Congressional Record, Volume 156 Issue 118 (Thursday, August 5, 2010)

[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 118 (Thursday, August 5, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6762-S6767]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

FAA AIR TRANSPORTATION MODERNIZATION AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of the House message to accompany H.R.
1586, which the clerk will report.
The 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, 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, 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.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, all
postcloture time is considered expired, except there will be 20 minutes
of debate equally divided and controlled between the Senator from
Montana, Mr. Baucus, and the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. DeMint,
or their designees.
The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, how long do I have to speak?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Five minutes.
Mr. DeMINT. Thank you, Madam President. I think I can do it in that
time.
It seems we have time to do almost anything, but what we need to do
is address the economy and jobs in this country. Just about every
economist, from all across the political spectrum, says one of the most
important things we can do right now is not to raise taxes. Yet taxes
are scheduled to go up in 5 months on almost every American, including
the businesses that create the jobs.
Of the two amendments I will offer here today, one amendment will
stop the increase in income tax rates, and the second will stop the tax
increases on small businesses that file as individuals.
Clearly, it makes no sense in the middle of a recession to raise
taxes on individuals. An individual in South Carolina making $40,000 a
year will pay $400 more next year in taxes if we do not act. A married
couple with a combined income of $80,000 will see their taxes go up
nearly $2,200. A married couple earning $160,000 combined could pay
$5,500 in additional taxes.
The same thing will happen to small businesses that create the jobs.
We will be taking money out of their accounts and putting it in our
accounts. At a time when they need to keep the money to grow our
economy and to hire workers, we do not need the money to continue to
waste it on what we have been doing.
Consider the stimulus bill. A couple of my colleagues this week came
out with a report showing where a lot of this stimulus money went: $62
million for a Pennsylvania tunnel that Governor Rendell said was a
tragic mistake; $193,000 for voter perception of the stimulus bill. I
could go on and on. This is not money we need to spend right now.
What we need to do is assure businesses and individuals that the tax
rate this year will be the same next year so they can make good
decisions that will move our economy forward.

Motions To Suspend

Madam President, in accordance with rule V of the Standing Rules of
the Senate, I move to suspend rule XXII for the purpose of proposing
and considering the following motion to commit, with instructions, H.R.
1586: I move to commit H.R. 1586 to the Committee on Finance with
instructions to report the same back to the Senate with changes to
include a permanent extension of the 2010 individual income tax rates,
and to include provisions which decrease spending as appropriate to
offset such permanent extension.
And, Madam President, in accordance with rule V of the Standing Rules
of the Senate, I move to suspend rule XXII for the purpose of proposing
and considering the following motion to commit, with instructions, H.R.
1586: I move to commit H.R. 1586 to the Committee on Finance with
instructions to report the same back to the Senate with changes to
include a permanent extension of current individual income tax rates on
small businesses and provisions which decreases spending as appropriate
to offset such permanent extension.
With that, Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time and
yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The motions are pending.
The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, this is a stunt. It is a gimmick. It is
not serious, and it is very sad. We are in very difficult times. The
economy is in recession, going out of recession. We are

[[Page S6763]]

facing the prospect of what to do about the so-called Bush tax cuts of
2001, 2003. Those are massive tax cuts that were put in place in 2001
and 2003. They expire at the end of this year. It is a big question:
What should the Congress do, what should the country do about those tax
cuts?
At the same time, we are facing terrific, unfortunately high
deficits, very high deficits, almost as high as they were at the end of
World War II--not quite but almost. The national debt now is
approaching, as a percent of GDP, the levels that it was near the end
of World War II--not quite. In fact, they were much higher at the end
of World War II than they are today.
But the main point is, these are very serious questions. They require
deliberate thought. They require Senators to work together to find
solutions that help our country, help us decide: To what degree should
these tax cuts be extended? Which ones make sense? Which ones do not?
We have several goals here. Clearly, people do not like paying taxes.
But, clearly, Americans who are responsible know they must pay some
taxes in order for our country to function. There are two extremes
here. One is anarchy and the other States' outright total socialism.
There is some balance in the middle for a civil society to function.
These questions are very big: How are we, as a society, going to
properly function? To what degree should we begin and to what rate
reduce the deficits and the debt? That is a very serious question.
Other countries worldwide are facing these same questions, and we are
interrelated, the United States, with other countries. That is a very
serious question.
In addition, how much should the Bush tax cuts be extended? At what
rate, what amount, et cetera? Should all rates be extended? Should
some? Clearly, most Members of this body feel at least the so-called
middle-income tax cuts should be extended permanently; that is, those
whose incomes are $200,000 or lower or families with $250,000--at
least. Then, there are other questions about what to do with the rest.
The motion offered by the junior Senator from South Carolina has this
effect: He says all the tax cuts should be extended. First of all, we
do not know what that means. Is that just individual rates? If it is,
that is about $1.1 trillion it is going to cost over 10 years. Does he
also want to include the alternative minimum tax for 10 years or does
he also want to include dividend cap gains extended? I don't know. He
doesn't say. But I assume he does. That is going to be about a $3
trillion cost--a $3 trillion cost--over 10 years. He wants that all
replaced with spending cuts. I ask you, is that serious? That is not
serious. I ask, is that a stunt? Yes, that is a stunt. Is it a gimmick?
Yes, it is a gimmick. Is it serious? No, it is not serious.

These are serious times--very serious times--and we should not be
engaged or even give comment to this kind of a stunt. I hate saying
that. I don't like saying that. But I have to be candid. I have to be
honest. If I am faulted for anything--and I am faulted for a lot--it is
for being honest and candid. This is a stunt. I urge my colleagues not
to fall for this.
Now, the $3 trillion--I asked: Where are we going to cut $3 trillion?
Our total receipts, Federal receipts for the year, are about $2
trillion, a little over $2 trillion. That is pretty good. Well, OK, he
wants to cut $3 trillion over 10. Now, where in the world? It can't be
done. It cannot be done. Impossible. He knows that, but still he stands
on the floor making this grand political statement. Does he say
anything about small business? He doesn't say anything about small
business. What is small business? I have no idea. It is kind of veiled
a little bit under the cover of the top rates. He doesn't define it. We
don't know what it is. I mean, it is just sad.
We don't have much time left to deal with these tax cuts. We don't
have many legislative days left. We have to just do what Senators are
supposed to do, do what most people in our States want us to do--be
reasonable, be thoughtful, take on the hard issues. And they will give
us a lot of slack if they think we are basically doing the right thing,
if we are doing our best--it may not be perfect but doing our best, and
that is what we should do. This amendment is not our best. It should be
resoundingly defeated.
Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. BAUCUS. I yield my 4 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I appreciate the chairman yielding me
just a few minutes. I wish to associate myself strongly with his
remarks and urge our colleagues on this side to vote against the DeMint
amendment. The Senator from Montana is absolutely correct. It is a
stunt, and it is a very sad stunt.
If the Senator from South Carolina is trying to wave the flag of
small business to try to convince anybody to vote for his amendment, I
wanted to put some things in the Record that might convince them
otherwise. This is a recent report that came out from the Tax Policy
Center, the Urban Institute, and the Brookings Institution--very well
respected. It is dated August 3, 2010.
I quote:

If the objective--

Which would be the extension of all the Bush tax cuts--

is to help small business, continuing the Bush tax cuts on
high-income taxpayers isn't the way to go [because] it would
miss 98 percent of small business owners . . .

It would miss 98 percent of small business owners.
So I beg my colleagues, if you want to have this debate over tax
cuts, we can have it at a different time. Please don't wave small
business out here.
What the Senator from South Carolina will do--the effect of his
amendment, according to this very reputable report--would completely
miss 98 percent of small businesses in America. They are desperate for
help. His amendment misses them by a mile. If we were in target
practice today, he wouldn't pass. He wouldn't hit the target for a
mile.
I have been on this floor for over 2 weeks with dozens of Members on
this side begging the Republican Party on that side to do something
before we leave to help small business. There is $12 billion of tax
cuts directly to them. The Senator from South Carolina voted no.
We have $30 billion that will turn into a $300 billion lending
program directly to small businesses. Small businesses are the only
people who could get it and community banks are the only people who
could access it. Did the Senator from South Carolina vote yes or no? He
voted no.
This is a stunt, and it is a sad stunt. I tell my colleagues, there
is a lot at stake. I know my 4 minutes is over, but I wanted to come
and strongly urge my colleagues to follow the lead of the chairman and
vote no on this sad stunt.
Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 55 seconds
remaining.
Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I think it is a sad day in the Senate
when keeping current tax rates the same and stopping the largest tax
increase in history is called a stunt.
Over the last few weeks, the Democrats have voted to raise taxes on
dividends and capital gains, affecting many senior citizens, and raised
the death tax to over half of what people leave to their families. Now,
today, they want to raise the marginal income tax rates. If we left the
tax rates the same, it would do more to help small businesses and jobs
in America than any of the bailout or targeted programs my colleagues
are talking about.
My Democratic colleagues have had 4 years to address the coming tax
increase and have done nothing. It is very important, but it is sad
that they will not address it. They will do every kind of government
program that comes to mind, but they won't leave the money in the hands
of the American people so we can grow our economy.
I encourage my colleagues but also the American people to look in on
what is happening today.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I would just like to correct the
statement made by the Senator from South Carolina. He is saying this
side has not

[[Page S6764]]

wanted to extend tax cuts. That is totally inaccurate. This side does
want to extend tax cuts, and we will. Come September, the Senator from
South Carolina is going to see that this side of the aisle very
definitely wants to extend those Bush tax cuts, including the 2001
cuts, the 2003 cuts. The only question is how much to do on AMT and how
much to do on Federal estate tax. But we do want to extend them.
I see he is walking off the floor because I think he knows I am right
and he doesn't want to have to hear it, but the fact is, we are going
to extend. We will do our level best. The real question is whether we
will have 60 votes to get that passed. That remains to be seen. I hope
that happens. I don't see any Senators on that side of the aisle right
now, but I hope there are a few--at least one--so hopefully we will get
60 votes in September. But we will make very strong recommendations to
extend these tax cuts--maybe not all, entirely, but the vast bulk of
them--in an effort to help the American people.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. All time has expired.
Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, 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 question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 58, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 226 Leg.]

YEAS--42

Alexander
Barrasso
Bennett
Bond
Brown (MA)
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
LeMieux
Lincoln
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Thune
Vitter
Wicker

NAYS--58

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Goodwin
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote, the yeas are 42, the
nays are 58. Two-thirds of the Senators voting not having voted in the
affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the next two
votes be 10 minutes in duration.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the second
motion to suspend.
The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I think all of us know----
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. All debate time has expired.
Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, may I have 1 minute to explain the
amendment?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, we all know the economic engine in this
country is small businesses. Most of our jobs come from small
businesses. It makes no sense in the middle of a recession for us to
take more money from small businesses and bring it here.
This amendment simply keeps current tax rates the same for those who
file individually as part of their small businesses. It is a simple
idea. I think we all agree on it. It is important that we do it before
the break and let small businesses know they can plan for next year.
They can hire people. They can help grow our economy. I encourage my
colleagues to support it.
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.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask for 1 minute.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I do not know anybody who can responsibly
vote for this amendment because we do not know what it is. What is the
definition of ``small business''? It could be anything. I think it is a
thinly veiled attempt to address the top rates. We are only talking
about the top rates in effect.
The other amendment was totally irresponsible. It required a $3
trillion cut in spending over 10 years; $3 trillion--not a ``b,'' a
``t.'' This one is in the same vein.
Also, I think it is irresponsible because these are problems we must
address seriously when we come back, not take this lightly with message
amendments but seriously address when we come back in September what we
do with the tax cuts and what we do on the deficits.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The question is on agreeing to
the motion. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 42, nays 58, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 227 Leg.]

YEAS--42

NAYS--58

Mr. Conrad submits this Statement of Budgetary Effects of
PAYGO Legislation for H.R. 1586, as amended by Senate
amendment No. 4575. Total Budgetary Effects of H.R. 1586 for
the 5-year Statutory PAYGO Scorecard, net increase in the
deficit of $19.767 billion; Total Budgetary Effects of H.R.
1586 for the 10-year Statutory PAYGO Scorecard, net increase
in the deficit of $12.634 billion. Also submitted for the
Record as part of this statement is a table prepared by the
Congressional Budget Office, which provides additional
budgetary effects of this Act.

The table is as follows:

[[Page S6765]]

ESTIMATE OF THE STATUTORY PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR SENATE AMENDMENT 4575, CONTAINING PROPOSALS RELATED TO EDUCATION, STATE FISCAL RELIEF, THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM,
RESCISSIONS, AND REVENUE OFFSETS (AS INTRODUCED IN THE SENATE ON AUGUST 2, 2010--AEG10260)
[Millions of dollars, by fiscal year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2010-2015 2010-2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Increase or Decrease (-) in the On-Budget Deficit

Net Budgetary Impact............................. -13 22,364 803 -1,737 -4,963 -6,180 -4,267 -2,749 -1,863 -1,396 -1,368 10,273 -1,371
Less:
Previously Designated as Emergency -13 -111 -216 -666 -3,731 -4,757 -2,781 -1,292 -438 0 0 -9,494 -14,005
Requirements \1\............................
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Impact................... 0 22,475 1,019 -1,071 -1,232 -1,423 -1,486 -1,457 -1,425 -1,396 -1,368 19,767 12,634
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.
\1\ Savings in Titles II and III that would result from changes to programs and rescissions of funds previously designated as emergency.
Sources: Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, there can be no doubt of the need for
this bill, which includes an extension of enhanced Medicaid funding to
States and funding to help keep teachers in the classroom and out of
the unemployment line. Failure to enact this extension would place
services to those most in need at terrible risk, and it would place
many States, including my own, in an untenable budget situation.
Failure to enact the continued enhancement of Federal assistance for
Medicaid and other health care programs would leave a hole more than
$300 million wide in the budget of my State. Other States would face
similar shortfalls. Plugging that hole in the current economic
environment would almost certainly require service cuts or tax
increases above and beyond those suffered already by so many of our
States.
There is also little doubt of the need for the funding included in
this bill to preserve teaching jobs. In the current climate, we should
be looking for ways to preserve jobs. But that is especially true when
loss of the jobs at stake would harm not only workers and their
families, but students depending on these teachers to help them prepare
for the future. Failing to approve this funding would damage our nation
now and in the future.
The excuses our colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle have
used to prevent passage of important legislation in recent weeks do not
apply here. This measure is fully paid for. I regret that some of the
pay-fors are accomplished by borrowing from other important programs,
and efforts are under way to correct that problem.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I come to the Floor today to discuss
something very important to Illinois and so many others states FMAP.
As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, we increased
the Federal matching rate for Medicaid, FMAP.
This is smart policy in a recession, because not only does it help
people in a time of need, it is also one of the most effective ways to
stimulate the economy.
Temporarily increasing Medicaid costs allows States to sustain their
programs, rather than cutting them when families need them most.
It also generates business activity, jobs and wages in States that
they would not otherwise have seen.
But the temporary FMAP increase we passed is scheduled to end on
December 31 right in the middle of most States' fiscal year.
For the 3rd consecutive year, States are facing vast revenue
shortfalls. One estimate is that States will face deficits of over $350
billion over the next 30 months.
As a result, at least 30 States are proposing cuts to their Medicaid
programs for fiscal year 2011--cuts that will harm people right when
they need help most.
These include cuts to eligibility, fewer benefits, more cost-sharing,
and lower payments to the medical providers who see Medicaid patients.
The measure we are considering today would extend and phase out
increases in the Medicaid matching rate for 6 months, through June 30,
2011.
It will provide $16.1 billion to States to ensure that they continue
to receive an increased FMAP rate through the end of most States'
fiscal years.
Illinois would receive about $550 million in Federal funding to help
keep the State's Medicaid program afloat.
The spending in this measure is fully offset. It will not add a dime
to the Federal deficit.
My home State of Illinois is facing a budget shortfall of $13 billion
in FY11.
This is at a time when the unemployment rate was 10.4 percent in
June, and the State's revenues from sales tax and individual and
corporate income taxes are down more than $3 billion since the fiscal
year 08 peak.
The State doesn't expect to return to fiscal year 08 revenue levels
based on the current tax rates until fiscal year 15.
Because of this deficit the State has already started making hard
choices.
Just last week, the Governor announced that to save $18 million,
2,700 non-union State workers would be required to take 24 days off
without pay.
That is just one measure to save money, and they will be forced to
consider additional painful cuts if we do not extend the increased FMAP
rate through the end of the State's fiscal year.
Today, the Medicaid program in Illinois covers 2.6 million low- and
moderate-income people in the State, including children, pregnant women
and people with developmental disabilities and mental illness.
Illinois saw its FMAP rate increase from 50 percent to 62 percent as
a result of the Economic Recovery spending.
The state of Illinois assumed a 6-month FMAP extension in its fiscal
year 2011 budget.
Without an extension, the State will be short an additional $750
million this year.
Illinois has reviewed its Medicaid program, and determined that
without an extension of the increased Federal matching rate, it may be
forced to consider eliminating services for: 168,000 children from
families with incomes just above the Federal Poverty Level; 18,000
adults from families with incomes greater than 133 percent of the
Federal Poverty level; 200,000 adults covered by Illinois Cares RX--a
state program that helps low-income adults afford prescription drugs;
63,000 children covered by Allkids--a comprehensive State program to
provide insurance to kids who would otherwise not have health
insurance.
Illinois was not alone in planning for a 6-month FMAP extension in
2011.
In fact, 30 States assumed that an extension would be provided, and
as of today, about half of those states do not yet have contingency
plans for how to balance their budgets if an FMAP extension is not
passed.
If Congress does not extend the funds, governors and legislatures
will have to revisit those budgets and consider new cuts, which will
hurt the Nation's most vulnerable residents and will affect a variety
of services.
These will be on top of cuts that have already been made over the
past few years.
The National Association of State Budget Officers estimates that even
as the need for State-funded services rose, states cut funding for
services by 4 percent for fiscal year 2009 and almost 5 percent for
2010.
That's why 47 governors--Democrats and Republicans alike--have signed
a National Governor's Association letter urging Congress to extend the
Recovery Act's additional Medicaid funding.
In these difficult economic times, we are trying to help Americans
return to work AND take care of those who are between jobs.
These benefits include continued access to quality health care under
the Medicaid program.
Extending and phasing down the increased FMAP rate for another 6
months is a win-win for all of us. It will protect the most vulnerable
during this time of need and provide immediate relief to State and
local economies.

[[Page S6766]]

medicaid pharmacy reimbursement

Mrs. LINCOLN. I ask to engage in a brief colloquy with the
distinguished Senate majority leader and Senator Murray as it relates
to the intent of a provision in this legislation regarding average
manufacturer price--or AMP.
Do I understand that the provision in section 202 of this bill is
solely intended to ensure that Medicaid rebates are collected from the
manufacturers of the particular drugs specified in the bill, that is
inhalation, infusion, instilled, implanted, or injectable drugs not
generally sold at retail pharmacies?
Mr. REID. Yes, the intention of this provision is to ensure that
rebate dollars are collected for those particular drugs. Drug rebate
dollars have long helped support state Medicaid programs and the
provision will ensure an accurate calculation of AMP for the purposes
of these drug rebates.
Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator for engaging in a colloquy with
Senator Lincoln and me and would also like to clarify that this
provision is in no way intended to impact reimbursement to retail
pharmacies participating in the Medicaid Program. Is that the Senator's
understanding?
Mr. REID. The Senator is correct. The Secretary should direct drug
manufacturers to calculate AMPs for these drugs to allow States to
collect rebates. In order to maintain pharmacy reimbursement at
appropriate levels for these drugs, the Secretary should use the
discretion that is provided under the Patient Protection and
Accountable Care Act to calculate a Federal upper limit, FUL, at an
amount that is at least 175 percent of the weighted average AMP for
those covered outpatient drugs.
Mrs. LINCOLN. We would like to thank the leader for his clarification
and shared goal of protecting access to critical drug therapies for
vulnerable populations at retail pharmacies.
Mrs. MURRAY. I agree.
Mr. REID. I agree with the Senators on the importance of protecting
beneficiaries' access to these drug therapies and the retail pharmacies
that faithfully serve them. I thank the Senators for their shared
commitment to this goal.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas on the motion to
concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 1586 with
amendment No. 4575.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second.
Amendment No. 4576 is withdrawn.
The question is on agreeing to the motion to concur in the House
amendment to H.R. 1586, with amendment No. 4575.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 61, nays 39, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 228 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--39

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
Vitter
Voinovich
Wicker
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I
move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. BENNET. Madam President, today I was proud to vote for final
passage of the amendment offered by Senators Murray, Harkin, Schumer
and Reid to the FAA authorization bill. This amendment brings long
overdue good news to teachers and kids in Colorado and those worried
about losing access to the health care they need. I was elated to see
the Senate break through the usual gridlock and pass this important
legislation.
The package will save thousands of jobs and protect health services
for kids and vulnerable populations across Colorado and the country.
During this savage economy that is hurting families all over our state
and our country, as we work to get our ship righted, our kids and our
schools should be at the top of our list of priorities.
If we are going to ensure that we leave more opportunity for our kids
than we ourselves have had then we must remain committed to education--
to set the table for our kids' futures; to prepare them for the
competitive world that awaits them; and to enrich their lives with a
better education than the one that was offered to us.
I have tried to be a leader in the fight for the Medicaid Federal
Medical Assistance Percentage, FMAP, funding and saving teachers' jobs.
I was an original cosponsor of the Keep Our Educators Working Act of
2010, introduced by Senator Tom Harkin. In February, I also led a group
of 43 of my Senate colleagues in submitting a letter urging the
majority leader to provide States with an additional 6-month FMAP
extension.
The Medicaid FMAP extension passed today by the Senate was crucial in
the effort to keep public servants at work across the country. Without
it, States would be forced to layoff tens of thousands of more teachers
and other public employees, cut education funding even further, and
further reduce payments to health care providers. More than 900,000
public and private sector jobs could be lost.
Colorado alone would lose more than $200 million if the FMAP
extension fell victim to Washington politics. Cuts could include
eliminating state aid for full-day kindergarten for 35,000 children,
eliminating preschool aid for 21,000 children, and increasing
overcrowding in juvenile detention facilities, according the Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities. The education jobs funding would prevent
the loss of between 2,000 and 3,000 teacher jobs in Colorado alone.
I am glad to see this package is paid for. However, I was very
concerned about the House package which paid for teacher jobs in part
by cutting education reform programs. I joined 15 of my colleagues in
signing a letter requesting that we find other offsets to pay for this
important measure. I am very pleased that we were able to avert the
cuts to critical education programs and save teachers' jobs--all
without raising the deficit.
Additionally, while I strongly support the measure, in no small part
because it is completely paid for and does not add one dime to our
deficit, I would like to raise a strong concern with one of the pay-
fors in this package. A rescission of $1.5 billion from the Department
of Energy's, DOE, renewable energy loan guarantee program was used to
help offset this amendment.
In Colorado this important program has helped foster tremendous
growth in the clean energy economy. Just last month, President Obama
announced a conditional loan guarantee for a solar manufacturing
facility in my home state and there are dozens of job creating
renewable energy projects across the country waiting for approval from
DOE.
This rescission places $15 to $20 billion of private investment in
clean energy investment in jeopardy. While I am constantly reminded
that the Senate needs to make tough choices as we strive to be fiscally
responsible, I am compelled to raise my objection to this offset. It is
my sincere hope that, in the future, this Chamber, the House of
Representatives and the administration will avoid tapping into what are
already scarce clean energy investments to pay for what are admittedly
important recession-stopping items such as the ones we approved today.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, earlier today, I voted in
favor of two motions designed to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Let
me be clear, I strongly support extending individual income tax rates.
While I voted in favor of these motions to show

[[Page S6767]]

my support for extending the tax cuts, I do not agree with the tactics
being used to advance this goal. The repeated attempts to suspend rule
XXII in order to make a motion to commit a bill back to committee are
becoming part of an ongoing dilatory effort in the Senate. These
tactics are not a serious attempt to come up with a legislative
solution but are designed only to score political points and slow the
progress of the underlying bill. The American taxpayers deserve more. I
believe that instead of looking to score points both parties should
work together on a serious effort to extend these expiring tax
provisions, not waste time with procedural distractions.

____________________