[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 117 (Wednesday, August 4, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6678-S6685]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FAA AIR TRANSPORTATION MODERNIZATION AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT
Under the previous order, the Senate will resume consideration of the
House message to accompany H.R. 1586, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
House Message on H.R. 1586, motion to concur in the House
amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 1586, an act to
modernize the air traffic control system and so forth and for
other purposes, with an amendment.
Pending:
Reid motion to concur in the amendment of the House to the
amendment of the Senate to the bill, with Reid amendment No.
4575 (to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the
bill), in the nature of a substitute.
Reid amendment No. 4576 (to amendment No. 4575), to change
the enactment date.
Reid motion to refer the House message on the bill to the
Committee on Appropriations, with instructions, Reid
amendment No. 4577 (the instructions on motion to refer), to
provide for a study.
Reid amendment No. 4578 (to the instructions (amendment No.
4577), of the motion to refer), of a perfecting nature.
Reid amendment No. 4579 (to amendment No. 4578), of a
perfecting nature.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there
will now be 1 hour of debate, with the time equally divided and
controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the Senator
from Washington, Mrs. Murray, controlling the time of the majority.
The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on the
time allotted to Senator Murray, which I understand is 30 minutes of
the hour before the vote; is that true?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is correct. Without objection,
the Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, summer is ending and the school year is
going to begin in a few weeks in many States. But as students prepare
for the school year, many wonder what the school and classroom will
look like. Parents are reading news reports about budget cuts and
wonder how that will affect the schools their kids attend--whether art,
music, foreign language offerings will be cut and whether some teachers
will be gone and how many students will be crowded into one classroom.
These worries are justified.
The recession we are now working our way through has crippled many
local and State budgets. In Illinois, the fiscal year 2011 budget has a
$13 billion deficit. As a result, the Governor has proposed serious
cuts to public education. It has been projected that, in Illinois, come
this new school year, we will have as many as 17,000 fewer teachers.
Our State is not alone.
States across the country, looking to balance their budgets, are
faced with these same hard choices. Through the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act, the stimulus package President Obama brought forward
when he was elected, we acted to save schools, and our investment
worked. The State fiscal stabilization fund helped save or create more
than 300,000 education jobs across the country. We bought a year, in
the hopes that this recession would have turned around. Well, it is
moving in the right direction, but we are still suffering from many
aspects of it.
Unfortunately, the funding of that bill is expiring and State
economies have not fully recovered and, according to recent
projections, nearly 150,000 educators have received or will receive
pink slips for the next school year.
More than 80 percent of school districts across America have had to
lay off teachers. The measure we are considering today and will vote
upon in a little more than 45 minutes would create a $10 billion
education jobs fund that will save more than 100,000 jobs in schools
across America.
The education jobs fund would save a projected 4,836 education jobs
in my home State. That means, roughly, that we are going to save one
out of four of the teachers who were going to lose their jobs. I wish
it were more, but it is going to help. Adding thousands of workers to
the unemployment rolls would be bad for our economy in Illinois, bad
for the families of these teachers who lose their jobs, and bad for
students. The negative effect will be felt by students for a long time.
Chicago's public schools currently face a $600 million deficit for
the next fiscal year. To close it, they are going to have to cut 2,700
teachers and 300 school-based staffers. Class sizes will be increased
to 35 students a room. Nonvarsity sports will be eliminated. Magnet and
gifted programs will be reduced. Full-day kindergarten programs will be
reduced. Afterschool programs will be reduced. The budget for charter
schools will be cut by 11 percent.
Similar hard choices are faced by school districts across Illinois
and across the Nation. Elgin School District is planning to cut more
than 1,000 jobs, including 732 teachers. That district faces a $44
million deficit. The Neuqua Valley High School in Naperville may lose
its music program. I wish to add that this is a music program that has
won two Grammys. It is such an outstanding program in Naperville. They
run the risk of closing.
So the students will be hurt and families will suffer. Teachers will
lose their jobs. How do you make up for that year of education that has
been shortchanged? We do it by voting to help. That is what this does.
The spending in this measure is fully offset and paid for totally. So
any argument that is being made about this adding to the deficit, it
doesn't. It is a conscious decision to move resources from other parts
of the budget, where they are not as high a priority, into the priority
of keeping teachers in the classroom.
There is no reason to vote against this. I don't understand how my
friends on the other side of the aisle who have argued that they are
deficit hawks can ignore the obvious. We pay for this program. We pay
to help these teachers. It doesn't add to the deficit. If it is your
son or daughter or your grandson or granddaughter who is shortchanged
one school year, does it make a difference? Of course, it does. Being
shortchanged one school year and then another could put a child in a
spiral decline that could affect their lives and their futures
immeasurably.
Secretary Arne Duncan has urged Congress to act, saying we need to
``keep our teachers teaching, our students learning, and keep our
economy growing.'' I agree with Secretary Duncan.
I urge my colleagues to put politics aside; don't try to focus on who
is going to claim a victory when it is all over--Democratic or
Republican. The victories we want are for the kids in the classroom and
for teachers to stay on the job. That is nonpartisan. It has nothing to
do with political party and neither should this vote.
I encourage my colleagues to support this effort. I particularly
thank Senator Patty Murray from Washington who is leading our effort to
pass this measure.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 23 minutes 54 seconds.
Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you. Mr. President, recently we have had the
opportunity to consider several bills in the Senate to help ease the
burdens for our middle-class families and small business owners that
they are facing in this recession.
In late June, we brought a bill to the floor that would provide key
targeted tax breaks, including a sales tax deductibility for families
in my home State, as well as tax breaks to end our dependence on
foreign oil.
In July, we introduced a Wall Street reform bill that included the
strongest protections for consumers ever enacted and a guarantee that
taxpayers would never be on the hook for bailing out Wall Street again.
A few short weeks ago, we worked to extend unemployment benefits to
help stimulate economic growth and those who are in desperate need.
Last week, we introduced a bill that would have provided a new small
business lending fund to help the backbone
[[Page S6679]]
of our economy, our small businesses, grow and hire.
It would have jump-started community bank lending and small
businesses, while saving taxpayers $1 billion.
All those bills had broad across-the-board support. In fact, outside
the Senate, they had a lot of support. The conservative-leaning
National Federation of Independent Business voiced their support for
the small business lending funds.
Hometown community bankers in my State stood to support Wall Street
reform. Economists of all political stripes got behind the long-proven
benefits of extending unemployment, and so many others around the
country found common cause with the benefits of those critical bills.
These bills would help create jobs, put money back in the pockets of
taxpayers and small business owners and ease the difficult choices
struggling Americans face every day.
But at every turn in the Senate, we have been opposed by those on the
other side of the aisle who seem to have long ago made their own choice
about anything and everything that comes to the floor. It was a choice
that favored politics over people, Wall Street over Main Street, and
the status quo over the struggles our families are facing.
It was a choice to say no, no matter what, no matter when, no matter
who was hurt.
I go home to Washington State every weekend and I talk to the people
I represent. I try to explain what we are working on.
To be honest, it is hard to understand why, when big banks and Wall
Street were on the brink of failure and threatening to blow up our
entire economy, Republicans immediately came together to help us step
back from the brink then. But now that Wall Street is fine and regular
families and communities are struggling, those same Republicans are
nowhere to be found. I don't have an answer for our families. Quite
honestly, I don't understand it myself.
Today, as we prepare for a final week of votes before we go home to
face our constituents, those on the other side of the aisle have one
last opportunity to show this is not just a political calculation and
that we in this Senate can put people first.
The amendment I have offered, and which we will soon vote on, saves
jobs and makes sure our kids are not paying the price for this
recession. It avoids painful cuts to critical services. And, very
importantly, it is fully paid for. For every dollar this amendment
invests in saving teacher jobs, reducing class sizes, and avoiding cuts
to State programs, we have found targeted spending cuts.
This amendment includes help for our States in every corner of this
country and will help make sure that our most precious resource--our
education system--is protected.
Every day brings more reports about the continuing wave of layoffs
affecting our school districts across the country. According to recent
estimates, over 130,000 teacher jobs will be lost this fall alone. In
my home State, there are nearly 3,000 at risk. That means 3,000
teachers in Washington State who are right now in limbo, who are
spending this summer not knowing if they are going to be able to return
to a classroom or face a pink slip in the fall.
We have to remember that every time we lose a teacher, it is not only
the teacher and economy that suffers, it is the kids in every one of
our States.
I received a letter recently from a special education teacher named
Connie Compton in Kent, WA, who told the story of recently having to
say goodbye to a young, talented, energetic music teacher because of
budget cutbacks. She told me how this was just one of six teachers in
her school alone who have had to be let go.
In her letter she talked about how it is the kids who only get one
shot at a music class or an afterschool program or arts or sports or
even subjects such as social studies or history who lose out.
She also talked about whether it is through larger class sizes they
are seeing, scaled down services, fewer subjects being offered, or even
shortened school weeks in some of our communities, too often it is our
most vulnerable who are paying the price for this recession.
My amendment is a fiscally responsible way to make sure our States'
schoolchildren and the hard-working teachers who get up every day to
improve their lives are not the victims of struggling State budgets.
My amendment provides $10 billion to school districts throughout the
country to save the over 130,000 teacher jobs that are at risk, and it
does so without adding to the deficit, and with a prohibition on the
use of this funding for general expenses.
It is a very targeted and responsible way to help make sure that as
our kids head back to school, our teachers are not entering the ranks
of the unemployed. It is also a way to make sure we are not paying a
lot more in the long run for adults who have been failed by school
systems with too few teachers and too many cuts to services.
It is August. Our kids are about to go back to school. We cannot
afford for them to go back to huge class sizes where they cannot learn,
with fewer subjects being taught, and we certainly cannot afford to
wait to address this very immediate problem.
Another immediate problem facing States such as mine is the huge
State budget hole left by Federal Medicaid payments promised to States
but never delivered. Without this critical Federal funding, these
States are now faced with the difficult decision of whether they slash
thousands of jobs, raise people's taxes, or stall economic recovery.
The amendment we are about to vote on includes a fully offset $16.1
billion investment to help our States avoid job losses and cuts to
Medicaid and tax increases. In my own State, it will help avoid a
costly emergency session of our State legislature or across-the-board
cuts to jobs and State services and health care for so many who have
lost it when they lost their jobs. In fact, according to the Community
Health Care Network in my State, without this extension, health care
services for tens of thousands of people in my State will be under
threat.
Failure to adopt this amendment could also mean layoffs to
corrections officers, health care workers, cuts to end-of-life care for
low-income people, cuts to State-supported financial aid programs that
will deny up to 5,800 full-time students in my State alone an
opportunity to go to college and universities next year. It will
increase the risk of a double-dip recession and result in reduced
consumer spending at a time we can least afford it.
Ultimately, failure to adopt this amendment will lead to more
spending, not less, because of an increased demand for unemployment
benefits and subsidized health care and food stamps.
The bottom line is that without this amendment, much of the progress
States have been making to get back on the right economic track will be
endangered. This is no time to risk our recovery by playing politics
with help for our hard-working families.
This amendment that we will vote on shortly is the last best chance
for teachers and the economic stability of so many of our States. Over
the last several weeks, we have tried to work with the other side on
every concern they have brought to the table, on every bill we have
brought to the floor. We have compromised and we compromised again and
then again. Today's amendment is another compromise. It may not include
all we would have wanted on this side to save jobs and services in
States across our country, but it does include enough to avoid
jeopardizing our recovery. We have done all that we can.
Ultimately, this is about where our priorities lie. Are our
priorities with hard-working families who every day have to grapple
with tough choices about how to afford the things they need? Are they
with our home States that are faced with laying off workers or raising
taxes? Are they with our teachers who have been left with no choice but
to find a new job without this help? Are priorities based on political
choices--choices guided by polling or party doctrine, choices made long
ago to say no, no matter what?
This amendment, which is critically important, is focused on what we
can still do for our constituents and our States, not what we cannot or
will not. It is about solving the big problems that are still
threatening our recovery. And it is about showing the American
[[Page S6680]]
people that when commonsense legislation does come before us, we can
make commonsense choices.
I urge all of our colleagues to put our families, to put our
communities, and our States above partisan politics and work with us to
adopt this critical amendment.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from New
Hampshire and I are going to engage in a discussion about the vote we
are going to have at 10:40 a.m. But the Republican leader is on his way
to the floor in a few minutes. When he comes, we are going to step
aside and let him make his remarks, and then we will resume.
The vote we are having at 10:40 a.m. has the following problems with
it: No. 1, it is $10 billion for the State to pay for teachers. That
sounds pretty good except that it ties the hands of the Governors and
the legislatures so they cannot change education funding levels if
their State budgets are in trouble.
No. 2, there is $16 billion for States to pay for Medicaid. That
sounds pretty good, too, except that it ties the hands of the States
and the Governors so they cannot adjust their State Medicaid Program
and continue to face a funding cliff.
I heard the distinguished Senator from Washington State talk about
college students. The reason California students are facing a 32-
percent increase in tuition is largely caused by California's expenses
for Medicaid, the State program that is funded also by the Federal
Government that has so many Federal rules that it keeps going up in
cost. And the money that would be going to the University of California
or the University of Tennessee or the University of New Hampshire
instead goes for Medicaid. Then there is not money for the university,
and then what happens? The tuition goes up.
Finally, part of the way this bill is paid for is by almost $10
billion of permanent tax increases on multinational corporations that
would have the effect of driving jobs overseas--just one more action by
the Democratic majority and this administration in the middle of a
recession or a time of near 10-percent unemployment that makes it
harder to create new jobs in the United States.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New
Hampshire and I may engage in a colloquy.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask my friend from New Hampshire, the
senior member of the Budget Committee and a former Governor of his
State, what about the idea of sending money to States and then
requiring them, in effect, to spend more money at a time when most
States are cutting State budgets so they can balance their budgets?
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee, who is
not only a former Governor but also a former Secretary of Education.
The Senator has framed the question adequately and very accurately, and
that is this: Why should the Federal Government be saying to the
States: We are going to give you some money, but we are going to attach
to this money a whole lot of strings? And the basic strings are these:
Unless you spend a heck of a lot more money, you are not going to get
this money.
It does appear that it is focused on a special interest group, does
it not, the teachers unions? It appears this is more or less a
commitment to take care of this constituency out there at the expense,
ironically, of a lot of people who are employed in those States.
We use the term ``multinational corporation'' around here as if that
is some sort of evil empire. I have a few multinational corporations in
New Hampshire--I suspect the Senator does in Tennessee--and they employ
people. If you raise their taxes by $10 billion, they are going to
employ a lot less or they are going to send them overseas. We used to
hear around here constantly about outsourcing--outsourcing jobs. This
bill is a job outsourcer.
Mr. ALEXANDER. The Senator is exactly right. The National Association
of Manufacturers says there are 22 million Americans who are hired by
companies that do business not only in the United States but overseas.
I say to the Senator from New Hampshire, I think we want companies
that are principally in the United States that do business overseas
because what is the alternative? The alternative is they are in
Singapore or they are in Great Britain or they are in other countries
around the world and they are not in our country. They are not paying
taxes here, and they are not hiring people here.
I see the distinguished Senator from Kentucky has arrived. The
Senator from New Hampshire and I are in the midst of a fascinating
discussion, but we think we will step down while he makes his remarks.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I say to the Senators, go ahead and
finish the fascinating discussion.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I want to get back to the essence of what
the Senator from Tennessee is saying. It goes to this point.
People look at this and say: Oh, my goodness, there is a whole bunch
of money coming to this State. What is it coming for and who it is
paying? This money does not grow on trees and gets picked up in the
morning by trucks that drive by and drop it off. This money is taken
from somebody else to be used for this purpose. When you go to the
essence of what this bill is about, it is to pay off education unions.
That is what this is about. Let's not be coy about what is happening
around here. The education unions were the single biggest interest
group represented at the Democratic National Convention. I think 26
percent of the delegates at the Democratic National Convention were
teachers, members of teachers unions. They probably were not teachers;
they probably were administrators.
What is happening here? A lot of States are trying to reorganize
their budgets because they are in hard times. Most States are not able
to print money--none are--the way the Federal Government does. So they
actually have to be fiscally disciplined.
What they are saying to all the different categories within their
States is: We are going to adjust here. They are actually going through
a very aggressive--I know it is happening in New Hampshire, I know it
is happening in Tennessee, and I suspect it is happening in most
States--they are going through a very aggressive process of ordering
priorities and making tough decisions so they can get their house in
order relative to such things as the cost of education. But that has
upset the teachers unions.
Now we get a bill on the floor of the Senate to basically put the
States in a position where they will have to maintain the teachers
union status relative to employees and actually add to it at the
expense of the employers in those States and the people who go to work
in those States, at the expense of the companies that are deemed
``multinationals.''
In New Hampshire, we have a lot of companies that are multinational.
We are quite proud of that. We are proud of the fact we are an export-
oriented State, that a lot of our major employers--in fact, I suspect
our top five major employers are all deemed multinationals. They are
not going to be able to hire as many people in New Hampshire because of
the fact that they are going to get hit with this huge tax bill, the
purpose of which is not actually to improve the situation--the States
are working on that--the purpose of which is to take care of a
constituency group that happens to have a significant amount of
influence. It is called a special interest, unless it happens to be a
liberal group and then they are called concerned citizens or
something. But in this case it is a special interest group, and this
bill is nothing more than a payoff to a special interest group at the
expense of another group who happens to employ people and have workers
in New Hampshire.
Mr. ALEXANDER. The Senator has been talking about education. There is
another important part of the bill--$16 billion to Medicaid. This is
the Federal program to which, now with the new health care law, more
than 70 million people will belong in 2014. But here is what the bill
also does. According to a Wall Street Journal article on May 20,
because of this bill--and as a result of this bill, if it should pass--
States will be limited in their ability to make changes in the Medicaid
Program to save money.
[[Page S6681]]
So what does that mean?
Mr. GREGG. If the Senator will yield for a question, is the Senator
saying the Federal Government is going to say: If you want this money,
you can't improve the program?
Mr. ALEXANDER. It is not just me saying it. The Lieutenant Governor
of New York, Richard Ravitch, wrote an article in the Wall Street
Journal on June 7 where he said he greatly appreciated the stimulus
money--and this is the same problem--but because of these requirements
that prohibit Governors and legislatures from making changes in the law
to save money, he says the net result is the Federal stimulus--and this
bill is just the son of stimulus or the daughter of stimulus--has led
States to increase overall spending in these core areas, to increase
spending.
So the point of what we are doing is to cause States to increase
spending, said the Lieutenant Governor of New York, which in effect has
only raised the height of the cliff from which State spending will fall
if stimulus funds evaporate.
Mr. McCONNELL. Would the Senator from Tennessee yield for a question?
Mr. ALEXANDER. Of course.
Mr. McCONNELL. I was not here for the beginning of the discussion
between the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from Tennessee,
but I recently had an opportunity to speak to the National State
Legislators convention, which happened to have been in my hometown of
Louisville. Speaker Pelosi was there as well. My staff, in doing
research and putting together my remarks, discovered that currently the
single biggest source of revenue for State governments is to borrow
money that is coming down from Washington. They are getting more from
us than their sales taxes, their income taxes, and their property
taxes. The States are simply becoming completely dependent upon us.
As I have heard both of my colleagues point out, we are sending this
borrowed money down essentially so they do not have to make the tough
decisions they would otherwise have to make. So I would ask my friends:
When does it end? When does this dependency come to an end? I thought
last year it was supposed to be timely, temporary, and targeted.
Mr. GREGG. The Senator's point is very important because 41 cents of
every dollar we are sending back to the States--and as the Senator
says, the majority of State money is now Federal money that we are
sending down, as the Senator outlined--is borrowed from China or from
the Middle East. Our people are going to have to pay all this back. We
don't have that money to be sending to the States.
In this bill, at least there is an attempt to pay for it. But the way
they pay for it is by penalizing job creators and forcing people to
outsource jobs which, again, comes back to harm us for no purpose that
seems to be practical other than to have the Federal Government step in
and try to control the manner in which these various programs are run
in the States and to reward constituencies who happen to be very
supportive of the other party.
Mr. ALEXANDER. If I may say in response to the question and comment
from the Senator from Kentucky, this country was created by States, and
now has created a central government of limited powers. The central
government makes the States the wards of the central government.
In the State of Tennessee this year--I believe for the first time--
more than half the dollars in the State budget come from the Federal
Government. In addition to the dollars coming from Washington, the
rules are coming from Washington. So the Governor of Kentucky or New
Hampshire or Tennessee is trying to say: Medicaid spending is out of
control. It is ruining our public colleges and universities because we
have no money left for them, so we want to change the eligibility.
That has been the case during the last 10 years. We have had Medicaid
spending going up in the States by 70 or 80 percent over a 7- or 8-year
period of time, and funding for public universities at a low level with
tuitions, therefore, going way up. So the Governor is saying: Whoa,
let's do something about Medicaid. Then we passed a bill and said to
the Governors: Don't you change Medicaid. You are not allowed, if you
take this money, to save any money in Medicaid.
So spending for Medicaid goes up because we require it to go up, and
that means tuitions in Kentucky, New Hampshire, Tennessee, California,
and all across this country are going to be higher because of
legislation like we are considering today.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank my friends from Tennessee and
New Hampshire. I was going to make some opening comments, but I would
also add that my opening comments are somewhat related to the colloquy
my colleagues were just having about the bill we will be voting on
shortly.
We also heard an expression from the voters of Missouri yesterday who
voted on a referendum on the issue of whether it is a good idea for the
Federal Government to require individuals to retain health insurance,
and 70 percent in Missouri, just yesterday, expressed their opposition
to the notion. I know that is in court being litigated right now, as to
whether it is appropriate for the Federal Government or constitutional
for the Federal Government to require everyone to have a government-
prescribed health care policy, but we had an expression of the people
from Missouri yesterday as well on that aspect of what the Federal
Government has been doing in the last year and a half. I thank my
colleagues for their enlightened comments.
As I was just indicating, this morning's paper carried an important
message for us in Washington--a message that many of us have been
trying to get across for more than a year. If there was any doubt that
Americans are tired of being told their views are irrelevant by the
people they elected to represent them in Washington, last night's vote
in Missouri should dispel it.
All throughout the health care debate, Democratic leaders in
Washington told themselves they could do what they wanted and then
persuade Americans after the fact that it was OK. Last night, the
voters in Missouri overwhelmingly rejected that notion. The people of
Missouri have sent a message to Washington: Enough is enough.
They rejected the apparent belief by the current administration and
Democratic leaders in Congress that they know best--that distant
bureaucrats and lawmakers inside the beltway have a better grasp of
what ails people in places such as St. Louis than they do, and that
lawmakers here have a right to impose their prescriptions on the people
out there whether those people like it or not.
More specifically, the voters of Missouri sent a clear message that
the Federal Government has no business forcing people to buy health
insurance against their will. I applaud them for it. Throughout the
health care debate, Republicans heard the concerns of our constituents
and insisted on the kind of commonsense solutions they were asking
for--solutions that would actually do something to lower the cost of
care. Democrats preferred to do their own thing.
They said: Let's raise taxes and cut Medicare to expand government
and then try to convince people it is in their best interest.
Well, the voters of Missouri showed us last night that Americans will
not allow this blatant power grab to stand without a fight. They don't
think bureaucrats in Washington have a right to force them to buy
government-designed health insurance, and they don't think States
should be forced to put millions of new people into Medicaid--as our
colleagues from New Hampshire and Tennessee were just discussing--any
more than they think we should bail out the States again this week with
billions more in spending at a time when neither we nor the States can
afford it.
Washington needs to take care of its own fiscal mess, not deepen it
by bailing out the States. We need to start listening to the concerns
of the American people rather than trying to force them to go along
with far-reaching laws they do not want, either through unpopular
legislation or misleading PR campaigns like the one we saw earlier this
week in which the administration sought to convince seniors their
health care plan wouldn't do what we all know it will do.
Americans weren't kidding when they said they opposed the health care
bill, and they are not going away. This
[[Page S6682]]
is just the beginning. Some of us have been saying it for more than a
year. The American people will be heard. Whether it is the failed
stimulus, the health care bill, or the financial regulatory bill,
Americans are more intent than ever on reversing the trend of
centralizing more and more power in Washington. They are alarmed at the
fact the Federal Government is now, for the first time in our history,
the single largest source of revenue for the States. For the first time
in our history, the Federal Government is the single largest source of
revenue for the States. They know that with more power in Washington
comes less accountability, and they are fighting back.
The lesson is clear: Americans expect the people they elect to put
their interests and the interests of the country first. It is time to
follow through on the kinds of changes Americans actually want to see.
It is about solving the crisis in front of us instead of using them to
force a vision of America that Americans don't share.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire is
recognized.
Mr. GREGG. Is the Senator from Washington ready? May I go forward on
a point of order?
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate is not in a quorum call.
Mr. GREGG. I thought I put us into a quorum call.
Mr. President, at this time I intend to make a point of order.
Actually, there are two points of order pending against this bill
dealing with the budget. The budget is violated. It is not my budget--I
didn't vote for the budget. The Democratic budget is violated two times
by this bill.
I am not going to make both because it would be redundant to have a
vote on both. It wouldn't be redundant, actually. There are two
different points of order, and they are both fairly significant. So I
will just make one because I do think we should be on record.
If this Congress is going to pass a budget, which it did in the last
session--it has not done one in this session; it should--we should
maintain the discipline of that budget. That is why we did the budget.
And it is not my budget; it is your budget. So I am just suggesting
that you follow your budget, if you are Members of the Democratic
Party.
So with that point, I would make a point of order that section 404(a)
of the 2010 budget resolution makes it out of order to consider
legislation that increases the deficit by more than $10 billion in the
Senate for any fiscal year covered by the most recently agreed to
congressional budget resolution, S. Con. Res. 13.
The pending amendment would increase the short-term deficit in excess
of $10 billion in the following year: 2011. Therefore, I raise a point
of order under section 404(a) of S. Con. Res. 13 against the pending
amendment.
I would note that this exceeds the budget resolution by, I believe,
about $10 billion. That is how much it is out of kilter relative to
what we said we would spend.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable budget
order, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second? There
appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Who yields time?
The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There remains 12 minutes 39 seconds
on the majority side and 12 minutes 53 seconds on the minority side.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we have several Senators coming to the
floor, if the Senator from New Hampshire wishes to continue speaking at
this time.
Mr. President, I will make a few comments then. We do have several
Senators on their way at this time.
I listened with interest to our colleagues on the other side of the
aisle come to oppose the amendment that is being offered, and it is
surprising to me because, as everyone knows, we are in a very tough
economic recovery right now. All of our States, all of our communities,
all of our families are struggling to get back on their feet. We have
been working for some time now to help get our economy back on track.
As I outlined earlier, we have come forward to the Senate floor a
number of times with small business bills and other bills to try to
move the economy forward, and we have been blocked every time.
On this amendment, where we have been trying to make sure that
130,000 teachers are not lost--and it is not about the teachers unions;
it is about kids in the classroom. This is about the future of the
United States of America. Are we going to punish these students and
give them less of an education because of the economic time they happen
to be in in the first grade or the fifth grade or the eighth grade?
That doesn't make sense to me as a mom or as a former teacher or as a
Senator. This is about making sure our kids are not hurt in this tough
economic recession. It is at a time when the States are struggling with
their budgets, and it is at a time when we have told them we are trying
to help them fill the gap, a gap they have in Medicaid spending.
We went to our colleagues. They blocked the bills when we brought
them because they said they were too big. We made them smaller. They
said they were not paid for. We went back and worked hard and brought
pay-fors now. Yet with all of this compromise, our Republican
colleagues have come to the floor today to say that now they have a new
idea why they are opposing it--that we have not allowed States to have
flexibility within their funding.
I remind all of us that Medicaid funding for a lengthy amount of time
has had strings attached. I would suggest to all of our colleagues that
if we just had open-ended funding out to our States, we would not be
hearing: Oh, you are sending money to States with strings attached; we
would be hearing the opposite: Oh, you are sending our States money
without any strings attached.
So I say enough is enough with the politics. Enough is enough with
finding excuses. This is about people in our States who are struggling
today to get back on their feet. This is a basic measure that we can
pass, fully paid for, at a time when our States--not just our States
but our children, our families, and our communities need it the most.
I urge our colleagues to work with us, to do what a legislative body
does. When you compromise and you compromise and you compromise and you
have reached an agreement that makes a difference for people, let's
move it forward and start to help our families get back on their feet.
That is what this amendment is about, and I hope we get to the 60 votes
and then can move, before we all go home for an August recess, to make
sure people are breathing a little bit easier--the kids who are going
to go off to school and the parents who are worried they are not
getting the right kind of education; in our States, the many
communities of people who are worried, who are in poverty, who are
going to lose their health care; state employees who work in our jails
or provide very important functions for our States that we count on.
They are invisible. We don't see them all the time. But they make sure
our lives are safe, that we can go to work and be cared for. That is
what this amendment provides our States with the ability to do.
We all want our economy back on track. We all wish we were not here
having to do this. But we are naive if we think our States are at a
point where this Federal Government, our United States, can start
ignoring them. That is what this amendment is about, and I urge our
colleagues to vote yes.
I see my colleague from New York has arrived, and I yield him the
remainder of the time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New York is
recognized.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I very much thank my colleague from
Washington, who has been such a leader on
[[Page S6683]]
this issue and on so many issues involving our economy, jobs, and the
middle class. I thank her for her leadership on this issue as on so
many others.
Today, I rise in ardent support of the legislation before us. Let me
be clear. This critical funding bill is about one thing and one thing
only; that is, saving American jobs. Congress should be focused like a
laser on fighting unemployment and getting the economy humming on all
cylinders again. This bill is part of that ongoing effort.
Our economy is starting to show signs of life again, but we have a
long, long way to go. We are on the road to recovery, but it is a rocky
and uncertain one. Too many American families are still suffering from
the immeasurable hardship and heartache wrought by the worst recession
since the 1930s. We all know the unemployment rate is unacceptably
high. What we cannot forget is that high unemployment is not a blue
State problem or a red State problem; it is a national problem, and it
demands immediate bipartisan attention. If there is only one issue on
which we can find common ground this year, it should be jobs. Yet the
minority party has blocked this bill at every turn.
There is no doubt about it, if we fail to pass this bill, hundreds of
thousands of teachers and firefighters will lose their jobs.
Nationwide, 140,000 teachers will be kicked out of the classroom if
this bill does not become law. In my home State of New York, there are
7,100 teacher jobs on the line. From Watertown to Buffalo, from Oneida
to Queens, every school district will have to make painful cuts. Will
those cuts hurt only the teachers? Of course not. Our kids--their
education is our future. They will have vital programs cut, their
education will decrease, and we all know that a child who loses
something in the third grade or the sixth grade or the ninth grade
doesn't gain it back. How can you look a kid in the eye and explain
that their beloved teacher, Mrs. Ross or Mr. O'Malley, is no longer
able to teach this year? We must pass this bill for the good of our
Nation's schoolchildren.
From coast to coast State budgets are bleeding. Many States have made
tough, responsible choices--cutting important programs and making
necessary revenue adjustments. We cannot afford to kick them while they
are down by denying them the FMAP and teacher funding.
We are fighting hard to create private sector jobs, and we should.
But to then allow so many public sector layoffs robs Peter to pay Paul.
We will not be able to reduce unemployment unless both the public and
private sectors are healthy.
The bill directly injects money into our economy, and the best thing
about it is it saves jobs without adding a dime to the deficit. I say
to my colleagues on the other side, again, it saves jobs without adding
a dime to the deficit. We cut in other places to help save the jobs of
firefighters and teachers. This bill is fully offset. It closes tax
loopholes multinational companies use to dodge taxes abroad. We should
do that on its own, but the fact that now we have that as the offset,
to do something so necessary and so good, is important.
I ask my colleagues to think of this not in terms of macronumbers but
in terms of individuals--individuals who have worked hard their whole
lives and are now about to be laid off; kids in classrooms who, again,
will not be able to have their teacher teach them. Maybe it is that
special science class. Some schools are cutting football. Some people
think that is frivolous. I think that is an important part of school
life.
The greatness of this country depends on us overcoming our problems.
Unemployment is a huge problem. The lack of having the best education
in the world is a problem. Keeping our streets safe from fire and crime
is a problem. We are running away from it here to hide behind
ideological barriers.
Let me repeat, this bill saves hundreds of thousands of jobs,
provides vital help to the States, and reduces the deficit. For the
good of the country, I implore my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle to support this sensible and important bill. It is the right
thing to do. Maybe just this once, in a bipartisan way, we will rise to
the occasion.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am voting to end a filibuster that is
blocking critical funding for Wisconsin. Passage of this bill, as
amended, would help prevent major cuts to education and health care
funding as my State, and other States, continue to struggle to make up
budget shortfalls due to the biggest recession since the Great
Depression. While I do not agree with all of the offsets in the bill, I
am pleased that it is fully offset. In fact, according to the
Congressional Budget Office, the bill will reduce the budget deficit by
$1.4 billion over the next decade. Supporting this fiscally responsible
funding is the right thing to do for our children and for the many
Wisconsinites who depend on BadgerCare.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a package that
would provide critical relief to school districts across the Nation.
The proposed amendment would provide $10 billion in additional support
to local school districts to prevent imminent layoffs.
It is estimated that this fund will help keep nearly 140,000
educators employed during the upcoming school year.
The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act has been credited with
saving 300,000 education jobs and has mitigated that impact of the
recession.
As that funding comes to an end, however, massive job cuts once again
threaten to stall economic recovery and damage our educational system.
Thus far, almost 80 percent of school districts across the Nation
have had to lay off educators. My home State of Maryland, which is No.
1 in education according to Education Week for the second year in a
row, is not immune. One Maryland county has seen 800 jobs cut, 355 of
those classroom positions.
These job losses have an economic ripple effect. The Economic Policy
Institute projects that every 100,000 education jobs lost causes an
additional loss of 30,000 private sector jobs in local communities.
This can take a devastating toll on families and on whole
communities.
As our children prepare to go back to school, let's think for a
moment about what these job cuts will mean for them.
For some, the bus route has changed since there are fewer drivers so
it takes a bit longer to get to school.
When students get to class, it will be a little more crowded as the
class size grows to accommodate more students and fewer teachers.
The lunch lines might be longer because there are fewer cafeteria
workers to serve the students.
Art, music, and even social studies programs have been cut and
teachers dismissed.
Get sick at your own risk because a school nurse will no longer be
available to assist with treatment.
So, the remaining teachers, in addition to performing their
traditional roles, now also become nurses, counselors, and custodians
to even more students.
Larger class sizes, cutting programs, and cutting support personnel
such as school nurses, counselors, bus drivers, and custodians, are
just a few of the ways school districts are dealing with budgeting
shortfalls.
Other options include unpaid furlough days and shortened school
weeks.
All of these are detrimental to the educational experience and fly in
the face of what we are trying to achieve with educational reform.
There are many theories about education reform. But to put it quite
simply, there can be no educational reform if there are no teachers!
The $10 billion that this package puts into the States will provide
immediate relief to school districts across the Nation.
In Maryland, it could mean an estimated allocation of $178 million
for Maryland, translating to 2,200 jobs.
Yet it does not add 1 cent to the deficit. The education jobs funding
is fully offset, including $8.4 billion in rescissions. This is not
without sacrifice. I am particularly disappointed by the rescission of
$10.7 million in Department of Education innovation and improvement
funds for public television's ``Ready to Teach'' program.
However, I am respectful of the difficult choices that must be made
in these times of economic crisis. We need to make choices about
spending. And I choose to support putting teachers to
[[Page S6684]]
work and giving students the best chance to learn.
I urge my colleagues to think of the mixed messages we would send to
our children by not making this investment and passing this amendment.
We say to our children that they should work hard to get the best out
of education but then we are not willing to work to put the best into
it?
We say that our children are our future but we are not willing to
invest in them?
We expect teachers to equip our children with the knowledge they need
to succeed but are not willing to equip our teachers with the resources
they need to succeed?
It is time to stand up for our students and teachers.
I urge my colleagues to join me in standing up for education by
voting yes on the proposed amendment.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington is
recognized.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There remains 2\1/2\ minutes on the
majority side and 12 minutes 53 seconds on the minority side.
Mrs. MURRAY. I reserve 1 minute of our time and ask that the quorum
call be equally divided between both sides and suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without
objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in
the Record two letters dated August 4, 2010, from Joseph Conaly.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
United States Department of Education, Office of
Elementary and Secondary Education,
Washington, DC, Aug. 4, 2010.
Hon. James Webb,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Webb: Your office has expressed concerns
about whether Virginia would meet the maintenance-of-effort
requirement in the Education Jobs Fund legislation that is
currently being considered by the U.S. Senate. This letter is
in response to those concerns.
In its applications for phase one and phase two funding
under the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) program,
Virginia provided data on the levels of State support for
elementary and secondary education and public institutions of
higher education for fiscal years 2006, 2009, 2010, and 2011.
Under the Education Jobs Fund legislation, a State may
demonstrate that it is maintaining effort if, among other
things, its State tax collections for calendar year 2009 were
less than State tax collections for calendar year 2006, and
State support for elementary and secondary education and for
public institutions of higher education for State fiscal year
2011 is not less than the level of such support for each of
the two categories, respectively, for State fiscal year 2006.
Based on our review of the data that Virginia submitted in
its SFSF applications and the data on State tax collections
from the U.S. Census Bureau, we have every confidence that
Virginia will meet the maintenance-of-effort requirements in
and be eligible for funding under the Education Jobs Fund
legislation.
Sincerely,
Joseph C. Conaty,
Director,
State Fiscal Stabilization Program.
____
United States Department of Education, Office of
Elementary and Secondary Education,
Washington, DC, Aug. 4, 2010.
Hon. Mark Warner,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Warner: Your office has expressed concerns
about whether Virginia would meet the maintenance-of-effort
requirement in the Education Jobs Fund legislation that is
currently being considered by the U.S. Senate. This letter is
in response to those concerns.
In its applications for phase one and phase two funding
under the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) program,
Virginia provided data on the levels of State support for
elementary and secondary education and public institutions of
higher education for fiscal years 2006, 2009, 2010, and 2011.
Under the Education Jobs Fund legislation, a State may
demonstrate that it is maintaining effort if, among other
things, its State tax collections for calendar year 2009 were
less than State tax collections for calendar year 2006, and
State support for elementary and secondary education and for
public institutions of higher education for State fiscal year
2011 is not less than the level of such support for each of
the two categories, respectively, for State fiscal year 2006.
Based on our review of the data that Virginia submitted in
its SFSF applications and the data on State tax collections
from the U.S. Census Bureau, we have every confidence that
Virginia will meet the maintenance-of-effort requirements in
and be eligible for funding under the Education Jobs Fund
legislation.
Sincerely,
Joseph C. Conaty,
Director,
State Fiscal Stabilization Program.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have spoken with both Senators Jim Webb
and Mark Warner about the need for further clarification on what is
used to define eligibility under the maintenance-of-effort requirements
in the Education Jobs Fund legislation.
I have assured them that we will work together, and ensure that the
Commonwealth of Virginia meets the maintenance-of-effort requirements.
I have entered into the Record two letters from the Department of
Education clarifying that Virginia would meet the maintenance-of-
efforts requirements.
I look forward to continue to work with them to ensure the language
is clear.
Cloture Motion
Mr. President, has all time expired?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. All time has expired. The cloture
motion having been presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the
clerk to report the motion to invoke cloture.
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,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R.
1586, the Aviation Safety and Investment Act of 2010, with
amendment No. 4575.
Harry Reid, Patty Murray, Max Baucus, Richard J. Durbin,
Robert Menendez, Daniel K. Inouye, Christopher J. Dodd,
Carl Levin, Dianne Feinstein, Al Franken, Jack Reed,
Sheldon Whitehouse, Frank R. Lautenberg, Roland W.
Burris, Tom Harkin, Ron Wyden, Charles E. Schumer.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. By unanimous consent, the mandatory
quorum call has been waived. The question is, Is it the sense of the
Senate that the debate on the motion to concur with amendment No. 4575
in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 1586, an act to
modernize the air traffic control system, improve the safety,
reliability, and availability of transportation by air in the United
States, provide for modernization of the air traffic control system,
reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration, 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. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 61, nays 38, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 224 Leg.]
YEAS--61
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Goodwin
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--38
Alexander
Barrasso
Bennett
Bond
Brown (MA)
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
LeMieux
[[Page S6685]]
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Voinovich
Wicker
NOT VOTING--1
Vitter
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 61, the nays are
38. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be 2
minutes of debate prior to a vote on the Murray motion to waive the
applicable budget points of order, with the time equally divided and
controlled between Senator Gregg and myself.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I further ask unanimous consent that if the vote on the
motion to waive is successful, then the Senate proceed to Executive
Session to resume consideration of the Kagan nomination and that the
time until 12 noon be equally divided and controlled between Senators
Leahy and Sessions or their designees; that beginning at 12 noon, there
be 1 hour blocks of alternating time until 8 p.m. tonight, with the
majority controlling the first hour block; with all time consumed on
the Kagan nomination counting postcloture.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Chair announces that the invocation of cloture renders the motion
to refer out of order.
The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, can we have order in the Senate? Senator
Gregg wishes to be heard.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I made a point of order dealing with the
budget and the fact that this bill violates the budget, so I find
myself once again rising with enthusiasm to defend the Democratic
budget because that is what this bill violates. It is the Democratic
budget that is violated in this bill. It increases the deficit in 2011
by $22 billion. That is not small change anywhere in this country. So
$22 billion is what the budget deficit increase is next year as a
result of this bill. That is why it violates the Democratic budget.
I congratulate my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for
putting in place this point of order. I presume they would want to
defend their own budget and defend this point of order because they do
not want to run up the deficit by $22 billion in 2011.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, my good friend, the senior Senator from the
State of New Hampshire, whom I admire so much, had to be smiling when
he said that. I think he was part of the time. This is paid for. He
objects to how it is paid for. That is a new one here. So I ask that we
overwhelmingly support the motion to waive by Senator Murray.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire will state it.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the time is up. Time for a vote.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry is in order, isn't
it?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state his inquiry.
Mr. GREGG. Did not the point of order lie? Is not the bill in
violation of the Budget Act?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order would lie.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 61, nays 38, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 225 Leg.]
YEAS--61
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Goodwin
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--38
Alexander
Barrasso
Bennett
Bond
Brown (MA)
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
LeMieux
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Voinovich
Wicker
NOT VOTING--1
Vitter
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 61, the nays are
38. Three fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I supported cloture this morning on the
bill to extend and phase out increases in the Medicaid funding for
States, including Connecticut, and to provide additional money to help
local school districts in Connecticut keep teachers in the classroom
during the upcoming school year. This funding, which was fully offset,
is necessary as we continue to recover from the recession that began in
2007.
However, I do have concerns with some of the rescissions from the
Department of Defense budget that were used to pay for this funding,
and I plan to work with Senator Reid and others to ensure that, as this
bill moves forward, none of the offsets affects the ability of our men
and women fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan from carrying out their
mission.
____________________