[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 14967-14975]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    FAA AIR TRANSPORTATION MODERNIZATION AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT

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

       House message on H.R. 1586, motion to concur in the House 
     amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 1586 with an 
     amendment, an act to modernize the air traffic control 
     system, and so forth and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid motion to concur in the amendment of the House to the 
     amendment of the Senate to the bill, with Reid (for Murray) 
     amendment No. 4567 (to the House amendment to the Senate 
     amendment to the bill), in the nature of a substitute.
       Reid amendment No. 4568 (to amendment No. 4567), 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. 4569 (the instructions on motion to refer), to 
     provide for a study.
       Reid amendment No. 4570 (to the instructions (amendment No. 
     4569), of the motion to refer), of a perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment No. 4571 (to amendment No. 4570), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, would the Chair let me know when I have 
consumed 9 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you very much.
  The Presiding Officer is a distinguished former Governor, and I am a 
former Governor. I suggested during the health care debate that anyone 
who voted for the new health care law ought to be sentenced to go home 
and serve as Governor for 8 years under the new law and try to make it 
work. People thought I was kidding. I was serious. The vote we are 
about to have this afternoon is another symptom of the same problem.
  Here is what the vote today, which is characterized as being about 
teachers and Medicaid, actually does. It is a $10 billion bailout to 
help States pay teachers, but it ties the Governors' hands so a 
Governor can't change education funding levels if their State budgets 
are in trouble, which almost every State is.
  Second, there is $16 billion for States to pay for Medicaid--the 
Federal program that is a combination of Federal money and State 
money--but, again, this ties the Governors' hands so Governors can't 
adjust the State Medicaid programs in a way that will make it possible 
for them to afford to continue to run the program. In other words, if 
you are the Governor of Tennessee, because of receiving this money or 
the stimulus money earlier, your ability to change benefits is limited 
and, in some cases, taken away.
  Third, what we are about to vote on this afternoon raises taxes by 
about $10 billion to help pay for these proposals. This $10 billion in 
permanent tax hikes is on American multinational companies. That sounds 
like: Well, let's stick it to the company. But these are companies 
which employ 22 million Americans, according to the National 
Association of Manufacturers. This makes it harder for those companies 
to continue to employ people in the United States and it gives them 
more incentive to send jobs overseas.
  Then there is the additional offset to this bill of $3 billion in 
military and veterans funding cuts and, as the Senator from Kentucky 
has pointed out, these are very broad cuts, and there is nothing to 
keep these cuts from being made from the operation and maintenance of 
the fighting men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Then the fourth problem with this vote this afternoon is it adds to 
the debt nearly $5 billion.
  The fifth problem is we are already spending--41 cents out of every 
dollar we spend today is borrowed from someone, creating a serious 
deficit problem. There is sometimes back and forth about who caused the 
problem, but the solution to a boat with a hole in it is not to shoot 
another hole in the boat and have two holes or three holes, and that is 
what we would be doing with this bill.
  We would be extending the so-called fiscal cliff in the States by 
tying the Governors' hands so they don't do what they normally would do 
in down times such as this, which is reduce spending so they can make 
their way through it. We are raising taxes on companies in a way that 
could send jobs overseas. We are adding to the debt. Those are all the 
things we are being asked to vote on this afternoon.
  One might say that is a partisan comment I am making in describing 
the situation. I don't think so. I think it is the comment of someone 
with a background as Governor of a State who has consistently struggled 
with Washington's irresistible impulse to impose on States rules from 
Washington that may not fit States.
  For example, the education money--the $10 billion--has five strings 
on it. No. 1, we have to keep spending on K-12 education at least as 
high as last year's money.
  Again, that sounds good, but if you are a State that is reducing and 
has less revenue, you have to reduce costs or you will have fiscal 
cliff after fiscal cliff. The same with Medicaid--$16 billion more for 
Medicaid but, again, with restrictions on what States can do to change 
benefits. So, as a result, Governors and legislatures that have less 
State revenues continue to increase their spending on Medicaid. But 
guess what. Not on other programs such as public colleges and 
universities.
  I am absolutely convinced the health care law and the new costs being 
tacked onto States to pay for an expansion of Medicaid is going to 
irreparably damage our public colleges and universities. It is going to 
hurt their quality because the money that should be going to colleges 
and universities is going to go to help pay for Medicaid requirements 
imposed from Washington.
  Who else is going to be hurt? The students. I am sure the students 
protesting at the University of California the over 32 percent tuition 
hikes have no idea the reason they are having the hikes is because 
Washington keeps imposing new costs on State Medicaid Programs, causing 
Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature to take money 
that otherwise most likely would have gone to the University of 
California and spend it instead on Medicaid.
  Let me give a bipartisan twist to what I just said. There was a Wall 
Street editorial, written by Richard Ravitch in January of this year. 
He is the Democratic Lieutenant Governor of New York State. This is the 
way he describes this scenario we are being asked to vote on this year:

       The Federal stimulus has provided significant budget relief 
     to the states--

  Mr. President, that was the money that was passed in the beginning of 
2009 to try to create new jobs, which apparently hasn't worked so well 
since unemployment is still very high. He says:

       But this relief is temporary and makes it harder for states 
     to cut expenditures.

  Just as this vote this afternoon will do so.

       In major areas, such as transportation, education, and 
     health care, stimulus funds come with strings attached. These 
     strings prevent states from substituting federal money for 
     state funds, require states to spend minimum amounts of their 
     own funds, and prevent states from tightening eligibility 
     standards for benefits.

  The Lieutenant Governor of New York continues:


[[Page 14968]]

       Because of these requirements, states, instead of cutting 
     spending in transportation, education, and health care, have 
     been forced to keep most of their expenditures at previous 
     levels and use federal funds only as supplements. The net 
     result is this: The federal stimulus has led states to 
     increase overall spending in these core areas, which in 
     effect has only raised the height of the cliff from which 
     state spending will fall if stimulus funds evaporate.

  If we do it again this afternoon--the same thing done with the 
stimulus fund--we will be extending this fiscal cliff for New York, 
Tennessee, and States all over the country and making it more difficult 
for them to make the cuts they need to make the innovations they need 
to make, to try the different things they need to do, so they can 
afford their education programs, so they can afford their Medicaid 
Program.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record Lieutenant 
Governor Richard Ravitch's column in the Wall Street Journal.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     [From the Wall Street Journal]

             Washington and the Fiscal Crisis of the States

                          (By Richard Ravitch)

        As one whose interest in public service stems largely from 
     the conviction that government can make a positive difference 
     in people's lives, I have found the past year a paradox. From 
     the financial crisis to health-care reform, the federal 
     government has taken on challenges that urgently need to be 
     addressed. Yet despite these actions--and sometimes because 
     of them--the states, which provide most of the services that 
     touch citizens' lives, are in their deepest crisis since the 
     Great Depression. The state crisis has become acute enough to 
     belong on the federal agenda.
       New York State faces a budget deficit that could climb to 
     $8 billion or $9 billion in fiscal year 2010-11 and the state 
     could face another deficit in 2011-12 of about $14 billion to 
     $15 billion. The causes of the larger deficits down the road 
     include a drop off in federal stimulus funds, an increase in 
     Medicaid costs, and the planned expiration of a state income 
     tax surcharge, as well as the state's underlying structural 
     deficit.
       New York is in a tough spot, but few other states are 
     immune from large and growing deficits. According to the 
     Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the states have faced 
     and will face combined budget shortfalls estimated at $350 
     billion in fiscal years 2010 and 2011. Past experience 
     suggests that these deficits will continue even if a national 
     economic recovery takes hold. Moreover, we do not know how 
     robust the recovery will be or what shape it will take. We 
     know only that it will not spare the states the necessity of 
     making acutely painful fiscal choices. New York and other 
     states face draconian cuts in public services, higher taxes, 
     or, more likely, a combination of both.
       The federal stimulus has provided significant budget relief 
     to the states, but this relief is temporary and makes it 
     harder for states to cut expenditures. In major areas such as 
     transportation, education, and health care, stimulus funds 
     come with strings attached. These strings prevent states from 
     substituting federal money for state funds, require states to 
     spend minimum amounts of their own funds, and prevent states 
     from tightening eligibility standards for benefits.
       Because of these requirements, states, instead of cutting 
     spending in transportation, education, and health care, have 
     been forced to keep most of their expenditures at previous 
     levels and use federal funds only as supplements. The net 
     result is this: The federal stimulus has led states to 
     increase overall spending in these core areas, which in 
     effect has only raised the height of the cliff from which 
     state spending will fall if stimulus funds evaporate.
       Until recently, some people predicted that the stimulus 
     funds would not evaporate--that instead the federal 
     government would rescue the states once more with another 
     stimulus bill. But the prospect of this kind of help looks 
     doubtful as an increasing number of lawmakers in Washington 
     worry about the federal deficit and seem intent on taking 
     serious steps to rein it in.
       If those steps include neglecting the fiscal situation 
     facing the states, the country could be headed for fiscal 
     problems that are larger than the ones we face now. We are in 
     a time of extraordinary economic change and Washington is 
     struggling with the sometimes-conflicting demands of the 
     federal deficit and the unemployment rate. But the states' 
     growing deficits present their own urgent national problem 
     that the federal government must place in the balance.
       Federal policy makers do not have the option of assuming 
     that the state fiscal crisis is temporary or will cure itself 
     without further involvement by Washington. This crisis 
     reflects the growing long-term pressures on the states from 
     the health-care needs of an aging population and the 
     maintenance needs of an aging infrastructure. Moreover, the 
     $3 trillion municipal bond markets have begun to notice the 
     states' deficits: Moody's recently downgraded the bond 
     ratings of Arizona and Illinois because of the deficits those 
     states face. The rating agency says it is waiting to see 
     whether New York will reduce its budget gaps and has warned 
     the state against trying to do so solely through one-time 
     actions.
       It seems almost inevitable now that the states' fiscal 
     problems will have further effects on capital markets, 
     possibly as soon as next spring and summer. If more cracks 
     appear in the capital markets that handle municipal bonds, 
     the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve will be faced with 
     an unattractive set of options: They can allow those markets 
     to deteriorate or use federal tax dollars to shore them up 
     and thereby increase the federal deficit.
       It is safe to say that one way or another events will force 
     federal policy makers to spend money in response to state 
     deficits. Federal officials shouldn't wait for an emergency 
     to begin to address two questions: Which services should the 
     federal government provide and which should the states 
     provide? And how should the costs of these services be split 
     among federal, state, and local tax bases?
       For example, Medicare, not Medicaid, is the primary payor 
     of health-care costs for the elderly and disabled. About 17% 
     of Medicare beneficiaries are low-income and, thus, also 
     receive varying levels of state Medicaid benefits. These 
     ``dual eligible'' beneficiaries account for some 40% of state 
     Medicaid spending.
       For these beneficiaries, the current system is a nightmare: 
     They disproportionately suffer from chronic diseases but must 
     navigate two separate bureaucracies and sets of rules in 
     order to receive care. For the states, this system is a 
     costly burden. From the perspective of a rational health 
     policy, the system is an anachronism. It developed when 
     Medicare did not provide income-based aid and did not have 
     income-based information about those it served. Medicare now 
     provides such aid and has the information and capacity to 
     provide these benefits more effectively, with more potential 
     for cost containment, than the current system.
       A federal takeover of services to dual eligibles would cost 
     about $70 billion per year. For many states, a share of this 
     amount would be the difference between chronic fiscal crisis 
     and a chance at structural budget balance. After the Troubled 
     Asset Relief Program and health-care reform--with the cost of 
     the latter estimated by the Congressional Budget Office at 
     almost $900 billion from now through 2019 and $1.8 trillion 
     in the 10 years from 2014 through 2023--the bill for such a 
     takeover does not seem huge or disproportionate to the relief 
     it would provide to state budgets.
       Those of us responsible for the states' budgets have the 
     unpleasant duty of imposing greater burdens on our citizens 
     before we can reach legitimate balance between revenues and 
     expenditures. It is not unreasonable for us to hope that 
     federal policy makers will treat our state deficit problems 
     with the same seriousness with which they are now preparing 
     to address the national deficit.

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Not long ago, the State of Tennessee was one of two 
winners in the race to the top in education funding. I was very proud 
of the State. This was not my doing. This was their doing--the 
teachers, the Governor, and the legislature. Both parties worked hard. 
I came to the Senate floor last week and praised President Obama and 
his Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, for their courage and vision 
on their K-12 education agenda, pushing for the holy grail of 
education, which is finding ways to award outstanding teaching and 
tying it to students' effectiveness and charter schools and higher 
standards, even common standards, and the race to the top itself, in 
terms of encouraging excellence. These are not easy things to do.
  President Obama is not the first Democrat, or even the first 
Democratic President, who has pushed these changes. But he is the first 
President of either party who may have a chance to actually get them 
done. It may just be easier for a Democratic President to do this than 
a Republican President. When he does these things, it is important for 
Republican Senators to give him credit for it. I genuinely do.
  Mr. President, it does not help for us now to come along and say, OK, 
we are going to make it harder to be the Governor of Tennessee and 
Virginia and Michigan and California and all these States because we 
are going to give them money, with more strings attached, and say when 
they take the money and spend it, they have to keep the same level of 
spending they had before. Just as Governor Ravitch says, it stops 
States from doing what they already need to do.

[[Page 14969]]

  Mr. President, I wish every State had done what Tennessee has done. 
We have a Democratic Governor, Phil Bredesen, who is completing his 
time. This is what he said in his State address in 2009:

       Please let me make it clear that no proposed version of the 
     stimulus is any panacea or silver bullet; substantial cuts 
     are still needed under any circumstances.

  He meant in the State budget.

       Furthermore, it is vital to remember that this stimulus 
     money is one-time funds.

  The Governor is saying we are going to have to cut the budget. In 
fact, our State has little debt. It has among the lowest taxes in the 
country. It has a solid pension fund that has survived this as well as 
anybody. But when we say to any Governor that here is some money, and 
here are some rules to keep you from doing what you need to do, I think 
we are doing no service there.
  I wanted to say that before we have this vote today, and to say that 
there are four or five reasons I hope we don't go forward with it. The 
first reason, both in terms of education and Medicaid, is it ties the 
Governors' hands to keep them from doing what they should be doing. The 
next reason is there is $10 billion in permanent taxes on multinational 
corporations which will make it more likely that American jobs would go 
overseas. Another reason is there is $3 billion in spending cuts in 
defense that likely could come out of the operation and maintenance 
budget of soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. The next reason is 
it adds to the debt $5 billion at a time when we don't have the money 
any more than the States do. We are spending 41 cents out of every 
dollar, which is borrowed.
  Mr. President, I am going to oppose this measure this afternoon. I 
will support efforts to rein in spending, to give States more freedom 
to do what they need to do, to try to create a more limited government, 
to try to create less debt, and to try to create an economy that can 
focus its attention for the foreseeable future on a progrowth 
environment that creates jobs in the private sector, which is the real 
challenge for our country today.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BEGICH. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaufman). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BEGICH. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         honoring alaska airmen

  Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I rise to honor four members of Alaska's 
military family who lost their lives in a tragic airplane accident in 
Anchorage last week.
  MAJ Michael Freyholtz and MAJ Aaron Malone were pilots assigned to 
the Alaska Air National Guard's 249th Airlift Squadron.
  CAPT Jeffrey Hill was a pilot assigned to Elmendorf Air Force Base's 
517th Airlift Squadron.
  And SMSgt Thomas Cicardo was a loadmaster with the Alaska Air 
National Guard's 249th Airlift Squadron.
  Last Wednesday evening, these airmen were honing their skills in a C-
17 aircraft when it went down in the woods not far from downtown 
Anchorage.
  Every Alaskan has been touched by this loss. It is a terrible tragedy 
for our State, where we consider Alaska's military installations 
extensions of our communities.
  Service members are part of our extended Alaskan family.
  Today in a large Elmendorf airplane hangar, thousands of Alaskans are 
gathering to mourn the loss of these brave airmen.
  Each of the airmen who perished on July 28th played a pivotal role in 
standing up C-17 operations and training in Alaska.
  They contributed to our Nation's defense and to the State of Alaska.
  Major Malone was a C-17 pilot on leave from Alaska Airlines, his 
place of employment, to help stand up the 249th Airlift Squadron in 
Alaska.
  Alaska was Major Malone's home State. In 2008, he transferred to the 
Alaska National Guard.
  As a highly regarded airman, he became a C-17 instructor pilot. He 
proudly served his country for more than 12 years in the Air National 
Guard.
  During his time of service, Major Malone flew the F-16 in defense of 
our airspace after 9/11, deployed to the Korean Peninsula, and flew 
missions in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring 
Freedom.
  MAJ Michael Freyholtz was a member of the Alaska Air National Guard 
since 2007, when he left active duty.
  During his time of service, he flew more than 600 hours of combat 
service in support of Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.
  He was recognized for his distinction as a pilot; he was awarded the 
Air Medal for his service.
  Originally from Minnesota, Major Freyholtz was the first non-Alaskan 
pilot to help stand up the 249th Airlift Squadron.
  A C-17 pilot since obtaining his wings from the Air Force in 2000 and 
a superior airman, he most recently flew with the Air Force 
Thunderbirds.
  According to his loved ones, CAPT Jeffrey Hill cherished being a part 
of Alaska's 3rd Wing, to which he was assigned in 2007.
  With his humor and positive attitude, he was an inspiration to his 
fellow airmen in the 517th Airlift Squadron as the Operations Flight 
commander and instructor in the tactical airlift mission.
  He encouraged his fellow airmen to stay fit. He was a mentor to his 
fellow comrades.
  A fitness buff and an outdoorsman, Captain Hill took advantage of all 
Alaska had to offer--hunting, fishing, camping and hiking.
  With over 28 years in the Armed Forces, SMSgt Thomas Cicardo was 
handpicked to be part of the initial personnel to stand up the 249th 
Airlift Squadron.
  He was a highly decorated combat veteran with more than 30 awards and 
decorations.
  His hometown was Anchorage, and he contributed greatly to the State 
of Alaska with his service.
  Sergeant Cicardo was a home-grown hero. During the 11 years he spent 
in search and rescue, he is credited with saving more than 66 lives in 
Alaska.
  Helping to stand up the 249th Airlift Squadron, SMSgt Cicado 
formulated training and evaluation functions in the squadron. Due to 
his efforts, the squadron received an outstanding rating during the 
last inspection.
  Every Alaskan is deeply saddened by the loss of these airmen. They 
are sons, they are fathers, and they are brothers. Today, I very much 
wanted to be with the families of these brave Alaskans in person. I am 
honored to offer my tribute and condolences to them and Alaska's entire 
military community on the floor of the Senate.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in a moment of silence in honor of the 
memories of Major Freyholtz, Major Malone, Captain Hill, and Senior 
Master Sergeant Cicardo.
  Let us pay tribute to their selfless service and sacrifice to our 
Nation and to Alaska.
  (Moment of silence.)
  Their service to our country and service in Alaska as Arctic Warriors 
will always be remembered.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to 
speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Stolen Intelligence Documents

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, last weekend, a Web page called 
WikiLeaks posted what they titled the ``Afghan War Diary.'' It involved 
the collection of 91,000 operational and intelligence documents about 
information that was collected in Afghanistan,

[[Page 14970]]

and it was, they said, stolen from U.S. military networks.
  These documents contain sensitive information on military tactics, 
techniques and procedures and it revealed the names of critical 
intelligence sources. Very sensitive information is now in the hands of 
adversaries, and I wish to express my outrage over this incident.
  I am sad to say, this is what is breaking right now in Newsweek: 
``Taliban Seeks Vengeance in Wake of WikiLeaks. Leaked U.S. Intel 
documents listed the names and villages of Afghan collaborators--and 
the Taliban is starting to retaliate.'' That is the headline in 
Newsweek that has just broken.
  I have the privilege of serving on the Senate Armed Services 
Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee. I can tell you what 
has happened is very disturbing, and I agree with the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, who has stated that the release of these 
documents has endangered lives--both the lives of our American service 
men and women and the lives of Afghan people who happen to give us 
important information to help us protect our Americans.
  It has been just over a week since the release of these classified 
documents, and the media reports indicate, as that Newsweek article 
indicates that has just been published, that the retaliation has begun.
  Last week, when the New York Times reported on this subject, they 
said a search of the leaked documents ``gave the names or other 
identifying features of dozens of Afghan informants, potential 
defectors and others who were cooperating with American and NATO 
troops.'' That is the New York Times article.
  Also, last week, in response to the listing of these names, a Taliban 
spokesman stated this:

       We are studying the report. . . .We will investigate 
     through our own secret service whether the people mentioned 
     are really spies working for the US. If they are . . . spies, 
     then we know how to punish them.

  Well, we have the indications that the Taliban is following through 
with their plan to punish, so-called punish. According to this Newsweek 
article, death threats have begun arriving at the homes of key tribal 
leaders in southern Afghanistan, and over the past weekend one tribal 
leader was taken from his home and executed.
  One of these death threats was shared with a reporter, and this is 
what the death threat states:

       We have made a decision for your death. You have five days 
     to leave Afghan soil. If you don't, you don't have the right 
     to complain.

  Obviously, something very serious has happened, and there are a bunch 
of us who are extremely concerned about the damage this incident has 
caused to our operations in Afghanistan and to our national security as 
a whole.
  There are a bunch of questions we have to answer. How could we have 
allowed the names of those who cooperate with us to be posted on an 
open-source Web page or was this surreptitiously taken away? Another 
question: What kind of impact will this leak have on our ability to 
gain the trust of local populations in the future?
  This security breach is absolutely astonishing, and it represents a 
systematic breakdown in our national security procedures. I simply find 
it hard to believe that somebody could have downloaded tens of 
thousands of documents from our classified military networks without 
them being detected. So it brings us back to suspecting they have been 
leaked, and if it had never appeared, would we have known they were 
stolen from our classified networks?
  Another question: How many people were actually involved in this 
incident? Do we have a way to determine whether additional documents 
have been or are being stolen in the same manner?
  These are serious questions that I am sure the Department of Defense 
is examining as we speak. I applaud Secretary Gates for taking swift 
action to aggressively investigate who was responsible. But it is just 
as important to find out how our security practices failed to prevent 
the leak and to identify what must be done to prevent another security 
breach of this magnitude. The investigation is underway. We need to 
know the scope of the investigation. We need to be informed on what 
immediate steps have to be taken to address the network security 
breach.
  When you start dealing with people's lives, you simply cannot fool 
around with this kind of laxity or someone betraying the country, and 
we have to get to the bottom of it.


                            Small Businesses

  Mr. President, I know this week we are going to be voting on the 
small business bill. My colleague from Louisiana is here, with whom I 
have had a number of colloquies on the floor. It is inexplicable to me 
how, because of procedure, Members on the other side of the aisle can 
keep voting no, not to bring up this small business assistance that so 
many political allies and political opponents all unanimously embrace.
  Once we get through with this bill--and I hope we get it passed and 
do not have to wait around until September to do it--there are other 
things we can do. I filed a bill to give our businesses all along the 
gulf an amendment to the IRS Code that would allow them to take their 
losses and to carry back those losses 5 years instead of the standard 
practice of a 2-year carryback. In essence, that would allow them in 
this particular year to take the losses, which are going to be severe 
to so many businesses, especially small businesses along the gulf, and 
to carry back and amend previous tax returns where they had an income 
tax consequence because they had income. Therefore, they could deduct 
those losses going back 5 years instead of just 2 years.
  The interesting thing about it is, the revenue consequence over 10 
years is $119 million. This is not the huge amounts we have been 
talking about in dealing with this gulf crisis of billions and billions 
of dollars. So in comparative terms, the revenue consequence is minor. 
Therefore, it is something else we can do for the people who have 
suffered so much, especially the small businesses along the gulf.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                    Small Business Lending Fund Act

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I understand we are not in any 
particular order. I wish to speak for about 15 minutes, and then I 
understand there will be leadership time prior to the vote scheduled 
for 5:45.
  I wish to take a minute to refocus the Senate on the issue we were 
debating when we left on Friday. We took some time over the weekend--
many of us worked through parts of the weekend--to see if we could try 
to bring a very important debate to a close. It looks as though, from 
conversations through the weekend and this morning with the leadership, 
we are making progress, so I am encouraged at this point. However, of 
course, until the motions are made and the votes are in, we are not 100 
percent certain. But it feels as though the debate last week really 
moved many Senators, both Democrats and Republicans, to understand how 
important it is to focus our efforts--particularly in this last week 
before we leave for the August recess--on Main Street, on small 
business, on getting directed help and support, through a variety of 
different avenues, to Main Street. That is what we spoke at great 
length about last week.
  Before I speak about a few pieces of the bill and parts of the bill, 
I would like to follow up on what my colleague from Florida, Senator 
Bill Nelson, just said regarding a provision we had hoped could have 
potentially been in this bill, but there is a possibility it could be 
included in an extenders package or some other tax bill that comes 
along either before we leave for August or when we come back in 
September.
  I most certainly support his bill and what he outlined. He said it 
clearly, but just to restate, there are businesses along the gulf coast 
that are having an extremely difficult time not just with the major 
oilspill but now with the moratorium that has been put in place. 
Regardless of how one feels about the moratorium, it is having a very 
significant negative economic impact on

[[Page 14971]]

businesses--not just big oil, which can usually find a way to take care 
of itself, but it is the smaller service companies and the machine 
operators. It is the helicopter pilots. It is the divers. It is the 
businesses that service the gulf that are having such a difficult time. 
I don't have the details here at my desk, but it is mounting every 
day--millions and millions of dollars in losses. The backdrop of this 
devastation in the gulf, of course, is the fifth anniversary of Katrina 
this August. This is August 2. The anniversary of Hurricane Katrina is 
August 29.
  So the Senator from Florida is absolutely correct. There are 
businesses reeling along the gulf coast, having just recovered from a 
terrible spat of storms, including Wilma, Katrina, Rita, Gustav, and 
Ike, and now the same area is being hit with the effects of the spill 
and the moratorium. So the Senator from Florida is absolutely correct. 
If we could provide some relief, which we have done--not routinely, but 
it is not unprecedented--as suggested by the Senator from Florida, I 
hope we can get that done.
  I made mention--it is not in the small business bill, but it is an 
amendment I had filed earlier to this bill, and unfortunately I don't 
think we will be able to get it on this bill, but we will continue to 
work on it. It is sort of a companion bill to the bill of the Senator 
from Florida, and that is to provide interest relief to gulf coast 
businesses that have outstanding business disaster loans. Again, they 
are trying to get specific, targeted help to an area of the country 
that has been extremely hard hit. They have been affected not just by 
the national recession, but they have been book-ended by the national 
recession and the slams from Katrina and Rita and now the slamming from 
the oilspill and the moratorium, and the middle part is that we got hit 
by the recession. So we just need some special help and support.
  I thank the Senator from Florida for coming down. I thank all of the 
gulf coast Senators who have been working so hard, unified, across 
party lines, to bring the kind of help and support we need for the gulf 
coast.
  That will be debated on other bills to come. But I am looking forward 
to an opportunity to offer that amendment with my good friend, the 
Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran, to again waive interest charges 
of up to $15,000 for all the outstanding business disaster loans on the 
gulf coast. That will give them a little reprieve, a little break at a 
time when they most certainly could use the reprieve and use the break. 
It only costs about $100 million. We have a way to pay for it. The 
money has actually already been set aside in another provision. We are 
going to use $100 million of a portion of money that is remaining in an 
account so that it does not add to the deficit. The Senator from 
Florida--I am not sure what his offset is, but, again, $100 million in 
the scheme of things is not an exorbitant amount of money by Washington 
standards, and we can most certainly find a way to pay for this special 
help to gulf coast businesses.
  There are many Main Streets in the gulf coast. Whether it is the 
strip, as we call it--not just Las Vegas has a strip, but we have a 
strip running down through the panhandle of Florida; whether it is 
other Main Streets in resort towns; whether it is in Alabama or in 
Mississippi; whether it is Biloxi or Gulfport or Pensacola Beach--and I 
could go on and on; whether it is the Main Street down Grand Isle or 
through Morgan City, these businesses on Main Street are hurting.
  So I have spent a good bit of time in the last week as chair of the 
Small Business Committee talking about the fact that we have seen 
significant job losses in this country from small business. This, 
again, is the monthly national employment report from Automatic Data 
Processing, so this is the government's official data: U.S. jobs lost 
by firm size for the last 2 years, from 2008 to 2010. We can see that 
81 percent of the jobs being lost are being lost by small businesses, 
and these are defined as businesses with fewer than 500 people. If one 
would do the data based on businesses with fewer than 100 people or 
fewer than 50 people, I don't know what it would show, but I would 
venture to guess that the lion's share of business loss has come from 
the smaller businesses. So it goes without saying that when we want to 
replace the jobs, the fastest way to get them replaced is to give those 
same businesses the help they need to rehire.
  If we could give those small businesses an opportunity to rehire, 
which is what this small business bill does, we might be able to have a 
job-filled recovery instead of a jobless recovery. People have called 
it that because it is showing signs of being just that. Many companies 
have been making profits. Wall Street has had a little bit of a good 
run lately. Big banks have been doing pretty well. So while the economy 
seems to stabilize, Americans, at least in my hometown of New Orleans 
and around Baton Rouge and Lafayette and Shreveport and New Iberia and 
other places, say: But Senator--and, of course, our situation is 
compounded even more than this--they say: We are losing jobs. Jobs are 
disappearing. Small businesses are laying off.
  So whether we are talking about Louisiana or Michigan or Florida or 
Maine or South Dakota or Missouri or other places, if we want to see 
jobs created, we should be focusing some time and effort on helping 
small businesses to create those jobs. There are some things small 
businesses need.
  I wish to spend a minute talking about the base of the bill again, of 
which we are very proud. This bill was built through the Small Business 
Committee and the Finance Committee.
  This is a description of the small business access to credit. The top 
item is one of the important provisions of this bill. I wish to 
stress--because several Members have come to talk to me about credit 
unions--that credit unions and banks are included in this top 
provision. Credit unions and banks can use the programs of the SBA, and 
these programs will be expanded from $200 million to $500 million--the 
7(a) Loan Program, which is basically the loans that small businesses 
make for capital and for investments. The 504 loans are traditionally 
real estate loans. Right now, they are capped at $1.5 million. We know 
lots of businesses out there that--I mean, $1.5 million sounds like a 
lot of money, but, of course, when you are in the real estate business, 
it doesn't go that far these days. So raising that to $5.5 million will 
go a long way.
  In fact, I received a letter from a businessperson in the real estate 
business, and I wish to read a paragraph about what he said over the 
weekend about real estate loans, and then I will read the other part of 
his letter later. This is Mr. Gipson, Bryan Gipson, Sr., from 
Mississippi. He said:

       Senator Landrieu: I am a commercial real estate broker. My 
     company sells hotels throughout the southeastern United 
     States. We have not completed a transaction in almost 2 
     years. There is no third party commercial financing for 
     commercial real estate in the United States today. Our 
     industry has been battered because of this. Hotels are 
     closing throughout this country. Workers are being laid off. 
     These workers make beds, they clean rooms, they work as wait 
     staff, accountants, reservationists, and front desk 
     personnel. Thousands of these hard-working Americans have 
     been laid off. It is time for Congress to do something to put 
     Americans back to work, back into jobs.

  He is actually exactly correct. That is one of the main focuses of 
this. This is a Landrieu-Snowe provision on which we got almost 
unanimous consent out of the Small Business Committee to do. We did 
this in the stimulus act that was done earlier in the year, but it 
expired. So why are we doing it again? Because it worked the last time 
we did it. The documents are in, the review is in, and it was a roaring 
success. So we know it was successful. It expired, and we are now 
making it available for the next year. We know this program will get 
loans and capital out to businesses, much like Mr. Gipson from 
Mississippi. He could potentially borrow some of this money to keep one 
or more of his hotels open.
  The small business trade and export promotion--this, again, was a 
bill from Senator Snowe and myself. Of course, we had a tremendous 
amount of input from other Senators, but we learned something very--
well, I learned something quite troubling. I didn't realize this until 
this year.

[[Page 14972]]

  I am going to get the chart to show it. Big businesses in America do 
a lot of exporting. Of course, that makes sense. They have big law 
firms. They have special tax counsel. They even have probably people 
who can do advance work in other countries to introduce them to all the 
right people. So big business has access to that. But small businesses 
don't get a lot of help from the Federal Government. They need help to 
try to open markets across the world for them.
  It is interesting to think about what the greatest potential growth 
for small business in America is. It is not just the market in the 
United States, it is the market around the world. According to 
population, not buying power, 94 percent of the market isn't even in 
the United States; 94 percent of the market is somewhere else in the 
world. So if we can help our small businesses export, which is what 
this chart shows--small business is only at 1 percent. Think about 
that. Only 1 percent of small businesses export and 42 percent of large 
businesses export. They know what these companies should know: The 
markets are elsewhere, as well as here.
  But if you have a good product, if you have the ways and the means to 
sell that product or service, there are people with a lot of money or 
with some money around the country who can buy that product. One way, 
as chair of the Small Business Committee, that I looked at 
strengthening small business just in sort of a conceptual way in 
America is if we could focus on helping them export. Look at the 
potential for growth. That is what we are looking for, potential for 
growth, because every small business that grows and one or two or three 
jobs are created and American products are sold around the world, we 
can kick this recession once and for all. Senator Snowe and I worked 
together on this export provision. Then we were joined by Senators 
Klobuchar and LeMieux, who I think both serve on the Commerce 
Committee. Commerce, besides the SBA, has a significant role to play. 
We basically enhanced our underlying provision with a Klobuchar-LeMieux 
amendment, and now we have, we think, a very strong provision to help 
businesses export. Just in a portion of it, we believe it could create 
40,000 to 50,000 jobs in the next year. This is a very important 
component.
  Small business contracting. Again, this was done by Landrieu-Crapo-
Risch, Landrieu-Snowe, and Snowe-Merkley. It was a combination of what 
we could to have the Federal Government do a better job of contracting 
with small business. The Federal Government is so big and spends so 
much money and it has such large contracts that sometimes it is hard 
for small businesses--whether it is a printer in Delaware or a small 
manufacturer in Delaware or in Louisiana--to get any Federal business. 
The Federal Government has been getting better at helping small 
business, but it has been a focus of this Committee now for several 
years. We have improved this contracting provision. We believe, just 
this provision, without spending any more Federal dollars, using those 
Federal dollars that we are spending contracting with small business 
when they get those contracts--the best thing about them is they can 
take a Federal Government contract, particularly, and go to a bank and 
say to their banker: I just got a contract to provide 50,000 apples to 
the Federal Government, and I now have a contract for 5 years to do 
that; can I borrow some money from your bank? Because Federal accounts 
are looked at as a pretty good thing to have in your hand, they will 
then lend that small apple picker that amount of money, and they can go 
ahead and hire the workers to pick the apples and deliver them to the 
Federal Government. That is the idea. This works thousands and tens of 
thousands of ways for different products and services.
  The Federal Government itself should be doing everything it can to 
help small business, and that is in our bill. Again, it is a bipartisan 
effort.
  We then went to small business management and counseling. This might 
be considered soft to some people, but I think it is extremely 
significant in this time. It is not just the women business centers and 
the minority business centers, but it is also things such as the SCORE 
chapter, which used to stand for Service Corps of Retired Executives. 
Now it is expanded beyond senior executives. It is a large nonprofit 
organization, broad-based, that reaches out to a small business that 
has seen their market evaporate or their product not being in demand 
anymore. They are good in business, but they need new and fresh ideas 
and a fresh approach.
  That is what we do behind the scenes to support them in thousands of 
places throughout this country--in universities, women business owner 
centers, nonprofit organizations that can step up and, at no charge to 
the taxpayers, say: Why don't you try this or that? We have tremendous 
stories of success. This was something Senator Snowe and I felt 
strongly about. That is in the bill.
  These were estimates that were done not by our office but by those 
responsible for making such estimates, which said that maybe 10,000 
jobs could be created. Who knows. If the counselors work hard and the 
economy starts picking up, thousands of jobs could be created because 
somebody was counseled through a difficult period, got a new idea, 
retooled their product or their shop, and they managed to survive the 
recession.
  The small business disaster loan improvements was an important issue 
to Louisiana. I am happy I was able to include this. It is important to 
Florida also and potentially Alaska, which has a lot of aquaculture. In 
the past, for some reason, these particular businesses were not given 
any ability to apply for Federal disaster assistance, so many crawfish 
farmers and fishing and other aquatic businesses were left out in the 
cold after a disaster. We noticed that after Katrina, and we fixed it. 
We are extending it and extending help to aquaculture businesses.
  Let me show this chart. This is to describe the importance of the 
small business bill, how many things it does focusing on small 
business, which is where I think the focus should be, and how 
bipartisan the underlying provisions are.
  This is something that was worked on with Senators Kerry and Snowe. 
It is the 100-percent exclusion of capital gains tax. It is 
interesting, and it came out of the Finance Committee. They said: Why 
don't we jump-start things by saying to anybody who has a little money 
or a lot: If you invest in a small business and hold that investment--
invest in any small business, I think below $50 million in capital, any 
small business--you make that investment and you hold it for 5 years--
let's say you quadruple your money--you don't pay a penny of tax on 
that capital gain. That is what I call an incentive--zero capital gains 
if you invest in a small business in America in the next period of 
time. We have a difference of opinion about what that time should be 
with the House. It will either be 6 months or a year. I am hoping for a 
year. It is a little more expensive to do it that way, but I think that 
would be a tremendous incentive to people sitting on some cash and 
looking around for what to do with it. You can invest in a good small 
business in your community. If you hold that for 5 years and make a 
quadruple--or 400 percent--return on your money, you can keep it all. 
You don't have to pay tax back to the Federal Government. We are 
serious about jump-starting small business.
  The other is to increase deductions for startup expenditures. That is 
Merkley and Alexander. It is bipartisan.
  Another one is tax equity for the self-employed. Senator Bingaman 
worked on this provision for years. He literally has led this fight, 
with Senator Durbin and others, myself included, to try to get tax 
equity for the self-employed. There are 20 million self-employed people 
in America. The vast majority of small businesses in America are self-
employed individuals. So we want to give them an opportunity to write 
off their health care costs, just like big corporations do. This is 
their No. 1 request. They have worked on it for 10 years. We couldn't 
find the money in the health care bill or any other bill, but we found 
the

[[Page 14973]]

money in this bill to do it for them. I thank the Finance Committee and 
Senator Bingaman for leading that effort and Senator Grassley as well. 
That provision is in the bill. It is a $2 billion tax cut for the self-
employed.
  Again, we have an extension of bonus depreciation. That was very 
successful in the Stimulus Act. Some people get on the floor and don't 
read the details of anything, and they want to talk about how bad the 
stimulus package was. The fact is, that is not true. There were pieces 
of it that were extremely positive and we know it because we have the 
data and it was so good we want to repeat it here. So, yes, there were 
some things in the stimulus provision that were very good. One of them 
was the bonus depreciation to small business. You can immediately write 
off 50 percent of the cost of capital expenditures for 1 additional 
year for new property purchased and placed into service by 2010. This 
is an expensive provision; it is $5.5 billion. But we know it works, 
and we believe this incentive will go a long way.
  It is a little bit of a stretch, but this came to mind and I am going 
to say it. Incentives work. Recently, in Washington, DC, the DC City 
Council passed an incentive, if you will, that when you go to the 
grocery store--which I do with my family--if you bring your own bags, 
you don't have to pay the bag charge. They just decided they don't want 
to have plastic bags floating in the Potomac. I thought it was odd when 
I first went to the store and came across that provision. I thought, 
nobody is going to pay much attention to having to pay 5 cents for a 
bag. But I can tell you, it is working. How do I know? Because I 
observe 80 percent of the people who come into the grocery store walk 
in with their own bags. For 5 cents a bag--I thought you would have to 
make the charge more than that to get people to do it. But it works out 
that a little incentive, placed in the right way, actually changes 
behavior. I am now bringing my own bags to the grocery store. When they 
ask: ``Do you want to pay 5 cents for a bag,'' I say, ``No, I have my 
own.'' So this can work. We know it works. I gave a small example. This 
is a more complicated and bigger example, but that is what we believe a 
good bill, drafted correctly, thought through carefully, can do to 
incentivize people to take actions they would not necessarily have 
taken. You are not going to pay people for doing it anyway. But if you 
can incentivize a business in the right way, they might say: I was 
going to hold off buying X, but because the Federal Government is 
giving me a 50-percent writeoff, I am going to buy it now. That is what 
we want. We want them to buy ``it'' now, because when they buy it now, 
the people making the ``it'' have to make more of them and it goes on 
and on and on.
  The small business penalty relief is a bipartisan provision, again. 
This all came out of Finance. These get down into a little bit of 
minutia, but the point is there are small incentives that can provide 
credits to businesses, and they were done in a bipartisan fashion. Here 
is Kerry and Ensign. Here is Snowe and here is Grassley. This is 
Baucus-Grassley-Brownback. Here is Inhofe-Johanns-Menendez. It has been 
a real bipartisan effort. I am proud of that.
  There are some differences of opinion about some portions of the 
bill. We have had a debate. The lending program is something that not 
everybody supports but 60 of us do. We got a strong vote on that 
lending fund. That is now added to the bill. So we have the LeMieux-
Landrieu lending fund added by 60 votes. We have Senator Nelson, and 
Senator Murray was the lead designer of this--Senators Murray and 
Cantwell.
  I am grateful for this $30 billion lending fund that will go to small 
banks, not big banks. You have to be below $10 billion. So if you are 
greater than $10 billion, go look for another program; this is not for 
you. But if you are a small bank--and most of your community banks are 
below $10 billion, so most of my banks in my State qualify, except for 
two or three. I don't know about Delaware or New York or other States, 
but I assume that would hold true. Probably 90 percent of all banks in 
every State, at least, would be eligible, but not every bank would 
because it is not for the big banks, just the smaller banks. We want 
them to get to this loan program. It is completely voluntary--
completely voluntary. If they lend to small business and increase their 
lending to small business in their neighborhood--to people they know, 
to people they trust, businesses they believe in--then they have to pay 
less money back to the Federal Government. But even doing that, we 
think the score is so significant that the Federal Government will 
actually make $1 billion. That is what the official CBO score says, 
that we will make $1 billion over 10 years.
  Then we have an anti-Medicare and Medicaid fraud provision which 
Senator LeMieux came up with. I think he has some good ideas, and we 
have structured it in such a way that we do believe we can save the 
Federal Government a significant amount of money by including this. 
That money just comes back to the Treasury for deficit prevention. We 
haven't used a score against this, so this will go to deficit 
prevention.
  Then the final part of the LeMieux-Landrieu amendment was expanding 
the export promotion. Again, this is done in a bipartisan fashion.
  I know we are getting to the 5:30 mark. I don't see anyone else on 
the Senate floor, so I will speak for just a minute or so more because 
we are going to a vote on a different subject. But I would like to just 
put up the Main Street sign again to reiterate how important this is 
for Main Street and for small business.
  I am not sure what is going to happen on the 5:45 vote which was 
supposed to be taken regarding funding for health care and education. 
But at some point right after that action at 5:45, I think the leaders 
will come to the floor of the Senate, and I hope I will hear them say 
we have reached an agreement on one, two, or three amendments on the 
small business Main Street bill so we can vote on those amendments 
either later tonight or tomorrow and then vote for final passage.
  Again, I want to thank the list of sponsors and cosponsors. I think 
we have over 70 organizations, and maybe now it is over 100--the 
National Bankers Association, the American Bankers Association, the 
Independent Bankers of America.
  So for those who say banks are not supportive, that they think it is 
like another program that is not popular, I don't believe the bankers 
would be supportive of this if they weren't for it. We have received 
very strong letters from America's Community Bankers and then the 
individual chapters, such as the chapter from Alabama, which has 
written us; the chapter from Georgia; the chapters from Illinois, 
Kansas, Ohio, and Iowa, as well as the Financial Services Roundtable, 
which is made up of some of the larger businesses. But their letter was 
very telling.
  In it they say to me: Senator, even though a lot of our specific 
members may not benefit directly from this bill, we will all benefit 
indirectly because when small business is stronger in America, big 
business is stronger in America.
  I am very happy to have received that letter. The Maine Association 
of Community Banks, Marine Retailers Association of America, Maryland 
Bankers Association--and I might say that Senator Cardin particularly, 
as a member of the Small Business Committee, has been very helpful to 
us in crafting this bill--the National Association of Manufacturers, 
the National Automobile Dealers, the National Council of Textile 
Organizations, and the National Restaurant Association, just to name a 
few.
  So from Tennessee to New York, from California to South Dakota, all 
the way down to New Mexico and Arizona, the support is very widespread, 
and let me just read a few things in closing that some of the national 
organizations have sent.
  This is from the National Small Business Association:

       Unlike last year's TARP program, the SBLF would only 
     advantage banks actually making small business loans. The 
     National

[[Page 14974]]

     Small Business Association has advocated for the creation of 
     such a fund to improve small business owners' access to 
     capital since 2009. [We] urge quick action on the proposal, 
     as America's small business owners can afford [no] further 
     delay.

  Again, from the Independent Community Bankers:

       The Nation's 8,000-strong community banks are well 
     positioned to leverage the fund and have established 
     relationships with small businesses in their communities to 
     get credit flowing. The $30 billion in capital provided by 
     the fund could be leveraged by community banks to support as 
     much as $300 billion in additional small business lending. We 
     applaud the new program focused on getting funds to Main 
     Street small businesses using Main Street community banks.

  So whether it is from the Small Business Majority, the National Small 
Business Association, or the bankers that know our small businesses 
best, the word is, pass the bill and get Main Street moving again.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest 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. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to 
refer and the cloture motion be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, as everyone here knows, we have been working 
on a small business jobs bill for the past several weeks. Republicans 
had said they would work with us to pass a bill if they were able to 
offer three amendments. Unfortunately, when I made this offer last 
week, they rejected it. During the course of the discussions, it became 
apparent they were more concerned about preventing votes on Democratic 
amendments rather than getting any votes on Republican amendments.
  In an effort to accommodate their concerns and break the impasse on 
the small business jobs bill, I decided to set up a stand-alone vote on 
education and public safety. These jobs are so important. I did that so 
we can move ahead on small business jobs. We drafted a bill that 
provided the $26 billion necessary for education jobs and public safety 
jobs, as well as the offsets to pay for that package. I offered that 
amendment late last Thursday and intended to have a vote on it today.
  Earlier today--a few hours ago, actually--CBO informed us that the 
score did not turn out as we intended. Basically, without going into a 
lot of detail, we used the same numbers the House did. Because of the 
intervening time, the numbers changed because this would not be 
completed until after we got back in September, so certain spending 
cuts did not produce the savings we needed. Therefore, I will ask 
unanimous consent to modify the amendment so it, indeed, will be budget 
neutral. I expect my Republican colleagues to object to that request. 
If they do, I will move to table the pending motion to concur and offer 
an amendment. That amendment will fund hundreds of thousands of jobs 
and will be fully paid for, according to CBO. We already have the 
signoff now. They wouldn't give us the score until today.
  This amendment should address concerns I had about the previous 
version. I am hopeful everyone here will be able to support it.
  I now move to table the motion to concur, and ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), 
the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), the Senator from Alaska 
(Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Alaska (Ms. 
Murkowski) would have voted ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 223 Leg.]

                                YEAS--95

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Goodwin
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     LeMieux
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Gregg
     Murkowski
     Vitter
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I am sorry we had to go through all this 
procedural stuff. It would have been easier just to have a consent 
agreement and we would wind up doing this anyway, but there was an 
objection to this by my friends on the other side of the aisle.
  Basically, what happened today is the Congressional Budget Office, at 
the last minute, gave us a different number. As a result, we wanted to 
make sure everything was budget neutral, and it was not. So we are 
going to offer an amendment now that will show everything budget 
neutral. That is where we are.


                Motion to Concur with Amendment No. 4575

  I move to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to 
H.R. 1586 with an amendment which is at the desk.
  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 with amendment No. 
     4575.

  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text 
of amendments.'')
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 4576 to Amendment No. 4575

  Mr. REID. I have a second-degree amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4576 to amendment No. 4575.

  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the amendment, insert the following:
       The provisions of this Act shall become effective 5 days 
     after enactment.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. I have a cloture motion on the motion to concur at the 
desk, and I ask that it be stated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the clerk will report 
the motion to invoke cloture.

[[Page 14975]]

  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 
     1586, the Aviation Safety and Investment Act of 2010, with 
     amendment No. 4575.
         Harry Reid, Patty Murray, Max Baucus, Richard J. Durbin, 
           Robert Menendez, Daniel K. Inouye, Christopher J. Dodd, 
           Carl Levin, Dianne Feinstein, Al Franken, Jack Reed, 
           Sheldon Whitehouse, Frank R. Lautenberg, Roland W. 
           Burris, Tom Harkin, Ron Wyden, Charles E. Schumer.

  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum be 
waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Motion to Refer with Amendment No. 4577

  Mr. REID. I have a motion to refer with instructions at the desk, and 
I ask that it be stated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] moves to refer the House 
     message to the Senate Committee on Appropriations with 
     instructions to report back with the following amendment No. 
     4577.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end insert the following:
       The Appropriations Committee is requested to study the 
     impact of any delay in providing funding to educators across 
     the country.

  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4578

  Mr. REID. I have an amendment to the instructions at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4578 to the instructions of 4577 of the motion to 
     refer.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end, insert the following:
       ``and include any data on the impact on local school 
     districts''

  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 4579 to Amendment No. 4578

  Mr. REID. I have a second-degree amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4579 to amendment No. 4578.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end, insert the following:
       ``and the impact on the local community''

                          ____________________