[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 144 (Monday, September 26, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5966-S5977]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM EXTENSION AND REFORM ACT OF 2011
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of the House message to accompany H.R.
2608, which the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
Motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate
amendment to H.R. 2608, an act to provide for an additional
temporary extension of programs under the Small Business Act
and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and for other
purposes, with an amendment.
Pending:
Reid motion to concur in the amendment of the House of
Representatives to the amendment of the Senate to the bill,
with Reid amendment No. 656 (to the amendment of the House to
the amendment of the Senate to the bill), to provide
continuing appropriations in fiscal year 2011 and additional
appropriations for disaster relief in fiscal years 2011 and
2012.
Reid amendment No. 657 (to amendment No. 656), to change
the enactment date.
Reid motion to refer the message of the House on the bill
to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions, Reid
amendment No. 658, to change the enactment date.
Reid amendment No. 659 (to (the instructions) amendment No.
658), of a perfecting nature.
Reid amendment No. 660 (to amendment No. 659), of a
perfecting nature.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 5:30
will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their
designees.
The Senator from Florida is recognized.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I want to comment before the
Senator from Louisiana leaves the floor. It is kind of like we have
seen this movie before. If I recall, it was Friday. The Senator from
Louisiana and I were out here with this chart talking about the same
thing, showing all of these paths of hurricanes and how those folks who
live along the gulf and the Atlantic coast understand what natural
disaster is.
We are playing with people's lives when we threaten not to fund FEMA,
[[Page S5967]]
which can respond to these. How many of these do we have to have to get
through to these decisionmakers who are blocking the funding of FEMA
because of some ideological position? There are people out there who
are hurting in Tuscaloosa, AL; in Joplin, MO, all throughout New
England, and along the Atlantic coast--and who knows what is going to
happen? Hurricane season goes until the end of November.
I want to tell the Senator from Louisiana how much I appreciate her
bringing this to our attention over and over again. We need to remind
people that there are certain things that only the government can do,
and this is one of them. When people are in need, they have to rely on
emergency functions from their government. That is one of the main
reasons of having a government. Hopefully, that message will get
through.
Mr. President, I want to speak about, basically, this budget
conundrum in which we find ourselves. In a little less than an hour, we
are going to vote on a motion to cut off debate just to get to the bill
that would continue to fund the government after this Friday so that
the government can operate.
Speaking of movies that we have seen before, didn't we see this movie
back in early August? Then it was over a different question of whether
the government could continue to pay its bills. But in essence it was
the same thing. In that case it was the lifting of the debt ceiling. In
this case it is to keep the appropriations going, starting October 1.
So if we have seen this movie before, didn't Senators and Members of
Congress go home in August? And didn't they hear from their people, and
the people said: What in the world are you all doing? What are you
thinking? Have you guys gone off the rails, that you would threaten the
shutdown of the government and all the necessary functions of the
government, which would then imperil our economy more already than it
is now imperiled in this recession?
One would think Members of Congress got that message. Yet here we are
again, in late September, after having gone through that drill in early
August. We are going through the same thing again--this brinkmanship,
this partisan ideological brinkmanship that has all the vestiges of
being all balled up in electioneering politics and a Presidential
election. That is not any way to run a country.
Let me tell you why I think--if the folks out across America will
start letting their elected representatives know they have had enough--
why we might see some change. With that cataclysmic confrontation we
went through in early August, in order to get the government to pay its
bills, we set up a structure--a process in law--where there was
immediate debt reduction of some $1 trillion, but there is supposed to
be--and I am rounding--another $1\1/2\ trillion done by this
supercommittee that is supposed to report by Thanksgiving, and then we
are to vote on it. Remember, a week and a half ago, the Presiding
Officer and I and 34 other Senators--Republicans and Democrats alike--
went to the Senate press gallery and we stood and said: We want a big
deal of deficit reduction. A lot of us were suggesting what we want is
tax reform in the process, getting rid of a lot of the clutter in the
Tax Code that is so inefficient in the way of tax preference to
individual special interests, which have grown exponentially over the
last 20 years, since the last tax reform measure, which was 1986, and
instead utilize that revenue, which would be revenue gained, to
simplify the Tax Code and lower rates. The actuaries tell us that
would, in fact, crank up the engine of growth and from that growth
would come additional revenue.
Why is that so hard? Every constituent I have talked to seems to
think that is a fairly good idea. You know what they say? They say it
sounds like common sense.
Mr. President, I see other Senators on the floor who wish to speak. I
want the Senator from New York to know I have been speaking to some of
his constituents--the titans on Wall Street--who are saying the same
thing: What in the world are you guys doing? Have you all lost your
minds?
We have an opportunity to do something. If we will have as our north
star some common sense, bipartisanship, and keeping in mind what is
good for the country and not for our particular little ideology, then
we can get something done.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. First, Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from
Florida. He knew I was waiting, and I know he cut short his remarks, so
I appreciate that. But more importantly than that, I appreciate his
insight, his articulation of our situation, and his desire to help the
people of Florida. Nobody works harder for the people of Florida than
the Senator from Florida. They know disaster just about better than
anybody else, given their geographic situation. So his fight for FEMA
dollars is a fight for every citizen of that great State of Florida,
where I must say many of my former constituents now reside, so I have a
special care about Florida as well. I thank him for both his courtesy
and his insightfulness.
FEMA runs out of money very soon. Already, recovery projects in more
than 40 States have been halted so FEMA can focus their last dollars on
responding to the latest disasters. To have FEMA not working in Joplin,
MO, where we all saw the pictures, and because of the dangers that
Hurricanes Irene and Lee created, is unheard of in this country. It is
unheard of.
The Senate has already passed the bipartisan bill to replenish FEMA's
coffers, providing $7 billion in immediate relief, not just for FEMA
but the Army Corps. I can tell you that in my State we need Army Corps
relief as well as FEMA relief because so many of our rivers have
changed course. They have flooded. I think I mentioned earlier the Erie
Canal--the locks--are no longer by the river because the storm's force
changed the course of the Mohawk, so the river is here and the locks
are here--the great historic Erie Canal. So we provided this $7
billion.
A reasonable person might say--all our constituents are saying--to
get government to work, the most logical thing to do would be quick
passage by the House so we could begin to get those dollars out the
door. Instead, House Republicans decided to take emergency disaster aid
and leverage it to force cuts to a jobs program they themselves used to
support. If there has ever been a case of playing politics, that is it.
If they don't like this jobs program, fine, fight it out in the regular
course of business, but don't hold FEMA dollars hostage to cut jobs.
The American people don't want that choice. Help those who are in the
middle of a disaster. Is the only way we can help them to cut jobs in
Michigan or Louisiana or other States, at a time when our country is
hurting for jobs? That is not America, and that is not what our
constituents have asked us to do. The jobs program they want to end,
before they are willing to provide more disaster aid, is not some
radical program. It was started under the Bush administration. It was
passed with a bipartisan majority.
I understand their anguish. We have to cut funding. But we don't have
to do it like this. We don't have to do it on the backs of the people
of Schoharie County, whose homes have been blown away, or the people of
Binghamton, who are in shelters because there is no rental housing for
them. We don't have to do it on their backs. That is not fair. If our
Republican colleagues want to have a fight over a program they used to
support but now say the circumstances have changed, fine, we should
have that. That is what we are here for. But don't hold disaster aid
hostage.
I want to say this, lest people think the Democratic stand is some
way-out-there, leftwing stand. Guess who supports us. The U.S. Chamber
of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. Because they
know what we are doing is right. Those are groups that are almost
always supporting Republican initiatives. So when they say we are
right, doesn't that send a shot across the bow to my colleagues to back
off this ideological, narrow, my-way-or-the-highway position?
Most importantly, the House Republican approach would require that we
kill 40,000 jobs in order to help our fellow Americans put their lives
and businesses back together after this year's record disasters. That
is not right, it is
[[Page S5968]]
unprecedented, and I would say it is not the way we have done things in
this country in the past.
The CR we will vote on this afternoon is a fail-safe measure. It is a
bill that will keep the government running at funding levels agreed to
by Democrats and Republicans in the debt ceiling negotiations. It is a
good-faith effort to compromise and contains the same amount of
disaster relief funding House Republicans supported.
It falls short of fully funding FEMA, as we did in the bipartisan
bill passed 2 weeks ago, with 10 Republican votes, but we are working
to meet our colleagues on the other side of the aisle in the middle in
order to break the impasse. Will they move a little to the middle to
meet us, or will they insist the only way to go is a bill that failed
in this Chamber with a bipartisan vote against it of 59 to 36? Is
Speaker Boehner saying to us a bill that fails in the Senate 59 to 36
is the only way to go, when it is so wrong and not supported by the
Chamber of Commerce; when it is pitting jobholders, and the future of
this country in terms of energy independence, against each other versus
disaster assistance? That is not fair. The only difference between our
bill and the House bill is it doesn't require the job-killing cuts the
Chamber of Commerce opposes and that our fragile economy can't afford
right now.
We know there has been a lot of pressure on the 10 Senate Republicans
who joined us 2 weeks ago to fight full disaster funding. I hope they
do not cave in to the pressure exerted by the extreme minority in the
House that demands job cuts as a precondition for disaster relief. I
would urge them not do it. If they can't resist that pressure, what is
their solution? They know the House bill is a dead letter here.
The path forward is clear. The Senate has already spoken on the
political bill sent to us by the House. We must pass this commonsense,
middle-of-the-road compromise measure that is now before the Senate. It
will provide disaster aid to hard-hit communities across the country
immediately and prevent an unnecessary government shutdown.
We shouldn't even be talking about shutdown. Why are we? Because the
other body decided to attach disaster relief to government funding. We
are not just holding jobs hostage, we are holding government funding
hostage in a my-way-or-the-highway presentation take it or leave it or
your government shuts down, take it or leave it or 40,000 people lose
their jobs. That is not fair and that is not right.
Every aspect of our plan has already received major bipartisan
support. Voting for it is the right thing to do. We must put politics
aside at a time when the economy of this country is so fragile. We must
avoid even coming close to a government shutdown. We must do what is
right for our country. And what is right for our country is to pass the
compromise measure that has had bipartisan support in the past and vote
for it on the floor of the Senate in the next half hour.
One other comment. My great colleague from Louisiana has done an
incredible job. She has been showing this, but in case people missed it
over the last hour, it is a great little cartoon. There is a nice lady
with a gray bun and little glasses talking on the telephone. There is
her TV on the roof of her house, which has, obviously, been flooded.
This cartoon is humorous, but I have seen flood levels up to this level
on house after house after house across large parts of the eastern part
of New York. She is on the phone, saying: ``Welcome to the Republican
disaster relief hot line. At the tone, please tell us the emergency and
how you plan to offset the cost of your rescue.''
When the next disaster comes and people are struggling, are we going
to have to debate how much to cut education funds? In the next
disaster, when people have experienced an earthquake, are we going to
have to debate how to help those people while we talk about how much to
cut Border Patrol funds? In the next disaster, when fires are ravaging
across Texas or New Mexico or California, are we going to debate how
much we have to cut food safety inspectors? That is not our way, and
that is why we need to support this bill which has bipartisan elements
and has been supported by Members of both parties. That bill is a
compromise bill. It is the middle-of-the-road bill that is on the floor
of the Senate.
Mr. President, I yield my time, and I thank my great colleague from
Louisiana for the great job she has done.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from New York, who has been a
strong clarion voice on this issue. He has helped to crystalize what
this is about. He is exactly right.
I want to read into the Record, as the Senator from Illinois comes to
speak, from several articles around the country that have editorialized
exactly on the position that he ended on, and it is the point of this
whole debate--whether we accept the Cantor doctrine, which requires an
offset before we send help to people who are stranded or flooded out or
in an ice storm or in the middle of a tornado or whether we have to
have Washington cut the budget first.
The central Pennsylvania newspaper said it well. They said:
It is easy to generalize and say our government spends too
much money and needs to cut all government programs. Then a
tornado wipes out Joplin, MO, or a hurricane called Irene
slams into the East Coast destroying countless homes and
lives in Vermont or a flood devastates communities in Derry
Township, Middletown and Harrisburg, PA. It is then we count
on our local, state and federal governments for help and, in
particular, for the federal government to support us with
disaster relief. We have certainly seen this year through
wind, fire and rain--the ice could be next to come--that
FEMA's financial efforts cannot be tied to some sort of
Congressional pay-by-the-disaster system.
We cannot decide with each new catastrophe where we will
find money, stripping funds from transportation this month
and education the next.
That is what this debate is about. We did not choose this fight. It
was started by Representative Eric Cantor. There was a moment in time
when he said we must offset this disaster.
Some of us stood right up and said: No, we will not.
I see the Senator from Illinois, but I sent four letters as the chair
of this committee as early as February. Please don't let anyone in the
press criticize me for waiting until the last minute. February 16,
2011, I sent a letter saying: Heads up. This is going to be a problem.
Not many people listened. Then I sent another letter in March, then I
sent another letter in May, and then I sent another letter May 11. We
are now in September. One can accuse me of a lot of things. I most
certainly make mistakes, but not being ahead of this one is not one of
them. I knew this was going to happen.
Here we are. This was not started by Harry Reid. It was not started
by Leader Durbin from Illinois. It was started when Eric Cantor said,
despite the fact that we sent $1.3 trillion to Iraq and Afghanistan to
build cities and communities and houses in Iraq and Afghanistan, we
cannot send any money to Vermont or to New Hampshire or to Virginia--
his own State, which is mind-boggling to me--until we find a program to
cut. Then they cut a program that has bipartisan support that is
creating jobs in America.
I will yield the floor. The Senator from Illinois always has some
interesting things to add to the debate, and I appreciate his support
and leadership.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me say to the Senator from Louisiana,
she has been a clarion and consistent voice on this issue because she
has seen it and lived it. Anyone representing the State of Louisiana
can give a lesson to all of us about what happens when the unexpected
occurs and people lose their homes, their businesses, their lives. They
are uprooted.
We had some folks from New Orleans in Chicago. They were leaving New
Orleans to come to one of our fabulous winters because they had nowhere
to go, and I saw the look in their eyes. They did not know where to
turn. At that moment in time, many people across America count on the
American family. That is who we are and we represent that family in the
Senate.
We stand for this country and for the families who are suffering
through no fault of their own. When the Senator from Louisiana comes
and tells us: Be
[[Page S5969]]
careful when we set a standard that says before we can send the first
dollar to someone who has lost their home or their business or their
farm or whatever we have to come back to Washington and go through a
budget debate and decide where we are going to cut--out of money for
education and medical research and the like. That is not the way it has
ever happened. Emergency spending is emergency spending.
I have lived through it--nothing like what my colleague went through
in Louisiana, but the floods of 1993 in downstate Illinois, I was in
pretty decent shape when it was over for all the sandbags I filled and
pushed around with thousands of volunteers. We saw what happened. There
were terrible things that happened, and I think the Senator from
Louisiana would agree with me that flooding is one of the worst. It
doesn't go away. It sits there destroying people's homes and everything
they own, and when it finally goes away, what a mess. Also, in the
Midwest, we have a little thing called a tornado. I grew up as a kid in
downstate Illinois listening for the siren and heading for the
basement. We did that I don't know how many times, sometimes in the
middle of the night. But look at what happened to Joplin, MO. This
beautiful town in Missouri was almost wiped off the map by a tornado.
What do we tell the people who survive the next day? Sorry, Congress
has to meet and debate and we will get back to you? Of course not. We
stand and help people--scores of volunteers, hundreds of volunteers who
come in for the Red Cross and so many other agencies and all the first
responders. Governors don't say: We will see if the Federal Government
will pay for this before we go in and help and provide lifesaving
efforts. They do it, anticipating we will stand with them.
Now Congressman Cantor of Virginia decides there should be a new
approach: We need Congress to get together and debate before we help
people who are victims of disasters.
That is a serious mistake. We have to stand by people, whether they
live in red States or blue States, whether they are Democrats,
Republicans, Independents. We stand by one another and that is
critically important.
Let me say to the Senator from Louisiana, I think the thing I noticed
over the weekend in Illinois, as I traveled around, was how fed up
people are with what is going on in Washington on Capitol Hill. When
they see us break down into another cussing match over shutting down
the Government, they say: For goodness' sake, grow up--grow up and
accept your responsibility.
We are here today accepting a grownup responsibility. The House of
Representatives is not here today. I hope they are going to send a
message to us that they found a solution or, if not, I hope they are
planning on returning this week because we have work to do.
On Saturday, the spending for the Government ends. Once again, we
face a shutdown, a shutdown which would cause unnecessary hardship to
innocent people all across America. If you think you have heard this
script before or watched this movie before, you have. This is the third
time this year the House leadership has pushed a shutdown in front of
us and said: That is it. Take it or leave it.
That is no way to run a Congress, and it is no way to run a great
nation. We need to come together and agree. I will tell everyone what
Senator Reid, the leader on the Democratic side, did to try to reach an
agreement. We had originally asked for $7 billion additional money for
FEMA for next year. I will bet we need it. But Senator Reid said: In an
effort to compromise, I will cut that request in half. We can get back
together if we need it. There was an effort in consensus and
compromise. It was totally rejected by the House. That is not a good
way to act.
I also wish to add to what the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer,
said earlier about this idea that the only way to pay for disasters is
to eliminate jobs in America. How wrong is that? To go from a natural
disaster to making our economic disaster worse? But that is what the
House wanted to do. They wanted to eliminate jobs that are created by
programs that have worked. Let me give an example.
This intelligent, fuel-efficient vehicle program has put money into
major automobile manufacturers to create more manufacturing jobs in
Illinois, where we have had more jobs, good-paying American jobs for
workers, that cannot be shipped overseas, with a good salary and good
benefits. What is wrong with that picture? Isn't that what we are
hoping for the rest of America as well?
All across the Midwest, these car manufacturers have used this
program and more than 40,000 jobs have been created and the House
Republicans have said: Let's eliminate that and pay for disasters with
it--totally upside-down thinking. We have to be thinking about helping
those in distress, and we have to be thinking about creating jobs. We
can do both.
I take no backseat when it comes to tackling the deficit and debt in
this country. I have been engaged in this debate for quite a while now
and intensely over the last year and a half. But every economist and
every clear-thinking person has said, before we start serious deficit
reduction, take care of our immediate needs--that would be the defense
of America and responding to disasters--and make certain this recession
is behind us. We cannot balance the budget with 14 million Americans
out of work. So get busy creating jobs. And we are going to. The
President has come up with a proposal which I think makes sense, giving
a payroll tax cut to working families. In my State of Illinois, where
the average family makes about $53,500 a year, President Obama's
payroll tax cut would mean an additional $1,500 a year for them, which
is going to be about $125 a month in their paychecks. I bet they can
use it as they watch the price of gasoline go up to $4.50 and go back
down and go up again. They can use it.
It also said: Let's give small businesses a tax credit and a tax
incentive to hire the unemployed. I know, we all know, creating jobs in
America has to start with small business. The Senator from Louisiana
heads up that committee. She knows it. She has been the most aggressive
spokesperson for that cause of any in the Senate.
The same is true of where we are spending our money. We should be
investing in America. In the suburbs of Chicago, in Morton Grove, IL,
at the Golf Middle School, they took me on a tour of the 60-year-old
school, and it is hard to imagine how they keep it going. They took me
down to the boiler room. I don't think too many Senators spend too much
time in boiler rooms in schools today, but I did, looking at a 60-year-
old boiler. The fellow, Jim Burke, who keeps it running, said it cost
them $180,000 last year to keep this old, antique system going. They
need a new HVAC system for the hundreds of kids going to this school.
That is an example of buying products in America, installing them in
America, and investing in America, so kids can be educated and can
succeed in America. That is a plan we all should endorse in both
political parties.
In just a few minutes, we will have a vote on the floor, and I hope
we will vote in a bipartisan fashion in a clear voice to say we are
going to stand behind the victims of disasters across America, the
American family can come together, and we are not going to cut jobs in
order to reduce the pain people feel in disasters.
We can do both, create American jobs and make certain those who are
struggling through those disasters have the help they need.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from Illinois. I continue to be
amazed at his energy, in terms of leadership and what he does in
Washington and his home State of Illinois. I appreciate the comments he
has brought to this debate.
I wish to say the vote we are going to have in a few minutes is going
to decide whether we are going to change the way we help disaster
victims. We are either going to do it the way we have pretty much
always done it--when a disaster strikes, the Federal Government steps
up; we are there. We encourage our Governors and mayors and local
elected leaders to roll up their sleeves, work side by side with
people, and take care of business, basically, get people out of harm's
way, move them into shelters, comfort them, console them, keep families
together, and then work with them in
[[Page S5970]]
weeks and months and sometimes it takes years to get these communities
back up and operating--or we are going to adopt the Republican sort of
tea party/Cantor doctrine, which is ``my way or the highway,'' which is
why we are having this debate a week before the end of the fiscal year,
which says we are going to have to find money with each new
catastrophe. We are going to have to find money by stripping money from
either education or transportation or, in this particular case,
stripping money from a program that creates private sector jobs--a
public/private partnership, a lending program that helps new and
emerging companies get the financial wherewithal to manufacture new
automobiles in America and puts Americans to work.
In fact, what is amazing about this offset that the Republicans have
chosen to have this whole debate about is, it is an offset of a program
that is supported by Republicans themselves. In fact, many Republicans
in the Senate and in the House have actually sent letters--and I am
going to read one or two of those right now--to the Secretary of Energy
asking for funding out of this exact program for creating jobs in one
State, which is a legitimate thing to do. It is done all the time.
There is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is then turning around
and coming to Washington and voting to gut this program under the guise
that we need to do so to help disaster victims.
I have a number of letters and I ask unanimous consent they be
printed at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Ms. LANDRIEU. I am going to read a letter written by the Members of
the Indiana delegation. At least three Republicans have signed this
letter: Senator Lugar from Indiana, Representative Dan Burton from
Indiana, and Representative Mike Pence from Indiana.
They wrote, on June 25:
We write today to highlight the remarkable automotive
innovation occurring in Indiana--and the tremendous potential
for Hoosiers to lead our national effort in transforming the
automotive sector. Indiana is uniquely qualified and prepared
to lead the nation and the world in the development and
commercialization of advanced battery, electric drive
vehicles and other innovative transportation technologies.
Hoosiers are committed to reaching our national goal of
reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and they are actively
researching, developing, and manufacturing technologies that
will be cleaner and create lasting jobs.
The Hoosier state is the most manufacturing-intensive state
in the union and is home to some 700 automotive related
companies which employ more than 130,000 workers. Moreover,
Indiana's broad diversity of domestic and international
companies, its long experience manufacturing light duty,
heavy duty, recreational and military vehicles, and its rich
legacy pioneering the development of the electric power train
makes the state a national hub for automatic automotive
technology development.
They go on and on. They say:
Indiana already is home to a number of established and
emerging battery and electric vehicle technology companies. .
. .
In addition, Indiana's world-class research universities
including Purdue University, Indiana University-Purdue
University Indianapolis, and the University of Notre Dame
have formed an active research and development partnership.
The letter goes on to say what a great job they are doing. ``We
strongly encourage you to give full consideration to the innovative
applications for federal investment made by Indiana companies'' through
the electric drive vehicle battery component manufacturing initiative
and the $25 billion Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan
Program. That is the exact loan program Republicans from Indiana have
written to ask funding for that they are now eliminating to pay for
disasters. If this were a program that was not working, if this were a
program that did not create jobs in America, if this were a program
that Republicans privately and publicly acknowledged was not a good
program, that would be one thing. But to run home and cut ribbons, to
say you are creating jobs in Indiana or in New York or in Illinois and
then run up here and cut the program, claiming you have to do so to
help disaster victims when it is just about unprecedented in the
history of our country, there is something terribly wrong.
We do not need to be destroying jobs; we need to be creating them. We
do not need to be making excuses about how we do not have to help
victims of disasters; we need to be helping them.
I guess I take this a little bit personally because while the rest of
the Members sort of say things like: Well, FEMA is not really running
out of money, and they can probably make it until Friday--there is some
talk about that going on. There are some technical ways that could be
done--I wish to remind everyone here that this is already an emergency
for over 400 projects that were shut down weeks ago. If you are a small
business owner who had a subcontract building a road in Alaska, it is
an emergency for you because you were shut down and you cannot make
payroll. You already bought the supplies to build the bridge, and
nobody on the Republican side is caring about your crisis.
FEMA is technically out of money as we speak. The only way they are
continuing to operate is because they have shut down these projects.
This is the third time in the last 6 years, to my knowledge, that
projects have been shut down across the country. Why is that right?
Many of those projects are in Louisiana, some of them are in
Mississippi, and some of them now are in Joplin. If you were in a
disaster that happened a few years ago, because Republicans either will
not budget the money or will not budget enough money or every time you
go to ask for a dime, they require an offset somewhere else--truly what
is happening is disaster victims in other parts of the country are
subsidizing this foolishness.
This does not fall equally on the backs of Democrats and Republicans.
I know people are tired of hearing it, but it does not. Harry Reid did
not start this fight. Mary Landrieu did not start this fight. Dick
Durbin did not start this fight. Eric Cantor of Virginia, a Republican
leader, started this fight when he said: We cannot fund the 2011
disasters without an offset.
So in this whole debate, what they have done is shut down projects in
Louisiana and Mississippi despite the fact that I have said: We don't
really need an offset. We have made arrangements in next year's budget.
It is unprecedented, Representative Cantor. Your State is going to be
hurt as well.
He doesn't seem to care. But I do care, and I do think it is worth
talking about.
I don't know if we will win this battle today. I don't know if we
will win this vote this afternoon. I am not the whip. I do not count
the votes. All I do is keep my eyes on the people who are in disasters
because I have had to for the years I have been, unfortunately, the
Senator from Louisiana who has been through the worst natural disaster
our country has ever known. I have walked through too many destroyed
neighborhoods, I have cried with too many people, and I have watched
what they go through.
For me, this is not a simple change. This is a major change which we
cannot afford in this country and which our people do not deserve. We
cannot have a budget meeting every time there is a disaster in America
and try to run up here and in 30 minutes or 2 days or a week decide
what program we are going to slash that everybody can agree to so we
can send help, whether it is to West Virginia or to Florida or to
Michigan or Louisiana. That is no way to run a government.
Now tea party people and Republicans want to bring change to
Washington. I welcome some of that change but not this. This is not a
change we need. This is not a good policy for America. I am not opposed
to change. I am adaptable. I am a centrist. I am a moderate. I can
listen to what Republicans and Democrats say, and I am proud of that.
It is a strength. I consider it a strength, not a weakness. This is not
a change I can support lightly, and that is what this fight is about.
We may be forced to change, but if we are, I want the people of America
to know this was Eric Cantor's idea. This is on the tea party agenda. I
do not think it should be on America's agenda.
[[Page S5971]]
Exhibit 1
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, June 25, 2009.
Hon. Dr. Steven Chu,
Secretary of Energy, James Forrestal Building, Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Chu: We write today to highlight the
remarkable automotive innovation occurring in Indiana--and
the tremendous potential for Hoosiers to lead our national
effort in transforming the automotive sector. Indiana is
uniquely qualified and prepared to lead the nation and the
world in the development and commercialization of advanced
battery, electric drive vehicles and other innovative
transportation technologies.
Hoosiers are committed to reaching our national goal of
reducing ow dependence on foreign oil, and they are actively
researching, developing and manufacturing technologies that
will be cleaner and create lasting jobs.
The Hoosier state is the most manufacturing intensive state
in the union and is home to some 700 automotive related
companies which employ more than 130,000 workers. Moreover,
Indiana's broad diversity of domestic and international
companies, its long experience manufacturing light duty,
heavy duty, recreational and military vehicles, and its rich
legacy pioneering the development of the electric power train
makes the state a national hub for automotive technology
development. Indiana's proven experience positions it to be
the leader in next-generation batteries and electric drive
vehicles. Hoosier companies like Delco Remy and later Delphi
were ahead of their time in producing batteries systems for
advanced technology vehicles, leading the development of the
battery system for the EVI, GM's first and only electric
vehicle.
Indiana already is home to a number of established and
emerging battery and electric vehicle technology companies.
Our state is- also a national hub for battery systems
development and testing for the defense and national security
industry with unique assets like the U.S. Navy's Naval
Surface Warfare Center Crane, which has forged strong
partnerships around energy storage technologies with several
top defense contractors across Indiana.
In addition, Indiana's world-class research universities
including Purdue University, Indiana University-Purdue
University Indianapolis and the University of Notre Dame have
formed an active research and development partnership around
next-generation battery technology and are working with a
network of industry partners to accelerate technology
transfer. These university partners are also collaborating
with Indiana's statewide community colleges to develop new
degree programs and curriculums needed to prepare the Hoosier
workforce for advanced battery technology jobs.
Most importantly, Hoosiers have committed themselves to the
goal of transforming our transportation sector. Diverse
stakeholders recognize that no one company has all the
answers and that success requires collaboration and
partnership that crosses multiple industry boundaries.
Hoosier companies have forged a number of joint partnerships
involving Fortune 500 companies, innovative start-ups anti
leading research institutions to leverage their assets and
accelerate the development of advanced battery and energy
technology solutions. Likewise, community support is
palpable, with a steady stream of interest from local
governments, schools, universities and non-government groups.
We strongly believe that Indiana is the smart choice for
investment of grants, loans and other federal support for the
research, development and commercialization of advanced
automotive technologies and fuels. In particular, several
Hoosier companies have applied for existing grants and loans
through the $2 billion Electric Drive Vehicle Battery and
Component Manufacturing Initiative and the $25 billion
Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program. As
you evaluate these proposals, we encourage you to remember
the strong multiplier effect that will come by investing in a
state already committed and with a broad base of support and
experience.
Indiana's automotive and energy technology industries are
uniquely positioned to participate in these new programs.
Their experience, technical expertise, and commitment to
collaboration would provide significant leverage for any
federal investment. Investing in Hoosier innovation will make
America safer, make our economy stronger and make our
environment cleaner.
We strongly encourage you to give full consideration to the
innovative applications for federal investment made by
Indiana companies and institutions to accelerate the
commercialization of high performance, safe, and cost
effective advanced battery technologies.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Richard G. Lugar, Evan Bayh, Dan Burton, Peter J.
Visclosky, Steve Buyer, Mark E. Souder, Mike Pence,
Baron P. Hill, Joe Donnelly, Brad Ellsworth, Andre
Carson.
____
United States Senate,
Washington, DC, February 16, 2011.
The President,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: I was pleased on August 29th, 2010 when
you spoke at Xavier University on the fifth anniversary of
Hurricane Katrina about the will to keep up the fight to
recover from that catastrophic event. During the speech, you
spoke right to the survivors of the disaster and said, ``My
administration is going to stand with you--and fight
alongside you--until the job is done. Until New Orleans is
all the way back, all the way.''
I am asking you to stand with me now. Based on the latest
estimates from the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), the Disaster Relief Fund is expected to be exhausted
in June. I understand that a minimum of $1.565 billion is
needed just to meet the costs of eligible projects for the
balance of this fiscal year. This shortfall is largely the
result of past catastrophic and major disasters, such as
Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Gustav, Ike, the Midwest floods of
2008, and the Tennessee floods of 2010.
In the absence of an emergency supplemental request from
you, the House Republican Leadership has decided to include
$1.565 billion of non-emergency funding in H.R. 1, now
pending before the House. In order to pay for this funding,
H.R. 1 reduces funding for the Coast Guard, FEMA, and State
and local first responders and emergency managers, the very
agencies that are responsible for preparing for and
responding to future disasters. It is true that in these
tough economic times, it is critical that we make disciplined
funding decisions, but it makes no sense to strip agencies of
the resources they need to prepare for future disasters in
order to pay for the costs of past disasters. We simply
cannot return to the days when FEMA could not do its job.
Therefore, I ask you to submit, without delay, a request for
emergency supplemental funding.
Without your request for the needed amount of funding, I am
concerned that history will soon repeat itself. Last year,
FEMA was forced to stop making payments for over five months
to my State and States across the Nation for recovery efforts
from past disasters. In addition to the $1.565 billion that
is necessary to continue disaster recovery this year, FEMA
estimates that $6 billion will be required in FY 2012-2014 to
pay for the recovery costs of past catastrophic disasters.
Such funding simply cannot be accommodated within the
existing budget of the Department of Homeland Security. I am
concerned that if only the amount to cover known costs for FY
2011 is requested, $1.565 billion, then FEMA and OMB will
once again have to stop making payments to States. There is
no reason for this to happen again. It is imperative that in
this and future budgets you request a sufficient amount of
funding for both the known costs of past disasters and the
estimated costs of future disasters.
In your August 29th speech, you said, ``I wanted to make
sure that the federal government was a partner--not an
obstacle--to recovery here in the Gulf Coast.''
Unfortunately, the budget process applied to the Disaster
Relief Fund is an obstacle to recovery in Louisiana and the
whole Nation. Your Administration has done a lot to help my
State of Louisiana recover. I ask for your renewed commitment
to continue that effort.
With kindest regards, I am
Sincerely,
Mary L. Landrieu,
United States Senator.
____
United States Senate,
Washington, DC, March 17, 2011.
The President,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: Based on the latest estimates from the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Disaster
Relief Fund is expected to be exhausted in June, at the very
beginning of the hurricane season. A minimum of $1.565
billion is needed just to meet the costs of eligible projects
for the balance of this fiscal year. This shortfall is
largely the result of past catastrophic and major disasters,
such as Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Gustav, and Ike, the
Midwest floods of 2008, and the Tennessee floods of 2010.
There are currently 49 States that are recovering from
major disasters that you have declared under the Robert T.
Stafford Act. All of these recovery efforts would be put on
hold if FEMA is forced to stop disaster payments. Last year,
FEMA was forced to stop such payments for five months,
delaying recovery and increasing costs across the Nation. We
should not allow history to repeat itself.
Further complicating this funding problem is the imminent
onset of the flood season. The National Weather Service is
projecting that the country is at risk of, ``moderate to
major flooding this spring'', particularly in the Midwest.
The tragic events in Japan have reminded us of the potential
consequences of a catastrophic disaster. In responding to a
catastrophic disaster such as Hurricane Katrina, the current
Disaster Relief Fund balance would be exhausted in three
days.
In the absence of an emergency supplemental request from
you, the House Republican Leadership decided to include an
additional $1.565 billion of non-emergency funding for the
Disaster Relief Fund in H.R. 1. In order to pay for this
shortfall, H.R. 1 reduces funding for the Coast Guard, FEMA,
and State and local first responders and emergency managers,
the very agencies that are responsible for preparing for and
responding to future disasters. It is true that in these
tough economic times, it is critical that we make disciplined
funding decisions, but it
[[Page S5972]]
makes no sense to strip agencies of the resources they need
to prepare for future disasters in order to pay for the costs
of past disasters. This problem only gets worse next year.
FEMA estimates the additional shortfall in FY 2012 to be $3
billion.
We simply cannot return to the days when FEMA could not do
its job. Therefore, we ask you to submit, without delay, a
request for emergency supplemental funding. H.R. 1, as it
passed the House, contains $159 billion of emergency funding
for Overseas Contingencies because the Department of Defense
cannot absorb the cost of the wars within its base budget.
Similarly, the Department of Homeland Security cannot absorb
the costs of catastrophic disasters in its base budget.
Funding shortfalls in the Disaster Relief Fund with an
emergency designation is consistent with past practice, by
Democrats and Republicans alike. Since 1992, $110 billion out
of $128 billion appropriated to the DRF has been emergency
spending, primarily for Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Gustav, and
Ike, and 9/11. In your budget estimates, you have included an
allowance for disaster costs, a responsible recognition of
the potential costs of disasters. However, absent an
emergency supplemental request, this allowance is nothing
more than an unfilled promise to communities recovering from
disasters.
We thank you for your consideration of this important
matter.
Sincerely,
Mary Landrieu, Sheldon Whitehouse, Tom Harkin, Dianne
Feinstein, Al Franken, Joe Lieberman, Barbara Boxer,
Richard Durbin, Jack Reed, Kent Conrad, Amy Klobuchar,
Frank Lautenberg, Ron Wyden, Jay Rockefeller.
____
United States Senate,
Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC, May 2, 2011.
The President,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: On February 18, 2011 and March 17,
2011, I wrote you urging that you request an emergency FY
2011 supplemental to address the shortfall in funding in the
Department of Homeland Security Disaster Relief Fund. The
$1.2 billion shortfall for FY 2011 was largely the result of
past Presidentially-designated catastrophic disasters, such
as Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Gustav, and Ike, the Midwest
floods of 2008, and the Tennessee floods of 2010.
Regrettably, no request was submitted to the Congress. The
recent tornados make this request all the more urgent
demonstrating once again that natural disasters are indeed
unpredictable, expensive, and require our compassionate and
effective response.
In the absence of an emergency supplemental funding
request, Congress had to make the difficult decision to cut
the base budget for the Department of Homeland Security by $1
billion to accommodate the shortfall in fiscal year 2011. The
only other alternative was for the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) to stop making payments for past
disaster recovery efforts when they were estimated to run out
of money in July of 2011, the beginning of the hurricane
season. Congress determined that it made no sense to compound
the pain of communities devastated by past disasters by
stopping the recovery process.
As Chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations
Subcommittee, I am now drafting the FY 2012 Homeland Security
Appropriations bill. We have scrutinized your $43.6 billion
request. With one glaring exception, I find the request to be
balanced and responsive to the many threats that this Nation
faces. Regrettably, as in FY 2011, the request does not
include any funding to address what FEMA estimated before the
most recent disaster to be a $3 billion shortfall for the
Disaster Relief Fund for FY 2012.
This past week, you told the victims of the tornados in
Alabama that you would make sure that they were not
forgotten. You made a similar promise in New Orleans on the
fifth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. These promises cannot
be fulfilled without funding for the recovery effort, efforts
that often take many years of sustained investment.
It is true that in these tough economic times, we must make
disciplined funding decisions, but it makes no sense to strip
agencies of the resources they need to deter, prepare for,
and respond to future disasters in order to pay for the costs
of past disasters. Yet without leadership from the
Administration, we were forced, in the full-year continuing
resolution, to cut funding below your request for first
responder equipment and training grants, cyber security, port
security, transit security, and aviation security. Frankly,
given the increased threat of homegrown terrorism that you
eloquently spoke of in your State of the Union Address, and
the evolving threat that Secretary Napolitano has testified
to, these cuts were neither responsible nor cost-effective.
Your FY 2012 request of $1.8 billion, which is based on a
projection of the five-year average of disaster costs
excluding catastrophic disasters, includes no funding for the
known costs of past catastrophic disasters. As a candidate,
you rightly criticized your predecessor for hiding known
costs from his budget.
I urge you to seek emergency funding for the documented $3
billion shortfall for FY 2012. As you know, it is consistent
with past practice, by Democrats and Republicans alike, to
fund Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) shortfalls with an emergency
designation. Since 1992, $110 billion out of $131 billion
appropriated to the DRF has been true emergency spending. You
include in your budget an allowance for disaster costs, which
is a responsible recognition of the potential costs of
disasters. However, absent an emergency funding request, this
allowance is nothing more than an unfilled promise to
communities recovering from disasters.
The Department of Homeland Security simply cannot absorb a
$3 billion shortfall in the proposed budget of $43.6 billion
for fiscal year 2012. Absent an emergency request, the
priorities that you have identified in your request to secure
the homeland will all regrettably be jeopardized.
Congress will begin drafting fiscal year 2012
appropriations bill this month. In the continued uncertainty
of how the Administration will address the shortfall, I fear
the House will make the same irresponsible cuts it proposed
in H.R.1, only deeper, including cuts in FEMA, the
Transportation Security Administration, United States Coast
Guard, United States Secret Service, cyber, port, and transit
security, and grants to State and local governments to equip
and train first responders. In light of the threats this
Nation faces, such cuts make no sense.
I ask that you submit an emergency funding request for the
estimated shortfall for fiscal year 2012 without delay.
Disaster victims in 49 States, including the victims of the
recent tornados that have crossed this Nation, would be
impacted if FEMA were forced to stop disaster recovery
payments next spring.
With kindest regards, I am
Sincerely,
Mary L. Landrieu,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Homeland Security.
____
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, May 11, 2011.
Hon. Barack Obama,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: As the waters of the Mississippi River
continue to rise each day, communities in the lower
Mississippi River valley are bracing for widespread flooding.
In my state of Louisiana, farms and towns along the
Mississippi and in the Atchafalaya Floodway are busy
preparing to safeguard lives and property from devastation,
and we need your help.
The U.S. Army Corps and FEMA should continue their ongoing
efforts to notify individuals of the impending risk and help
them to escape from harm. I urge you to also move swiftly to
approve the pending and anticipated requests for disaster
declarations in the affected parishes of Louisiana, While I
appreciate the emergency declarations that have already been
issued for Louisiana and other states, more help will be
needed to fight the flood waters and help communities to
recover.
Specifically, I believe that public and individual
assistance from FEMA, crop disaster, conservation, and
watershed assistance from USDA, fisheries disaster assistance
from NOAA, disaster loans from SBA, and housing vouchers and
recovery grants from HUD will be needed in some communities.
Further, I urge you to instruct all of these agencies to
perform expedited damage assessments in order to determine
eligibility for Federal assistance.
By all accounts, the Mississippi River and Tributaries
(MR&T) Project is performing as intended and critical
investments over many decades have paid huge dividends in
reducing damage. However, not all communities in the path of
these flood waters have adequate protection, and additional
system upgrades will ultimately be required. According to the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, only 88 percent of the MR&T
Project has been completed since its initiation after the
Great Flood of 1927. I call on you to join me in analyzing
these remaining needs and developing a strategy to address
them as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Mary L. Landrieu,
United States Senator.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I see the Senator from West Virginia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I think we all appreciate so much the
passion and compassion our colleague from Louisiana has for the people
of America--not just the people of Louisiana but all over America. I
thank her for taking this fight and making sure people understand what
we are fighting for. Being one of the other centrists in this body--and
I think we have a majority right now--three of us--I appreciate all of
us being in attendance.
I rise today to address the enormous frustration the American people
must feel witnessing their government and their leaders engaging in
another futile political exercise. Our government is being driven--and
I agree with the Senator from Louisiana that we are not going to shut
down over this, but it is unbelievable to get into the fuss we are in
right now, to make people believe we could come to the brink of another
when we just went through this bloody mess in August.
[[Page S5973]]
There is not a State in this great Nation that has not suffered the
terrible tragedy and cost of a natural disaster. While there are many
government programs and issues we should vigorously debate, we surely
cannot question the responsibility of government to help our
communities in their darkest moments. In the America I believe in, we
don't look the other way when a community is suffering from the pain of
a natural disaster. We stand to offer a helping hand. It is this spirit
of helping each other that has defined this Nation since its very
beginning, and we cannot let politics destroy that spirit.
Our belief in helping each other is a bedrock value for this country,
and it runs much deeper than a belief in a political party. We are
Americans, and for the sake of this great Nation I know we all love,
these petty squabbles that define this place must end. That is why we
must fund FEMA disaster relief and why I voted for a Senate bill that
would fund FEMA through the end of the fiscal year.
Yes, we all agree that funding for disaster relief should be paid for
in these most difficult times and especially now that we are looking at
these deficits we have accrued. Yes, we must save and set aside that
money. My grandfather once told me, Mr. President--and I think you can
appreciate this, being a small businessperson--you can't give someone
the shirt off your back if you don't have a shirt to give them. We have
to plan and work hard to make sure we can put ourselves in position to
help others.
Yes, we must return to the path of fiscal responsibility where we
manage our budgets wisely and put away enough money for the eventual
disasters we know will strike. In my great State of West Virginia, we
have a contingency fund. We know we are going to have floods and
challenges throughout our State, and we set aside, every budget year, X
amount of dollars, and we accumulate that to use for a crisis. We can
do the same right here in this great country of ours and in the
Nation's Capital.
It is absolutely wrong--no ifs, ands, or buts about it--to pay for
disaster relief out of funds that are creating jobs, with the potential
of creating more jobs. Are there problems with some of the programs?
Absolutely. Can we fix those programs? Absolutely. Should we eliminate
programs that cost too much and offer little return? Absolutely. But
are we so desperate to score political points that we eliminate a
program--the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program--
which is actually helping to bring jobs back to America? For the
record, that program is credited with saving or creating 39,000
American jobs, most with the Ford Motor Company, an American
manufacturer. It is something we need more of in this country. It is a
program with support from both the chamber of commerce and the National
Association of Manufacturers. In fact, Ford actually moved a hybrid
battery facility from Mexico to Michigan because of this loan program.
I can think of a lot of loan programs we should fight over, but are we
really going to defund a program that has helped bring jobs back to
America? I don't think so.
So where do we go from here? Well, of my Republican and Democratic
leaders, I respectfully ask them to consider how simple a choice we
face. We can rebuild America or we can afford to pay for it. We can
choose to fund FEMA or afford to pay for it. We can do all of this if
we face the fact that we cannot continue to go into debt and spend
billions in Afghanistan while suggesting that in order to fund FEMA, we
must cut a program that actually helps to create jobs in America.
As I have said before, we must choose between rebuilding Afghanistan
or rebuilding America. Today, we can make that choice. I, along with
many of you, choose to rebuild America. At a time when our economy is
strugglingly and our deficit is exploding, I cannot believe we in
Washington would choose to rebuild another nation at the expense of our
own. We can do better for this, and for the sake of our Nation's
future, we must to better than this. We should not engage in a
political theater that makes the false choice between funding disaster
relief or eliminating a jobs program that actually helped create
American jobs.
It is time for us to set our priorities. It is time for us to rebuild
America, not to rebuild Afghanistan or Iraq. Helping America to rebuild
during times of natural disaster must be a priority that cannot be
defined by partisanship.
In West Virginia alone, several projects worth nearly $\1/2\ million
have now been put on hold because of the bickering and squabbling that
goes on. Those projects include funding to help individuals whose
property was damaged in the severe snowstorms in 2009, flooding in
2010, as well as critical equipment that monitors waterflow in areas
prone to flooding, equipment that is vital for forecasting river levels
during our floods. This doesn't make any sense to me, and I know it
doesn't make any sense to the people of West Virginia.
I cannot believe that any American would choose to lose billions more
in waste and corruption in Afghanistan while we ignore the needs of our
neighbors here at home--our neighbors who just this year survived
tornadoes, floods, and hurricanes, and who need shelter and food.
I would like to offer the following amendment to offset the cost of
funding FEMA by eliminating $1.6 billion from programs that will fund
nation building in Afghanistan and instead direct that money to FEMA,
to programs that rebuild America.
I yield the floor.
affordable care act
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Stabenow for her work in
protecting children's dental coverage. I want to clarify any confusion
about the Finance Committee's intent when we adopted her amendment, C-
7, on pediatric dental coverage. As I understand it, her intent was to
ensure that commercial stand-alone dental plans could participate
fairly in an exchange and could also operate outside an exchange. The
Senator expressly provided that these stand-alone dental plans could
operate outside State or Federal exchanges.
Ms. STABENOW. That is correct and I thank the Senator for all his
efforts in support of children's dental coverage as well and for this
opportunity to clarify the intentions of my amendment. I offered this
amendment to allow competition in the marketplace for dental benefits
by allowing traditional stand-alone dental plans to participate both in
and outside an exchange, just like health plans that provide coverage
for medical care. The amendment ensured that stand-alone dental
policies may fulfill the requirements of the essential health benefits
package when paired with a qualified health plan covering all benefits
other than pediatric oral health services within the exchange. To quote
directly from the amendment, it indicated that ``required pediatric
dental benefits in the non-group and small group markets (in and
outside an exchange) may be separately offered and priced from other
required health benefits.''
Many American families today receive dental coverage through stand-
alone dental plans. Failure to properly implement the amendment as it
was intended could result in serious disruptions in the dental coverage
these families receive. That is why it is important that we get this
right, and I appreciate the opportunity to make this clarification.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senator for clarifying this issue.
Also Senator Stabenow and I want to thank the Chairman for working so
closely with us and a number of our colleagues to ensure that the
Affordable Care Act includes children's oral health care as part of the
essential benefits package that health insurers must offer in order to
participate in health insurance exchanges. In doing so, we fully
recognized that too many children suffer needlessly from dental
problems that are overwhelmingly preventable and that oral health is
integral to their overall health.
Ms. STABENOW. Yes, I completely agree, Senator Bingaman. In fact our
colleagues on the Finance Committee also overwhelmingly agreed that
children must have access to oral health care, which is so critical to
their overall well-being. We talked about the story of Deamonte Driver,
a 12-year-old Maryland boy who died from a brain infection caused by
tooth decay. He couldn't get access to an $80 dental procedure that
would have saved his life. When his condition got worse, he ended up
enduring two emergency surgeries, weeks of hospital care, and
[[Page S5974]]
$250,000 worth of medical bills--but it was all too late. Stories like
this remind us of the importance of dental care for children, which is
why the pediatric element of the essential health benefits package
expressly includes oral care.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Senator Stabenow, I want to be sure that we clarify any
confusion about the Finance Committee's intent when we adopted your
amendment, C-7, on pediatric dental coverage. As I understand it, the
Senator's intent was to ensure that commercial stand-alone dental plans
could participate fairly in an exchange. When we adopted the Senator's
amendment, we understood that children receiving coverage through an
exchange would have the same level of benefits and consumer
protections, including all cost sharing and affordability protections,
with respect to oral care. This holds true whether they received
pediatric oral care coverage from a stand-alone dental plan or from a
qualified health plan.
Ms. STABENOW. That is correct, Senator Bingaman, and I thank you for
this opportunity to clarify my intentions. The amendment ensured that
stand-alone dental policies may fulfill the requirements of the
essential health benefits package when paired with a qualified health
plan covering all benefits other than pediatric oral health services
within the exchange. To be clear, I intended for stand-alone dental
plans to fully comply with the same level of relevant consumer
protections that are required of qualified health plans with respect to
this essential benefit. To quote directly from my modified amendment C-
7 that was adopted in committee, ``. . . stand-alone dental plans must
be allowed to offer the required pediatric dental benefits directly and
to offer coverage through the Exchange and must comply with any
relevant consumer protections required for participation in the
Exchange.''
Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senator for clarifying this point.
Mr. BAUCUS. I wish to thank Senator Bingaman for raising this issue,
and Senator Stabenow for clarifying the intentions. I would like to
echo the Senator's comments and reiterate the importance of ensuring
that a full and affordable oral health benefit and the consumer
protections we so carefully drafted apply equally to the pediatric oral
care benefit whether offered by a stand-alone dental plan or a
qualified health plan in an exchange.
Mr. BINGAMAN: I thank Senators Baucus and Stabenow for their
assistance in clarifying this issue.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I rise today to speak against the process by
which this body is passing major legislation as we approach the end of
this fiscal year. Last week we were asked, without debate or amendment,
to pass at least a half dozen bills reauthorizing or extending expiring
laws and spending authorities--some of which authorize the expenditure
of billions of dollars over the next year.
Actions such as this are a big part of what gives Washington a
reputation for being dysfunctional. The fact that authorizations for
many programs expire on September 30 each year is not a secret. Nor is
it a secret when September 30 will come around each year. But instead
of planning ahead, working for weeks or months to address a foreseeable
need, and actually doing its work on time, Congress resorts to passing
massive bills at the last minute when there is not time for serious
scrutiny or changes.
It is unconscionable this body would avoid debating such programs in
a meaningful way. I would ask my colleagues, can you be sure these
programs are working as efficiently as possible? Can you assure the
American people the Federal Government is maximizing value for their
tax dollars? Are these bills taking meaningful steps to eliminate waste
and duplication within these programs?
We would know the answers to those questions if these bills had gone
through the normal process of consideration in committees and on the
Senate floor. Senators would have the chance to ask questions to the
officials administering the programs and propose changes to them.
Instead, we are faced with bills that have had very little--if any--
process in the Senate at a time where even a week's delay to consider
the bills will result in the programs expiring. That is unacceptable
and should be embarrassing to the Senate as an institution.
We need to change the way Congress does its business. Part of that is
reining in excessive spending and having more robust debates regarding
the allocation of scarce taxpayer dollars. We must do better in the
future.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, over the last week or so I have outlined,
here and in a letter to the Joint Select Committee on Deficit
Reduction, a seven-part plan to reduce the deficit in ways that do not
overburden American working families or damage economic growth. In my
letter and in three previous speeches on the Senate floor, I have
pointed out that revenues, and not just spending cuts, are necessary if
we are to achieve significant deficit reduction. And I have discussed
four proposals for restoring revenues: combating offshore tax havens;
ending the corporate stock option loophole; and ending loopholes for
hedge fund managers and derivatives traders.
Today I want to discuss three additional changes to our tax system
that will make it more efficient and more equitable. We should make two
tax rate changes: ending the unsustainable Bush-era tax cuts for the
wealthiest Americans, and restoring capital gains tax rates to
something approaching the rates in place under President Reagan. Also,
we should replace the IRS's antiquated tax lien system. These
proposals, combined with the other points of my plan, could reduce the
deficit on the order of $1 trillion over the next 10 years.
Now, some of my colleagues may balk at the notion of reversing years
of tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. But I believe if we take
off our ideological blinders, if we look at facts--hard, stubborn
facts--the need for these reforms is clear.
First, we should allow Bush-era tax cuts to end for those making more
than $250,000. The case for this change is straightforward: It would
restore a measure of fairness to the tax code that has been sadly
lacking for more than a decade, and it would reduce the deficit by
hundreds of billions of dollars.
Supporters of the tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 made a number of
promises. President Bush said his cuts ``will bring real and immediate
benefits to middle-income Americans.'' And yet in the decade since they
began, the incomes of middle-class Americans have stagnated. According
to the U.S. Census Bureau, the typical American household's income,
when adjusted for inflation, actually fell more than 8 percent from
2001 to 2010. President Bush said his tax cuts would increase the pace
of job creation. And yet during the Bush years, jobs grew at roughly
one-third the rate that we enjoyed during the Clinton administration.
President Bush said ``we can proceed with tax relief without fear of
budget deficits, even if the economy softens.'' And yet just those tax
cuts going to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans have added hundreds
of billions of dollars to the deficit since 2001. So, these tax cuts
have failed to deliver the promised benefits, and they have driven us
deeper and deeper into debt. Ending them will bring down the deficit;
President Obama's proposal to end the cuts for high-income earners
would reduce the deficit by an estimated $866 billion over 10 years.
What these tax cuts did deliver is a striking and continuing rise in
income inequality. It's no coincidence that as we passed a series of
tax cuts whose benefits overwhelmingly flow to the wealthiest
Americans, those wealthy individuals have seen their fortunes rise. A
few decades ago, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans took home 10
percent of all income. Today, they get 24 percent of all income. As
those at the top have prospered greatly, middle-class wages have
stagnated--again, down more than 8 percent, for the median American
household, since the Bush tax cuts took effect.
A second proposal also would bring down the deficit and bring more
fairness to the tax code: restoring capital gains tax rates closer to
those in place during the Reagan administration. Capital gains are
income from the increase in value of an asset, such as a stock. Today,
thanks to the Bush-era tax cuts, the top rate on capital gains is 15
percent. That's substantially lower than the 28 percent rate included
[[Page S5975]]
in President Reagan's Tax Reform Act of 1986.
The theory in slashing capital gains tax rates was that lower rates
would encourage investment, job creation and economic growth. But as
has been the case with slashing ordinary income tax rates for the
wealthy, cutting capital gains taxes simply has not delivered what
supporters promised. Given the stagnation in middle-class living
standards that we have seen since the 1980s, it is difficult to argue
to middle-class Americans that reducing capital gains rates made them
better off.
Instead, this is another benefit that flows overwhelmingly to the
wealthiest among us. According to the Tax Policy Center, more than 75
percent of the benefit from lower capital gains taxes goes to those
with incomes over $1 million a year, and 94 percent of the benefit to
those above $200,000.
This tax break for the most fortunate of our citizens also adds tens
of billions of dollars each year to the deficit. The Congressional
Budget Office earlier this year estimated that raising the capital
gains rate by just 2 percentage points would reduce the deficit by
about $50 billion over 10 years. Raising the top rate closer to Reagan-
era levels would bring far more deficit reduction.
Those who fight to preserve these high-income tax cuts call attempts
to end them ``class warfare.'' Ending these tax breaks won't start a
class war. It will help end one--a war that, for more than a decade,
has taken a devastating and immediate toll on the middle class, and
created huge new deficits that damage their future prospects as well.
The simple fact is that if we are to ensure that the burden of
deficit reduction falls equitably, and that all our citizens are asked
to contribute toward this goal, we must address these upper income tax
cuts that have helped balloon the deficit. Deficit reduction will
require spending cuts, and some of those cuts will fall hard on working
families. But we can't ask them to carry the entire burden. That would
be contrary to common sense, because spending cuts alone cannot achieve
real deficit reduction. And it would be contrary to any sense of
fairness. We all have to contribute.
Our constituents are speaking, and speaking loudly, on this topic.
And they are speaking eloquently. Let me tell you about an email I
received from a constituent a few weeks ago about our deficit.
This Michigan resident and her husband consider themselves upper
middle class--though she wrote that ``many would call us wealthy.'' She
wrote to me that we need to cut spending, and to compromise to do it.
``I will like some cuts and hate others and that is OK with me!'' she
wrote.
But she also wrote: ``I also strongly urge you to consider passing
what many would call tax hikes. . . . We are willing to pay a bit more
to help our country and safeguard our children's futures.'' Upper
income Americans, she wrote, ``aren't paying taxes at a fair and just
rate. Fix this.''
And we should fix it. This constituent of mine said she was part of a
``silent majority'' in favor of increasing revenue. I am not sure how
silent they are, but she is certainly part of a majority. In a recent
Washington Post-ABC News poll, 72 percent of Americans--and 54 percent
of Republicans--said they favored increasing taxes on those who make
more than $250,000 a year as part of our deficit reduction strategy.
Americans are strongly in favor of a balanced approach to deficit
reduction that protects working families. They are asking us to fight
for the middle class, and it is time we did so.
Let me discuss briefly the tax lien proposal. Tax liens are a basic
tool to collect unpaid taxes. Today, Federal law requires liens to be
filed on paper in more than 4,000 locations around the country,
determined by the location of the lien. The IRS maintains a service
center that does nothing but monitor dozens of varying local
requirements for lien filings, track filings, and release liens once
they are paid.
I have introduced legislation, S. 1390, along with Senator Begich, to
replace this antiquated system with an electronic federal tax lien
registry available to the public on the Internet at no cost. The IRS
estimates that this change would not only save millions of dollars in
administrative costs, but also enable the IRS to release liens more
quickly once they have been paid and free up employees and resources
for other work. Equally important, a public electronic registry could
help encourage those who owe taxes to settle their bills and take
enormous pressure off taxpayers who have paid what they owe.
Let me come back to where I started last week. Congress faces a
difficult task in the weeks ahead. We must agree to $1.2 trillion or
more in deficit reduction over the next decade. Failure to agree on a
plan means automatic budget cuts through the sequestration process--
including greatly damaging cuts to defense and other important Federal
programs.
In my letter to the Joint Select Committee and here on the floor, I
have outlined ways to avoid that outcome, proposing commonsense changes
that bring equity to our Tax Code and restore lost revenue. If we
reject that course, it almost certainly means damaging cuts in
important programs--programs that keep our nation safe, that keep our
faith with senior citizens and veterans, and that prepare our children
for the future. Rejecting that course almost certainly means a failure
to significantly reduce the deficit, because spending cuts alone are
not enough to accomplish the deficit reduction we need.
The choice is ours. I hope we will not allow ideology to blind us to
the reality of our budget situation, to the needs of middle-class
families, or to the strong and consistent message from Americans who
are demanding a balanced approach to reducing the deficit.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time remaining on the Democratic
side.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senator from West Virginia is
absolutely right. We have tens of billions of unspent dollars sitting
in accounts for Iraq and Afghanistan for rebuilding roads and such
there. Let's spend it in America. Let's spend it on America. It is
American tax dollars. Let's spend it on America.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Has the time arrived for the vote?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
Mr. REID. In fact, before we do that, I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that if cloture is
not invoked on the pending Reid motion to concur with an amendment, the
majority leader be recognized to withdraw the pending motion to refer
and the pending motion to concur with an amendment; that the majority
leader be recognized to offer a new motion to concur with an amendment,
the text of which is at the desk--amendment No. 665; that there be no
amendments, points of order, or motions in order to the Reid motion to
concur other than budget points of order and the applicable motions to
waive; that there be up to 10 minutes of debate equally divided between
the two leaders or their designees prior to vote a vote on adoption of
the Reid motion to concur with an amendment; further, that the Reid
motion be subject to a 60-vote affirmative threshold; that if the Reid
motion to concur with an amendment is agreed to, the Senate proceed to
the consideration of H.R. 2017 and that the majority leader be
recognized to offer an amendment, the text of which is at the desk;
that it be the only amendment in order to the bill; that the amendment
be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read the third time, and the
Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as amended, all with no
intervening action or debate; and that if the Reid motion to concur
with an amendment is not agreed to, the majority leader be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Pursuant to rule XXII, the clerk will report the motion to invoke
cloture.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
[[Page S5976]]
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 Reid motion to
concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R.
2608, with an amendment No. 656.
Harry Reid, Daniel K. Inouye, Tom Udall, Charles E.
Schumer, Richard J. Durbin, Mary L. Landrieu, Patty
Murray, Patrick J. Leahy, Richard Blumenthal, Benjamin
L. Cardin, Sheldon Whitehouse, Sherrod Brown, Maria
Cantwell, Daniel K. Akaka, Jack Reed, Debbie Stabenow,
Kay R. Hagan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent the mandatory quorum call
has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R.
2608, with an amendment No. 656, offered by the Senator from Nevada,
Mr. Reid, shall be brought to a close? The yeas and nays are mandatory
under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Ms.
Cantwell) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Webb) are necessarily
absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr),
the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Oklahoma
(Mr. Coburn), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), the Senator
from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the
Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from Alaska (Ms.
Murkowski).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn)
would have voted ``nay.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 54, nays 35, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 152 Leg.]
YEAS--54
Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Manchin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--35
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Coats
Cochran
Corker
Crapo
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kyl
Lee
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NOT VOTING--11
Burr
Cantwell
Chambliss
Coburn
Cornyn
DeMint
Hutchison
Kirk
Moran
Murkowski
Webb
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 54 and the nays are
35. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Under the previous order, I now withdraw my pending motion
to refer and motion to concur with an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motions are withdrawn.
Motion to Concur with Amendment No. 665
Mr. REID. I move to concur in the House amendment to the Senate
amendment to H.R. 2608 with an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] moves to concur in the
House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2608, with an
amendment numbered 665.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. REID. Mr. President, under the previous order, there will be now
up to 10 minutes of debate, equally divided between the two leaders.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I know everyone is in a hurry, and I will be
as fast as I can.
Tonight can best be summed up by Johnny Isakson, the Senator from
Georgia, who said: It is only worth fighting when there is something to
fight for.
We have basically resolved this issue. I wish to recognize the
leadership of Senator Landrieu. She chairs the Homeland Security
Subcommittee on Appropriations. She is our expert on disaster. She has
done a wonderful job of maintaining this in the eyes of the public.
In Friday morning's vote, we established, beyond a shadow of a doubt,
that the Senate can't pass the House-passed CR. It got 36 votes. We
couldn't pass it no matter what happens. With today's vote, Senate
Republicans are showing they will back up the House vote on the
question of offsetting spending in 2011. That is the vote we just took.
But today's news also points a way that is more understanding and
certainly a way out. Today's news story has come out saying FEMA
disaster aid has enough money to last through this fiscal year. This
afternoon, I received word from Jack Lew, of OMB, and FEMA that they
will be able to get through the week without additional funding. That
means they can get through the fiscal year without more money. I think
it is very clear this is the right way to go. It shows us the way out
and means we no longer have to fight 2011 funding.
I repeat what I said at the very beginning; that is, the way out is
to focus on 2012. If we no longer need 2011 funding, then we can pass a
bill that funds just 2012. This compromise should satisfy Republicans.
It includes their own 2012 FEMA funding number, and it should satisfy
the Democrats because it does not include the offsets we have talked
about so much. It would be a win for everyone because we could end
without another government crisis.
I appreciate Senator McConnell for being understanding and working
with us in this regard. But I end this from where I started, Senator
Johnny Isakson: Let's fight when there's something to fight about.
There is nothing to fight about tonight.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I am going to very briefly walk us
through where we have been and where we are.
After tonight's vote, I think the best path forward is clear. The
quickest and surest way to get FEMA all the disaster funds it needs and
to put an end to any talk of government shutdown would have been for
the Senate to take up and pass the House-passed CR right away.
As we know, our friends on the other side will not agree to that.
However, earlier today, as we all know, FEMA indicated it already has
the funds it needs for the duration of the current CR--which is,
basically, this week--without the billions more in funding Democrats
have been calling for.
Quite frankly, I think this is a vindication of what Republicans have
been saying all along: Before we spend the taxpayers' money, we should
have a real accounting--a real accounting--of what is actually needed.
We also believe that, in these days of huge deficits, we need to
prioritize our spending around here.
That said, with this next vote, I think the majority leader has found
a path forward, one that will continue to fund the government and which
gives FEMA the funds it needs without any added emergency spending for
the rest of this current fiscal year--in other words, this week--
emergency funds that FEMA now says it doesn't need.
So tonight we will have had, after the next vote, two votes: One to
reject deficit finance disaster spending without necessary spending
cuts elsewhere and one to keep the government operational and to
provide responsible disaster funding into November.
The CR, should it pass, will be within the top line we agreed to last
summer. We have already basically voted on this top line. It will
provide FEMA $2.65 billion in funding next fiscal year to continue the
recovery efforts. It will not contain any emergency spending for this
current fiscal year--the rest of this week. So it will drop both the
[[Page S5977]]
emergency spending and the provisions paying for that spending from the
House-passed bill.
Again, my preferred path forward would have been to pass the House
bill. But since our friends on the other side have rejected that
approach, I believe this is a compromise that is a reasonable way to
keep the government operational.
So now that we have demonstrated that there aren't enough votes to
support more on offset spending, I am going to vote, and would
encourage my colleagues to vote, in favor of the clean CR, which is the
next vote we are going to have.
In my view, this entire fire drill was completely and totally
unnecessary, but I am glad a resolution appears to be at hand.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. This, tonight, is the Johnny Isakson solution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment with an amendment
No. 665, offered by the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid).
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the
Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk),
the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from South
Carolina (Mr. DeMint), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the
Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), and the Senator from North
Carolina (Mr. Burr).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn)
would have voted ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 79, nays 12, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 153 Leg.]
YEAS--79
Akaka
Alexander
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Boozman
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Corker
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hoeven
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--12
Ayotte
Blunt
Crapo
Hatch
Heller
Inhofe
Johnson (WI)
Lee
Paul
Risch
Rubio
Toomey
NOT VOTING--9
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cornyn
DeMint
Hutchison
Kirk
Moran
Murkowski
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 79, the nays are
12. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of
this amendment, the motion to concur with an amendment is agreed to.
(The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
____________________