriculture says we ought to have a training program, the 
Department of Commerce says we should have a training program, and then 
a Member of Congress says, you know, that is a good idea, I would like 
to propose that, too.
  Over the years we have come up to 52 programs that provide workforce 
training. Obviously, this is ripe for reform and there should be 
consolidation for the benefit of the taxpayer.
  I was pleasantly surprised to learn the President's 2016 budget 
incorporates a measure that doesn't deal with all 52, but it starts 
with 6 major programs and recommends consolidation. I am not often 
standing here on the Senate floor commending the President for taking a 
positive step in dealing with our debt and deficit. He refused to do 
that on any kind of major basis in the last 4 years. But here is his 
2016 budget, we can start with six programs to consolidate that--
programs that primarily do business and trade--affect business and 
trade agencies as well as other related programs.
  I am quoting from the budget, ``integrating the Government's core 
trade and competitiveness functions into one new Department.'' Well, 
surprise of surprises, I am here promoting something the President has 
put in his budget.

[[Page 3049]]

  Let me specifically state what these consolidations would affect. It 
includes the Department of Commerce's core business and trade 
functions. It includes Small Business Administration programs, the 
Office of U.S. Trade Representative, the Export-Import Bank, the 
Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and the U.S. Trade and 
Development Agency. Each of these six, as outlined by the President's 
budget, can be consolidated into one program.
  What does that save? It means saving on all the rent or the purchase 
or the cost of the property for the government to house six different 
programs with six different administrators, six different sets of 
employees and bureaucrats and personnel, computers, phone costs--on and 
on it goes. They continue to metastasize and grow.
  Now let's put a price on this so I can add this to my thermometer 
here. We're in the process of trying to save the taxpayer $100 billion 
and last week we came up with $5.7 billion of savings. This week it is 
much smaller at $200 million, though it is not chump change. It is $200 
million estimated savings by consolidating these 6 programs. Around 
here that is deemed a small number. To the people I represent in 
Indiana, that is a lot of money. We say, well, the government is 
spending that? No, the government is spending taxpayer money to provide 
duplication of programs. We think it will ultimately save a lot more as 
we go forward and define additional consolidations down the line.
  We are going to put a little more red on the chart to represent 
savings. This thermometer will keep rising and rising as I come down 
here and present the Waste of the Week. Mr. President, $200 million in 
savings can be achieved simply by consolidating programs that are 
duplicating each other in terms of what they are providing.
  We can't solve all of our country's debt and deficit problems 
overnight, but we can take needed steps to identify those that the 
government's own accounting agencies--independent of Republicans and 
Democrats--have identified as wasteful money. Let's get this money back 
to the taxpayer. Let's eliminate this money to reduce our debt so our 
children and grandchildren don't have to pony up more and let's end up 
with a much more efficient and effective Federal Government.
  With that, I finish this week's Waste of the Week and look forward to 
being here next week for another iteration.
  I yield back my time, if there is any left.
  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. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Lynch Nomination

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, this weekend the United States will mark 
the 50th anniversary of the march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama. 
Those of us who are not old enough to remember 50 years ago have read 
the history. Those of us who were old enough at that time saw what 
happened at that historic march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge five 
decades ago. Scores of courageous Americans refused to be silent about 
the need for equal protection under the law. This was a case where 
their blood, sweat, and tears helped move our Nation toward a more 
perfect union. One of those who actually shed blood--in fact, nearly 
died on that march for freedom and equality--is one of my closest 
friends in Congress, Congressman John Lewis of Georgia.
  Last Thursday I was so proud when Congressman Lewis came to the 
Senate Judiciary Committee room to see a vote on the historic 
nomination of Loretta Lynch to serve as our next Attorney General. He 
said he was compelled to come because this was no ordinary markup and 
this is no ordinary confirmation. When the Senate finally confirms her, 
Loretta Lynch will be the first African-American woman to serve our 
country as Attorney General.
  She is extraordinarily qualified for the job. The letters and 
testimony I have received from law enforcement and both Republican and 
Democratic prosecutors attesting to how good she is, are amazing. I 
urge the Senate to consider her nomination immediately and confirm her 
this week. She has waited much longer than any modern nominee ever has 
for this position.
  But as I urge her confirmation, I cannot help but reflect on the fact 
that Ms. Lynch's confirmation will be another step toward realizing Dr. 
Martin Luther King's dream that people in our country would be judged 
by the content of their character. Loretta Lynch's life epitomizes that 
dream.
  She was born in Greensboro and was raised in Durham, NC. She is the 
daughter of a fourth-generation Baptist preacher and a school 
librarian. I have met Reverend Lynch. He is an amazing and inspiring 
man. Her parents instilled in her the American values of fairness and 
equality, even when those around them were not living up to those 
values. Ms. Lynch has spoken about riding on her father's shoulders as 
a child to their church, where students organized peaceful protests 
against racial segregation. The freedom songs and the church music that 
went hand-in-hand with those protests undoubtedly made up the 
soundtrack of her childhood. The Judiciary Committee was honored to 
have her father, Reverend Lorenzo Lynch, with us not only at both days 
of her historic hearing in January but also with us last Thursday as 
the Committee considered his daughter's nomination.
  Throughout Loretta Lynch's life, those who encountered her 
intelligence and tenacity have not always been prepared to accept her 
and her impressive accomplishments. But each time they didn't accept 
it, the content of her character has shone through and led her to even 
greater heights.
  In elementary school, administrators did not believe that Loretta 
Lynch could score as high has she did on a standardized test. They 
demanded that she retake the test. She did, and she scored even higher 
the second time. In high school she rose to the very top of her class, 
which would have made her the first African-American valedictorian. 
School administrators, however, decided that even though she had earned 
the title, it would somehow be too controversial. So, they decided she 
must share the honor with two other students, one of whom was white, 
even though she was the one who scored the highest. This didn't hold 
her back. She kept going forward. She went on to graduate with honors 
from Harvard College and then earned her law degree from Harvard Law 
School.
  This has been the story of Loretta Lynch's life. While some are not 
ready to embrace her distinction, she just marches forward with grace 
to prove that she is even stronger and more qualified than her 
detractors can imagine. Even though she was required to be better than 
those who were holding her back, she didn't let that stop her. She just 
kept going forward. She has dedicated the majority of her remarkable 
career to public service and we are fortunate as a nation that she 
wants to continue to serve.
  The President of the United States announced that Loretta Lynch would 
be nominated to be our Nation's chief law enforcement official on 
November 8th.
  Right after this announcement, Senate Republicans made clear that 
despite the urgent challenges facing this country, they would object to 
even begin consideration of her nomination during the lame duck period. 
So Loretta Lynch's historic nomination waited. As she prepared for her 
confirmation hearing, she stayed focused on her current position and 
continued to lead a dedicated team of prosecutors to bring terrorists 
and serious criminals to justice in New York.
  Ms. Lynch was finally called before the Judiciary Committee at the 
end of January. She had more poise and credibility than any nominee I 
have seen in my four decades in the Senate. Any reasonable observer of 
her hearing,

[[Page 3050]]

which lasted almost 8 hours, would conclude that she was beyond 
impressive and that she possesses the leadership, intellect, and wisdom 
needed to help keep our country safe. After the hearings, Republicans 
submitted an unprecedented number of written questions to Ms. Lynch, 
even though every member had been allowed ample time to ask live 
questions at her hearing. Even members who had already publicly 
declared that they opposed her confirmation continued to submit scores 
of questions.
  But now, 114 days have passed since Ms. Lynch was nominated. She has 
been made to wait longer than any one of the previous five Attorneys 
General--five Attorneys General in both Democratic and Republican 
administrations. And for what reason? So that those who have already 
said they oppose the nomination can try to score additional political 
points? When Ms. Lynch is told she must continue to wait longer than 
any of the modern Attorneys General, that she must wait for her 
confirmation vote, I am reminded that those dedicated to the fight for 
civil rights have long heard their detractors tell them: Just be 
patient. We can't give you your rights yet. Just be patient. Just wait 
your turn.
  Well, come on. No Member of this body--of either party--would ever 
stand for anyone saying: Notwithstanding your qualifications, wait your 
turn.
  Ms. Lynch grew up hearing her family's stories about the Jim Crow 
South. She knows the meaning of injustice. She would never compare the 
partisan political games being played with her nomination to the epic 
struggles her family faced.
  But as we in this Chamber reflect this week to honor those Americans 
who marched in Selma and the role our Department of Justice played in 
the civil rights movement, it should not be too much to ask just how 
much longer Loretta Lynch has to wait. How much longer does this woman 
have to wait before she can become the next U.S. Attorney General? In 
these perilous times, our Nation deserves to have its chief law 
enforcement officer considered without further delay.
  At the Judiciary Committee's markup last week, Senator Durbin spoke 
passionately about the ``solemn, important, and historic moment'' 
before us in considering Ms. Lynch's nomination. His comments were 
moving, and they appealed to our responsibility as Senators to uphold 
the Constitution and provide advice and consent on the President's 
nominees. We can do so this week by confirming Loretta Lynch.
  We have played politics with too many things already in the young 
days of this 114th Congress. From the spending bill the House 
Republicans refused to take up to fund the Department of Homeland 
Security, to the nomination of this highly qualified woman to serve as 
the Nation's chief law enforcement officer, we can no longer put 
national security at risk just for the sake of a few talking points or 
a second or two on a television program.
  So I call on my friend, the majority leader, to simply set a date for 
her confirmation. Do not leave the American people wondering if this 
extremely qualified woman will get a timely vote. Treat her like every 
previous Attorney General nominee. The Nation faces too many challenges 
to play politics with this important nomination.
  Too long some in this body have told her: You have to wait. You have 
to wait your turn. You have to wait.
  No, she has proven her qualifications. She shouldn't have to wait any 
more than those who went before her. Set an up-or-down vote. Let's 
confirm her nomination.
  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.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, here we are again where we were last 
Monday with about 5 days left before funding runs out for the 
Department of Homeland Security. So if it feels like ``Groundhog Day,'' 
it is because it is ``Groundhog Day,'' and we just can't keep playing 
those kinds of games with this agency's funding.
  Those who are blocking action on the funding bill for the Department 
of Homeland Security have a clear choice: Are they going to prioritize 
politics or are they going to prioritize national security?
  Last Friday the Senate passed a bill with 68 bipartisan votes--a bill 
that fully funds the Department of Homeland Security without any 
controversial riders attached to the bill. I am ever hopeful that the 
House will follow our lead and immediately take up that clean Senate 
bill. We cannot, we should not replay the chaos we saw last week. The 
brinksmanship really needs to end. It is time for Congress to pass the 
Department of Homeland Security funding bill.
  Whether it is threats to the Mall of America in Minnesota, plots 
foiled by DHS and the FBI in New York City, attacks on our cyber 
networks, or threats at our Nation's borders, we live during a time 
when the safety and security of this country are at risk. We cannot 
play politics with the agency that is tasked with keeping us safe, and 
we shouldn't play politics with the funding that supports our first 
responders--the very people who are there anytime something happens in 
our States and our local communities. What must our enemies think when 
they see Congress fighting over whether to keep the Department of 
Homeland Security open?
  Last week DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson wrote a letter to the 
congressional leadership, and I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record the letter from Secretary Johnson.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                U.S. Department of


                                            Homeland Security,

                                Washington, DC, February 26, 2015.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader McConnell, Minority 
     Leader Reid, and Minority Leader Pelosi: Thank you for your 
     leadership and efforts to pass a clean, full-year 
     appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security. 
     As you know, our funding expires tomorrow at midnight. I 
     write to explain to Members of Congress the real and 
     substantial consequences of a failure to pass a full-year 
     appropriations bill by that deadline.
       As an initial matter, it must be noted that a potential 
     shutdown of the Department comes at a particularly 
     challenging time for homeland security. It is stunning that 
     we must even contemplate a shutdown of the Department in the 
     current global context. The global terrorist threat has 
     become more decentralized and complex. Terrorist 
     organizations are now openly calling for attacks on Western 
     targets. Yesterday's arrests in New York City highlight the 
     threat of independent actors in the homeland who support 
     overseas terrorist organizations and radical ideology. We are 
     working hard to stay one step ahead of potential threats to 
     aviation security. Last year at this time, the spike in 
     migrant children began to appear at our border; we are 
     deployed to prevent this situation from recurring, and to 
     address it aggressively if it does. The Nation is in the 
     midst of a very cold, harsh winter, and the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency is working with states impacted by record 
     snowfalls.
       Here are just some of the consequences for homeland 
     security if the Department's funding lapses and we shut down:
       First, about 170,000 employees will be required to work, 
     but will not get paid for that work during the period of a 
     shutdown. This includes our Coast Guard, Border Patrol 
     agents, Secret Service agents, Transportation Security 
     Administration officers, and others on the front lines of our 
     homeland security. These working men and women depend on 
     biweekly paychecks to make ends meet for themselves and their 
     families. For them, personally, work without pay is 
     disruptive and demoralizing. Even worse for our people are 
     the public statements by some that make light of a shutdown, 
     which disregards DHS employees' personal sacrifices and 
     dedication to our Nation's security.

[[Page 3051]]

       Second, approximately 30,000 men and women of the 
     Department must be furloughed and sent home without pay. Our 
     financial management, human resources, procurement and 
     contracting, and information technology teams--the 
     institutional backbone of the Department--will be reduced by 
     90 percent, from over 2,000 to just 208 people. My own 
     immediate headquarters staff will be cut by about 87 percent. 
     Our Science and Technology team, which is intensely focused 
     on developing non-metallic explosive detection capabilities 
     as well as other technologies to counter threats to aviation, 
     will be cut 94 percent, from 448 to 26 people. Our Domestic 
     Nuclear Detection Office, which is our Nation's primary 
     research and development lead for development of advanced 
     nuclear detection technologies and technical forensic 
     capabilities, will also be cut 94 percent, from 121 to just 7 
     people.
       Third, contracting services across the Department, 
     including those for critical mission support activities, will 
     be disrupted and/or interrupted altogether. Depending upon 
     the length of a shutdown, contract awards and major 
     acquisitions could be impacted. In the event of a shutdown, 
     negotiations to construct the United States Coast Guard's 8th 
     National Security Cutter will be delayed, potentially leading 
     to an increase in costs.
       Fourth, our $2.5 billion-a-year grant-making to state, 
     local, tribal, and territorial governments, to assist them in 
     preventing, responding to or recovering from terrorist 
     attacks, major disasters and other emergencies, remains at a 
     standstill (it has already stopped because the Department is 
     currently funded by a Continuing Resolution). Of particular 
     note, the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Emergency 
     Management Performance Grants, which contribute 50 percent of 
     the salaries of state and local emergency management 
     personnel, cannot be funded.
       Fifth, public assistance disaster recovery payments to 
     communities affected by previous disasters will grind to a 
     halt. Though these payments are funded with prior-year money, 
     the Federal Emergency Management Agency's staff that 
     processes them must be furloughed.
       Sixth, depending upon the length of a shutdown, DHS will no 
     longer be able to support state and local authorities with 
     planning, safety, and security resources for special security 
     events such as the Boston and Chicago Marathons.
       Seventh, depending upon the length of a shutdown, work to 
     complete construction of the National Bio and Agro-Defense 
     Facility in Kansas, which will replace the aging l950s-era 
     Plum Island facility in New York, could be disrupted.
       Eighth, new hires across the Department must be halted, 
     disrupting critical missions to secure the border, protect 
     millions of daily airline passengers, strengthen security at 
     the White House, and deploy new ICE investigators. Routine 
     attrition hiring would cease across the Department, seriously 
     undermining our homeland security frontline staffing needs. 
     Our plans to increase CBP staffing at our ports of entry by 
     2,000 officers, and to maintain the Transportation Security 
     Administration's workforce of airport screeners and air 
     marshals will be undermined. Our plans to hire additional 
     Secret Service uniformed officers and special agents will 
     also be disrupted.
       Ninth, without funding, all training at the Federal Law 
     Enforcement Training Centers will cease. Up to 2,000 local, 
     state, and federal law enforcement trainees from across the 
     country will be sent home.
       Finally, as I have noted many times, mere extension of a 
     continuing resolution has many of the same negative impacts. 
     A short-term continuing resolution exacerbates the 
     uncertainty for my workforce and puts us back in the same 
     position, on the brink of a shutdown just days from now.
       I urge Congress, as soon as possible, to pass a clean, 
     full-year Fiscal Year 2015 appropriations bill for the 
     Department of Homeland Security.
       The American people are counting on us.
           Sincerely,
                                              Jeh Charles Johnson,
                                                        Secretary.

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, the following is a quote from the letter 
the Secretary wrote:

       It is stunning that we must even contemplate a shutdown of 
     the Department in the current global context. The global 
     terrorist threat has become more decentralized and complex. 
     Terrorist organizations are now openly calling for attacks on 
     western targets.

  The Secretary also noted how taxing the current funding crisis has 
been on the agency and the employees who put their lives on the line 
every day to protect the Nation. He said the following in his letter:

       These working men and women depend on biweekly paychecks to 
     make ends meet for themselves and their families. For them, 
     personally, work without pay is disruptive and demoralizing.

  I can't imagine anyone here thinks people should be expected to go to 
work--many of them putting their lives on the line--without getting 
paid. Last week DHS officials had to prepare shutdown plans. They had 
to give employees notice that they might be furloughed or they might 
not get paid.
  At a time when resources should be spent protecting the Nation, 
spending them dealing with a possible shutdown just doesn't make sense. 
None of us would run our households that way. The private sector 
doesn't run business that way. We shouldn't run government that way. 
Instead of focusing on critical missions such as securing the border, 
counterterrorism efforts, and maritime security, DHS officials have 
been consumed with the threat of a shutdown of their agency. That is 
not the way we should be doing business. It is making our Nation less 
safe.
  It is time for the House to end this brinksmanship. It is time for 
the House to vote on the bipartisan bill the Senate passed last week. 
We came together in the Senate under the leadership of Senator 
McConnell and Senator Reid, and I applaud their working together across 
party lines to pass a bill that funds DHS for the rest of the year. 
That is what the American people expect of us. They expect us to work 
together to address the challenges facing this country. They want us to 
get things done, not to play politics and certainly not to jeopardize 
our country's safety and security.
  I hope that the House will follow the Senate's lead, that they will 
pass a bipartisan bill to keep the Department of Homeland Security on 
the job for the remainder of this year.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, this afternoon we will vote on whether to 
go to conference on H.R. 240. For Senators who want to return to 
regular order, this is their chance. Regular order is the opportunity 
to offer, to have debate on, and to vote on amendments.
  We have already established on earlier legislation that the majority 
party is willing to return to regular order and to offer an open 
amendment process. So part of establishing that regular order process 
is, as I say, the opportunity to offer amendments, to have a debate, 
and to vote. It is that process which should and has historically 
produced the best legislation not only here in the Senate but in the 
House--in this Congress--on behalf of the American people.
  Another part of regular order, though, is conference committees. When 
the House passes a bill and the Senate passes a bill and there are 
differences in the bill, how do we resolve the differences in the bill? 
We go to a conference committee. So that is what is before us right 
now. This vote is simply to send H.R. 240 to a conference committee so 
the House and the Senate can work on the legislation.
  Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle filibustered H.R. 240. 
Only when amendments were limited to one amendment did they allow us to 
proceed to the bill. That is unfortunate, but clearly it was done to 
protect the President's Executive order on immigration.
  The irony is that the President's overreach should not be a partisan 
issue. Our forefathers created a system of checks and balances in our 
Constitution to protect the rights of our citizens. The legislative, 
the executive, and the judicial branches all have a role to play in 
this system of checks and balances. When one branch exceeds its 
authority, the others have an obligation to check that overreach, an 
obligation to protect the rights of our citizens.
  That is exactly what has happened in this situation. The President's 
Executive order on immigration exceeds his authority as the leader of 
the executive branch. Now a Federal district court in Texas has issued 
an injunction to stay the President's action, and that stay is in place 
while the lawsuit against the President's action which has been filed 
by 26 States is adjudicated. That is our role too. Just like the States 
stepping up when the President has overreached his authority, just like 
the Federal court stepping up when the President has exceeded his 
authority, that is our role too--to protect the legislative

[[Page 3052]]

power, which is solely the power of the legislative branch, solely the 
power of Congress.
  So I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to send H.R. 
240 to conference to see if we can find common ground. That is, after 
all, regular order for the Congress.
  I again remind our colleagues that this bill provides full funding 
for the Department of Homeland Security. Let me once again summarize 
some of that funding. The bill provides $10.7 billion for Customs and 
Border Protection, CBP, including record levels of personnel, tactical 
infrastructure, and technology in air and maritime assets. It provides 
$5.96 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, and 
maintains a record 34,000 adult detention beds and 3,828 family 
detention beds. The bill strongly supports the vital missions of the 
Secret Service and provides for cyber security efforts. It provides 
more than $10 billion for the Coast Guard for its many missions, 
including search and rescue. Since homeland security is a national 
effort, the bill continues critical funding for grant programs to State 
and local firefighters, emergency managers, and law enforcement. The 
bill also provides for research and development, TSA's aviation 
security screening operations, the Federal law enforcement training 
centers, and E-Verify, which supports businesses across the United 
States in hiring legal workers.
  But in addition to that funding, we also need to check the Executive 
action of the President on immigration. That is what our system of 
checks and balances under our Constitution is all about. That is the 
opportunity we have--to send this bill to conference with the House to 
find a solution. Let's do that. Let's find a solution. Let's return to 
regular order in the Congress.
  Mr. President, I yield 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. COCHRAN. 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. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I encourage the Senate to vote to send 
the Homeland Security appropriations bill to conference with the House. 
That should be the order of business. We have been wrangling over this 
bill for 3 months now. The legislative maneuvering has crowded out all 
of the real issues before the Senate on this legislation.
  We should have debated and voted on the President's actions, the 
Executive orders which provoked this entire situation. On multiple 
occasions Members on the other side of the aisle have voted unanimously 
to avoid having that debate. First, four times they voted over the 
course of 3 weeks to refuse to even consider House-passed funding bill 
legislation. Their bill was passed by the other body in plenty of time 
to avoid the shutdown that currently consumes the Senate.
  This won't be the last time during this Congress that the House and 
Senate disagree on an appropriations bill, but it should not be the 
last time the legislative branch disagrees with the executive branch 
and vice versa. Soon we will begin consideration of the fiscal year 
2016 appropriations bills. Each of these bills will prompt differences, 
but we should have opportunities for robust debates on these 
differences. That is all I am suggesting. We can proceed to conference 
with the House in a timely manner on the bills. Doing so will help 
provide opportunities for orderly and direct resolution of differences 
as reported by the various committees. We have done too little of that 
in recent years, and it has been detrimental to the legislative 
process.
  I urge the Senate to support the motion to accept the request for a 
conference committee on the Homeland Security appropriations bill.
  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. HOEVEN. 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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The 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 
     insist upon the Senate amendment, agree to the request by the 
     House for a conference, and authorize the Presiding Officer 
     to appoint conferees with respect to H.R. 240, an act making 
     appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and for other 
     purposes.
         Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Tom Cotton, John Barrasso, 
           Bob Corker, Susan M. Collins, Michael B. Enzi, John 
           Hoeven, John McCain, Lamar Alexander, Lindsey Graham, 
           Shelley Moore Capito, Deb Fischer, Thad Cochran, Orrin 
           G. Hatch, Joni Ernst, John Boozman.

  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 insist upon the Senate amendment, agree to the request by the 
House for a conference, and authorize the Presiding Officer to appoint 
conferees with respect to H.R. 240, an act making appropriations for 
the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2015, 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 Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. 
Gardner), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from 
Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), the Senator 
from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. 
Wicker).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby) 
would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) 
would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the 
Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill), and the Senator from Florida 
(Mr. Nelson) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 64 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

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

                                NAYS--43

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

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Blunt
     Brown
     Gardner
     Kirk
     McCaskill
     Nelson
     Paul
     Shelby
     Vitter
     Wicker
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 47, the nays are 
43.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the 
bill is

[[Page 3053]]

not amendable in the Senate and we cannot take further action. 
Therefore, I move to table the House message, and I ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. 
Gardner), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from 
Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), the Senator 
from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. 
Wicker).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby) 
would have voted ``nay'' and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) 
would have voted ``nay.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the 
Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. 
McCaskill), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 31, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 65 Leg.]

                                YEAS--58

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Rounds
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--31

     Barrasso
     Boozman
     Burr
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Grassley
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Lankford
     Lee
     Moran
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Blunt
     Brown
     Coons
     Gardner
     Kirk
     McCaskill
     Nelson
     Paul
     Shelby
     Vitter
     Wicker
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CORNYN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________