[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

     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 PRESIDING OFFICER. 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 PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I understand there is a pay-go statement 
that needs to be read into the Record. I ask that be done at this 
point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the statement.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       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.

                          ____________________