[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15084-15092]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    FAA AIR TRANSPORTATION MODERNIZATION AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT

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

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

  Pending:

       Reid motion to concur in the amendment of the House to the 
     amendment of the Senate to the bill, with Reid amendment No. 
     4575 (to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the 
     bill), in the nature of a substitute.
       Reid amendment No. 4576 (to amendment No. 4575), to change 
     the enactment date.
       Reid motion to refer the House message on the bill to the 
     Committee on Appropriations, with instructions, Reid 
     amendment No. 4577 (the instructions on motion to refer), to 
     provide for a study.
       Reid amendment No. 4578 (to the instructions (amendment No. 
     4577), of the motion to refer), of a perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment No. 4579 (to amendment No. 4578), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will now be 1 hour of debate, with the time equally divided and 
controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the Senator 
from Washington, Mrs. Murray, controlling the time of the majority.
  The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on the 
time allotted to Senator Murray, which I understand is 30 minutes of 
the hour before the vote; is that true?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is correct. Without objection, 
the Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, summer is ending and the school year is 
going to begin in a few weeks in many States. But as students prepare 
for the school year, many wonder what the school and classroom will 
look like. Parents are reading news reports about budget cuts and 
wonder how that will affect the schools their kids attend--whether art, 
music, foreign language offerings will be cut and whether some teachers 
will be gone and how many students will be crowded into one classroom. 
These worries are justified.
  The recession we are now working our way through has crippled many 
local and State budgets. In Illinois, the fiscal year 2011 budget has a 
$13 billion deficit. As a result, the Governor has proposed serious 
cuts to public education. It has been projected that, in Illinois, come 
this new school year, we will have as many as 17,000 fewer teachers. 
Our State is not alone.
  States across the country, looking to balance their budgets, are 
faced with these same hard choices. Through the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act, the stimulus package President Obama brought forward 
when he was

[[Page 15085]]

elected, we acted to save schools, and our investment worked. The State 
fiscal stabilization fund helped save or create more than 300,000 
education jobs across the country. We bought a year, in the hopes that 
this recession would have turned around. Well, it is moving in the 
right direction, but we are still suffering from many aspects of it.
  Unfortunately, the funding of that bill is expiring and State 
economies have not fully recovered and, according to recent 
projections, nearly 150,000 educators have received or will receive 
pink slips for the next school year.
  More than 80 percent of school districts across America have had to 
lay off teachers. The measure we are considering today and will vote 
upon in a little more than 45 minutes would create a $10 billion 
education jobs fund that will save more than 100,000 jobs in schools 
across America.
  The education jobs fund would save a projected 4,836 education jobs 
in my home State. That means, roughly, that we are going to save one 
out of four of the teachers who were going to lose their jobs. I wish 
it were more, but it is going to help. Adding thousands of workers to 
the unemployment rolls would be bad for our economy in Illinois, bad 
for the families of these teachers who lose their jobs, and bad for 
students. The negative effect will be felt by students for a long time.
  Chicago's public schools currently face a $600 million deficit for 
the next fiscal year. To close it, they are going to have to cut 2,700 
teachers and 300 school-based staffers. Class sizes will be increased 
to 35 students a room. Nonvarsity sports will be eliminated. Magnet and 
gifted programs will be reduced. Full-day kindergarten programs will be 
reduced. Afterschool programs will be reduced. The budget for charter 
schools will be cut by 11 percent.
  Similar hard choices are faced by school districts across Illinois 
and across the Nation. Elgin School District is planning to cut more 
than 1,000 jobs, including 732 teachers. That district faces a $44 
million deficit. The Neuqua Valley High School in Naperville may lose 
its music program. I wish to add that this is a music program that has 
won two Grammys. It is such an outstanding program in Naperville. They 
run the risk of closing.
  So the students will be hurt and families will suffer. Teachers will 
lose their jobs. How do you make up for that year of education that has 
been shortchanged? We do it by voting to help. That is what this does.
  The spending in this measure is fully offset and paid for totally. So 
any argument that is being made about this adding to the deficit, it 
doesn't. It is a conscious decision to move resources from other parts 
of the budget, where they are not as high a priority, into the priority 
of keeping teachers in the classroom.
  There is no reason to vote against this. I don't understand how my 
friends on the other side of the aisle who have argued that they are 
deficit hawks can ignore the obvious. We pay for this program. We pay 
to help these teachers. It doesn't add to the deficit. If it is your 
son or daughter or your grandson or granddaughter who is shortchanged 
one school year, does it make a difference? Of course, it does. Being 
shortchanged one school year and then another could put a child in a 
spiral decline that could affect their lives and their futures 
immeasurably.
  Secretary Arne Duncan has urged Congress to act, saying we need to 
``keep our teachers teaching, our students learning, and keep our 
economy growing.'' I agree with Secretary Duncan.
  I urge my colleagues to put politics aside; don't try to focus on who 
is going to claim a victory when it is all over--Democratic or 
Republican. The victories we want are for the kids in the classroom and 
for teachers to stay on the job. That is nonpartisan. It has nothing to 
do with political party and neither should this vote.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this effort. I particularly 
thank Senator Patty Murray from Washington who is leading our effort to 
pass this measure.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 23 minutes 54 seconds.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you. Mr. President, recently we have had the 
opportunity to consider several bills in the Senate to help ease the 
burdens for our middle-class families and small business owners that 
they are facing in this recession.
  In late June, we brought a bill to the floor that would provide key 
targeted tax breaks, including a sales tax deductibility for families 
in my home State, as well as tax breaks to end our dependence on 
foreign oil.
  In July, we introduced a Wall Street reform bill that included the 
strongest protections for consumers ever enacted and a guarantee that 
taxpayers would never be on the hook for bailing out Wall Street again.
  A few short weeks ago, we worked to extend unemployment benefits to 
help stimulate economic growth and those who are in desperate need.
  Last week, we introduced a bill that would have provided a new small 
business lending fund to help the backbone of our economy, our small 
businesses, grow and hire.
  It would have jump-started community bank lending and small 
businesses, while saving taxpayers $1 billion.
  All those bills had broad across-the-board support. In fact, outside 
the Senate, they had a lot of support. The conservative-leaning 
National Federation of Independent Business voiced their support for 
the small business lending funds.
  Hometown community bankers in my State stood to support Wall Street 
reform. Economists of all political stripes got behind the long-proven 
benefits of extending unemployment, and so many others around the 
country found common cause with the benefits of those critical bills.
  These bills would help create jobs, put money back in the pockets of 
taxpayers and small business owners and ease the difficult choices 
struggling Americans face every day.
  But at every turn in the Senate, we have been opposed by those on the 
other side of the aisle who seem to have long ago made their own choice 
about anything and everything that comes to the floor. It was a choice 
that favored politics over people, Wall Street over Main Street, and 
the status quo over the struggles our families are facing.
  It was a choice to say no, no matter what, no matter when, no matter 
who was hurt.
  I go home to Washington State every weekend and I talk to the people 
I represent. I try to explain what we are working on.
  To be honest, it is hard to understand why, when big banks and Wall 
Street were on the brink of failure and threatening to blow up our 
entire economy, Republicans immediately came together to help us step 
back from the brink then. But now that Wall Street is fine and regular 
families and communities are struggling, those same Republicans are 
nowhere to be found. I don't have an answer for our families. Quite 
honestly, I don't understand it myself.
  Today, as we prepare for a final week of votes before we go home to 
face our constituents, those on the other side of the aisle have one 
last opportunity to show this is not just a political calculation and 
that we in this Senate can put people first.
  The amendment I have offered, and which we will soon vote on, saves 
jobs and makes sure our kids are not paying the price for this 
recession. It avoids painful cuts to critical services. And, very 
importantly, it is fully paid for. For every dollar this amendment 
invests in saving teacher jobs, reducing class sizes, and avoiding cuts 
to State

[[Page 15086]]

programs, we have found targeted spending cuts.
  This amendment includes help for our States in every corner of this 
country and will help make sure that our most precious resource--our 
education system--is protected.
  Every day brings more reports about the continuing wave of layoffs 
affecting our school districts across the country. According to recent 
estimates, over 130,000 teacher jobs will be lost this fall alone. In 
my home State, there are nearly 3,000 at risk. That means 3,000 
teachers in Washington State who are right now in limbo, who are 
spending this summer not knowing if they are going to be able to return 
to a classroom or face a pink slip in the fall.
  We have to remember that every time we lose a teacher, it is not only 
the teacher and economy that suffers, it is the kids in every one of 
our States.
  I received a letter recently from a special education teacher named 
Connie Compton in Kent, WA, who told the story of recently having to 
say goodbye to a young, talented, energetic music teacher because of 
budget cutbacks. She told me how this was just one of six teachers in 
her school alone who have had to be let go.
  In her letter she talked about how it is the kids who only get one 
shot at a music class or an afterschool program or arts or sports or 
even subjects such as social studies or history who lose out.
  She also talked about whether it is through larger class sizes they 
are seeing, scaled down services, fewer subjects being offered, or even 
shortened school weeks in some of our communities, too often it is our 
most vulnerable who are paying the price for this recession.
  My amendment is a fiscally responsible way to make sure our States' 
schoolchildren and the hard-working teachers who get up every day to 
improve their lives are not the victims of struggling State budgets.
  My amendment provides $10 billion to school districts throughout the 
country to save the over 130,000 teacher jobs that are at risk, and it 
does so without adding to the deficit, and with a prohibition on the 
use of this funding for general expenses.
  It is a very targeted and responsible way to help make sure that as 
our kids head back to school, our teachers are not entering the ranks 
of the unemployed. It is also a way to make sure we are not paying a 
lot more in the long run for adults who have been failed by school 
systems with too few teachers and too many cuts to services.
  It is August. Our kids are about to go back to school. We cannot 
afford for them to go back to huge class sizes where they cannot learn, 
with fewer subjects being taught, and we certainly cannot afford to 
wait to address this very immediate problem.
  Another immediate problem facing States such as mine is the huge 
State budget hole left by Federal Medicaid payments promised to States 
but never delivered. Without this critical Federal funding, these 
States are now faced with the difficult decision of whether they slash 
thousands of jobs, raise people's taxes, or stall economic recovery.
  The amendment we are about to vote on includes a fully offset $16.1 
billion investment to help our States avoid job losses and cuts to 
Medicaid and tax increases. In my own State, it will help avoid a 
costly emergency session of our State legislature or across-the-board 
cuts to jobs and State services and health care for so many who have 
lost it when they lost their jobs. In fact, according to the Community 
Health Care Network in my State, without this extension, health care 
services for tens of thousands of people in my State will be under 
threat.
  Failure to adopt this amendment could also mean layoffs to 
corrections officers, health care workers, cuts to end-of-life care for 
low-income people, cuts to State-supported financial aid programs that 
will deny up to 5,800 full-time students in my State alone an 
opportunity to go to college and universities next year. It will 
increase the risk of a double-dip recession and result in reduced 
consumer spending at a time we can least afford it.
  Ultimately, failure to adopt this amendment will lead to more 
spending, not less, because of an increased demand for unemployment 
benefits and subsidized health care and food stamps.
  The bottom line is that without this amendment, much of the progress 
States have been making to get back on the right economic track will be 
endangered. This is no time to risk our recovery by playing politics 
with help for our hard-working families.
  This amendment that we will vote on shortly is the last best chance 
for teachers and the economic stability of so many of our States. Over 
the last several weeks, we have tried to work with the other side on 
every concern they have brought to the table, on every bill we have 
brought to the floor. We have compromised and we compromised again and 
then again. Today's amendment is another compromise. It may not include 
all we would have wanted on this side to save jobs and services in 
States across our country, but it does include enough to avoid 
jeopardizing our recovery. We have done all that we can.
  Ultimately, this is about where our priorities lie. Are our 
priorities with hard-working families who every day have to grapple 
with tough choices about how to afford the things they need? Are they 
with our home States that are faced with laying off workers or raising 
taxes? Are they with our teachers who have been left with no choice but 
to find a new job without this help? Are priorities based on political 
choices--choices guided by polling or party doctrine, choices made long 
ago to say no, no matter what?
  This amendment, which is critically important, is focused on what we 
can still do for our constituents and our States, not what we cannot or 
will not. It is about solving the big problems that are still 
threatening our recovery. And it is about showing the American people 
that when commonsense legislation does come before us, we can make 
commonsense choices.
  I urge all of our colleagues to put our families, to put our 
communities, and our States above partisan politics and work with us to 
adopt this critical amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from New 
Hampshire and I are going to engage in a discussion about the vote we 
are going to have at 10:40 a.m. But the Republican leader is on his way 
to the floor in a few minutes. When he comes, we are going to step 
aside and let him make his remarks, and then we will resume.
  The vote we are having at 10:40 a.m. has the following problems with 
it: No. 1, it is $10 billion for the State to pay for teachers. That 
sounds pretty good except that it ties the hands of the Governors and 
the legislatures so they cannot change education funding levels if 
their State budgets are in trouble.
  No. 2, there is $16 billion for States to pay for Medicaid. That 
sounds pretty good, too, except that it ties the hands of the States 
and the Governors so they cannot adjust their State Medicaid Program 
and continue to face a funding cliff.
  I heard the distinguished Senator from Washington State talk about 
college students. The reason California students are facing a 32-
percent increase in tuition is largely caused by California's expenses 
for Medicaid, the State program that is funded also by the Federal 
Government that has so many Federal rules that it keeps going up in 
cost. And the money that would be going to the University of California 
or the University of Tennessee or the University of New Hampshire 
instead goes for Medicaid. Then there is not money for the university, 
and then what happens? The tuition goes up.
  Finally, part of the way this bill is paid for is by almost $10 
billion of permanent tax increases on multinational corporations that 
would have the effect of driving jobs overseas--just one more action by 
the Democratic majority and this administration in the middle of a 
recession or a time of near 10-percent unemployment that makes it 
harder to create new jobs in the United States.

[[Page 15087]]

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New 
Hampshire and I may engage in a colloquy.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask my friend from New Hampshire, the 
senior member of the Budget Committee and a former Governor of his 
State, what about the idea of sending money to States and then 
requiring them, in effect, to spend more money at a time when most 
States are cutting State budgets so they can balance their budgets?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee, who is 
not only a former Governor but also a former Secretary of Education. 
The Senator has framed the question adequately and very accurately, and 
that is this: Why should the Federal Government be saying to the 
States: We are going to give you some money, but we are going to attach 
to this money a whole lot of strings? And the basic strings are these: 
Unless you spend a heck of a lot more money, you are not going to get 
this money.
  It does appear that it is focused on a special interest group, does 
it not, the teachers unions? It appears this is more or less a 
commitment to take care of this constituency out there at the expense, 
ironically, of a lot of people who are employed in those States.
  We use the term ``multinational corporation'' around here as if that 
is some sort of evil empire. I have a few multinational corporations in 
New Hampshire--I suspect the Senator does in Tennessee--and they employ 
people. If you raise their taxes by $10 billion, they are going to 
employ a lot less or they are going to send them overseas. We used to 
hear around here constantly about outsourcing--outsourcing jobs. This 
bill is a job outsourcer.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. The Senator is exactly right. The National Association 
of Manufacturers says there are 22 million Americans who are hired by 
companies that do business not only in the United States but overseas.
  I say to the Senator from New Hampshire, I think we want companies 
that are principally in the United States that do business overseas 
because what is the alternative? The alternative is they are in 
Singapore or they are in Great Britain or they are in other countries 
around the world and they are not in our country. They are not paying 
taxes here, and they are not hiring people here.
  I see the distinguished Senator from Kentucky has arrived. The 
Senator from New Hampshire and I are in the midst of a fascinating 
discussion, but we think we will step down while he makes his remarks.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I say to the Senators, go ahead and 
finish the fascinating discussion.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I want to get back to the essence of what 
the Senator from Tennessee is saying. It goes to this point.
  People look at this and say: Oh, my goodness, there is a whole bunch 
of money coming to this State. What is it coming for and who it is 
paying? This money does not grow on trees and gets picked up in the 
morning by trucks that drive by and drop it off. This money is taken 
from somebody else to be used for this purpose. When you go to the 
essence of what this bill is about, it is to pay off education unions. 
That is what this is about. Let's not be coy about what is happening 
around here. The education unions were the single biggest interest 
group represented at the Democratic National Convention. I think 26 
percent of the delegates at the Democratic National Convention were 
teachers, members of teachers unions. They probably were not teachers; 
they probably were administrators.
  What is happening here? A lot of States are trying to reorganize 
their budgets because they are in hard times. Most States are not able 
to print money--none are--the way the Federal Government does. So they 
actually have to be fiscally disciplined.
  What they are saying to all the different categories within their 
States is: We are going to adjust here. They are actually going through 
a very aggressive--I know it is happening in New Hampshire, I know it 
is happening in Tennessee, and I suspect it is happening in most 
States--they are going through a very aggressive process of ordering 
priorities and making tough decisions so they can get their house in 
order relative to such things as the cost of education. But that has 
upset the teachers unions.
  Now we get a bill on the floor of the Senate to basically put the 
States in a position where they will have to maintain the teachers 
union status relative to employees and actually add to it at the 
expense of the employers in those States and the people who go to work 
in those States, at the expense of the companies that are deemed 
``multinationals.''
  In New Hampshire, we have a lot of companies that are multinational. 
We are quite proud of that. We are proud of the fact we are an export-
oriented State, that a lot of our major employers--in fact, I suspect 
our top five major employers are all deemed multinationals. They are 
not going to be able to hire as many people in New Hampshire because of 
the fact that they are going to get hit with this huge tax bill, the 
purpose of which is not actually to improve the situation--the States 
are working on that--the purpose of which is to take care of a 
constituency group that happens to have a significant amount of 
influence. It is called a special interest, unless it happens to be a 
liberal group and then they are called concerned citizens or something. 
But in this case it is a special interest group, and this bill is 
nothing more than a payoff to a special interest group at the expense 
of another group who happens to employ people and have workers in New 
Hampshire.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. The Senator has been talking about education. There is 
another important part of the bill--$16 billion to Medicaid. This is 
the Federal program to which, now with the new health care law, more 
than 70 million people will belong in 2014. But here is what the bill 
also does. According to a Wall Street Journal article on May 20, 
because of this bill--and as a result of this bill, if it should pass--
States will be limited in their ability to make changes in the Medicaid 
Program to save money.
  So what does that mean?
  Mr. GREGG. If the Senator will yield for a question, is the Senator 
saying the Federal Government is going to say: If you want this money, 
you can't improve the program?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. It is not just me saying it. The Lieutenant Governor 
of New York, Richard Ravitch, wrote an article in the Wall Street 
Journal on June 7 where he said he greatly appreciated the stimulus 
money--and this is the same problem--but because of these requirements 
that prohibit Governors and legislatures from making changes in the law 
to save money, he says the net result is the Federal stimulus--and this 
bill is just the son of stimulus or the daughter of stimulus--has led 
States to increase overall spending in these core areas, to increase 
spending.
  So the point of what we are doing is to cause States to increase 
spending, said the Lieutenant Governor of New York, which in effect has 
only raised the height of the cliff from which State spending will fall 
if stimulus funds evaporate.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Would the Senator from Tennessee yield for a question?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Of course.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I was not here for the beginning of the discussion 
between the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from Tennessee, 
but I recently had an opportunity to speak to the National State 
Legislators convention, which happened to have been in my hometown of 
Louisville. Speaker Pelosi was there as well. My staff, in doing 
research and putting together my remarks, discovered that currently the 
single biggest source of revenue for State governments is to borrow 
money that is coming down from Washington. They are getting more from 
us than their sales taxes, their income taxes, and their property 
taxes. The States are simply becoming completely dependent upon us.
  As I have heard both of my colleagues point out, we are sending this

[[Page 15088]]

borrowed money down essentially so they do not have to make the tough 
decisions they would otherwise have to make. So I would ask my friends: 
When does it end? When does this dependency come to an end? I thought 
last year it was supposed to be timely, temporary, and targeted.
  Mr. GREGG. The Senator's point is very important because 41 cents of 
every dollar we are sending back to the States--and as the Senator 
says, the majority of State money is now Federal money that we are 
sending down, as the Senator outlined--is borrowed from China or from 
the Middle East. Our people are going to have to pay all this back. We 
don't have that money to be sending to the States.
  In this bill, at least there is an attempt to pay for it. But the way 
they pay for it is by penalizing job creators and forcing people to 
outsource jobs which, again, comes back to harm us for no purpose that 
seems to be practical other than to have the Federal Government step in 
and try to control the manner in which these various programs are run 
in the States and to reward constituencies who happen to be very 
supportive of the other party.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. If I may say in response to the question and comment 
from the Senator from Kentucky, this country was created by States, and 
now has created a central government of limited powers. The central 
government makes the States the wards of the central government.
  In the State of Tennessee this year--I believe for the first time--
more than half the dollars in the State budget come from the Federal 
Government. In addition to the dollars coming from Washington, the 
rules are coming from Washington. So the Governor of Kentucky or New 
Hampshire or Tennessee is trying to say: Medicaid spending is out of 
control. It is ruining our public colleges and universities because we 
have no money left for them, so we want to change the eligibility.
  That has been the case during the last 10 years. We have had Medicaid 
spending going up in the States by 70 or 80 percent over a 7- or 8-year 
period of time, and funding for public universities at a low level with 
tuitions, therefore, going way up. So the Governor is saying: Whoa, 
let's do something about Medicaid. Then we passed a bill and said to 
the Governors: Don't you change Medicaid. You are not allowed, if you 
take this money, to save any money in Medicaid.
  So spending for Medicaid goes up because we require it to go up, and 
that means tuitions in Kentucky, New Hampshire, Tennessee, California, 
and all across this country are going to be higher because of 
legislation like we are considering today.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank my friends from Tennessee and 
New Hampshire. I was going to make some opening comments, but I would 
also add that my opening comments are somewhat related to the colloquy 
my colleagues were just having about the bill we will be voting on 
shortly.
  We also heard an expression from the voters of Missouri yesterday who 
voted on a referendum on the issue of whether it is a good idea for the 
Federal Government to require individuals to retain health insurance, 
and 70 percent in Missouri, just yesterday, expressed their opposition 
to the notion. I know that is in court being litigated right now, as to 
whether it is appropriate for the Federal Government or constitutional 
for the Federal Government to require everyone to have a government-
prescribed health care policy, but we had an expression of the people 
from Missouri yesterday as well on that aspect of what the Federal 
Government has been doing in the last year and a half. I thank my 
colleagues for their enlightened comments.
  As I was just indicating, this morning's paper carried an important 
message for us in Washington--a message that many of us have been 
trying to get across for more than a year. If there was any doubt that 
Americans are tired of being told their views are irrelevant by the 
people they elected to represent them in Washington, last night's vote 
in Missouri should dispel it.
  All throughout the health care debate, Democratic leaders in 
Washington told themselves they could do what they wanted and then 
persuade Americans after the fact that it was OK. Last night, the 
voters in Missouri overwhelmingly rejected that notion. The people of 
Missouri have sent a message to Washington: Enough is enough.
  They rejected the apparent belief by the current administration and 
Democratic leaders in Congress that they know best--that distant 
bureaucrats and lawmakers inside the beltway have a better grasp of 
what ails people in places such as St. Louis than they do, and that 
lawmakers here have a right to impose their prescriptions on the people 
out there whether those people like it or not.
  More specifically, the voters of Missouri sent a clear message that 
the Federal Government has no business forcing people to buy health 
insurance against their will. I applaud them for it. Throughout the 
health care debate, Republicans heard the concerns of our constituents 
and insisted on the kind of commonsense solutions they were asking 
for--solutions that would actually do something to lower the cost of 
care. Democrats preferred to do their own thing.
  They said: Let's raise taxes and cut Medicare to expand government 
and then try to convince people it is in their best interest.
  Well, the voters of Missouri showed us last night that Americans will 
not allow this blatant power grab to stand without a fight. They don't 
think bureaucrats in Washington have a right to force them to buy 
government-designed health insurance, and they don't think States 
should be forced to put millions of new people into Medicaid--as our 
colleagues from New Hampshire and Tennessee were just discussing--any 
more than they think we should bail out the States again this week with 
billions more in spending at a time when neither we nor the States can 
afford it.
  Washington needs to take care of its own fiscal mess, not deepen it 
by bailing out the States. We need to start listening to the concerns 
of the American people rather than trying to force them to go along 
with far-reaching laws they do not want, either through unpopular 
legislation or misleading PR campaigns like the one we saw earlier this 
week in which the administration sought to convince seniors their 
health care plan wouldn't do what we all know it will do.
  Americans weren't kidding when they said they opposed the health care 
bill, and they are not going away. This is just the beginning. Some of 
us have been saying it for more than a year. The American people will 
be heard. Whether it is the failed stimulus, the health care bill, or 
the financial regulatory bill, Americans are more intent than ever on 
reversing the trend of centralizing more and more power in Washington. 
They are alarmed at the fact the Federal Government is now, for the 
first time in our history, the single largest source of revenue for the 
States. For the first time in our history, the Federal Government is 
the single largest source of revenue for the States. They know that 
with more power in Washington comes less accountability, and they are 
fighting back.
  The lesson is clear: Americans expect the people they elect to put 
their interests and the interests of the country first. It is time to 
follow through on the kinds of changes Americans actually want to see. 
It is about solving the crisis in front of us instead of using them to 
force a vision of America that Americans don't share.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire is 
recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Is the Senator from Washington ready? May I go forward on 
a point of order?
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate is not in a quorum call.

[[Page 15089]]


  Mr. GREGG. I thought I put us into a quorum call.
  Mr. President, at this time I intend to make a point of order. 
Actually, there are two points of order pending against this bill 
dealing with the budget. The budget is violated. It is not my budget--I 
didn't vote for the budget. The Democratic budget is violated two times 
by this bill.
  I am not going to make both because it would be redundant to have a 
vote on both. It wouldn't be redundant, actually. There are two 
different points of order, and they are both fairly significant. So I 
will just make one because I do think we should be on record.
  If this Congress is going to pass a budget, which it did in the last 
session--it has not done one in this session; it should--we should 
maintain the discipline of that budget. That is why we did the budget. 
And it is not my budget; it is your budget. So I am just suggesting 
that you follow your budget, if you are Members of the Democratic 
Party.
  So with that point, I would make a point of order that section 404(a) 
of the 2010 budget resolution makes it out of order to consider 
legislation that increases the deficit by more than $10 billion in the 
Senate for any fiscal year covered by the most recently agreed to 
congressional budget resolution, S. Con. Res. 13.
  The pending amendment would increase the short-term deficit in excess 
of $10 billion in the following year: 2011. Therefore, I raise a point 
of order under section 404(a) of S. Con. Res. 13 against the pending 
amendment.
  I would note that this exceeds the budget resolution by, I believe, 
about $10 billion. That is how much it is out of kilter relative to 
what we said we would spend.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable budget 
order, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second? There 
appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There remains 12 minutes 39 seconds 
on the majority side and 12 minutes 53 seconds on the minority side.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we have several Senators coming to the 
floor, if the Senator from New Hampshire wishes to continue speaking at 
this time.
  Mr. President, I will make a few comments then. We do have several 
Senators on their way at this time.
  I listened with interest to our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle come to oppose the amendment that is being offered, and it is 
surprising to me because, as everyone knows, we are in a very tough 
economic recovery right now. All of our States, all of our communities, 
all of our families are struggling to get back on their feet. We have 
been working for some time now to help get our economy back on track.
  As I outlined earlier, we have come forward to the Senate floor a 
number of times with small business bills and other bills to try to 
move the economy forward, and we have been blocked every time.
  On this amendment, where we have been trying to make sure that 
130,000 teachers are not lost--and it is not about the teachers unions; 
it is about kids in the classroom. This is about the future of the 
United States of America. Are we going to punish these students and 
give them less of an education because of the economic time they happen 
to be in in the first grade or the fifth grade or the eighth grade? 
That doesn't make sense to me as a mom or as a former teacher or as a 
Senator. This is about making sure our kids are not hurt in this tough 
economic recession. It is at a time when the States are struggling with 
their budgets, and it is at a time when we have told them we are trying 
to help them fill the gap, a gap they have in Medicaid spending.
  We went to our colleagues. They blocked the bills when we brought 
them because they said they were too big. We made them smaller. They 
said they were not paid for. We went back and worked hard and brought 
pay-fors now. Yet with all of this compromise, our Republican 
colleagues have come to the floor today to say that now they have a new 
idea why they are opposing it--that we have not allowed States to have 
flexibility within their funding.
  I remind all of us that Medicaid funding for a lengthy amount of time 
has had strings attached. I would suggest to all of our colleagues that 
if we just had open-ended funding out to our States, we would not be 
hearing: Oh, you are sending money to States with strings attached; we 
would be hearing the opposite: Oh, you are sending our States money 
without any strings attached.
  So I say enough is enough with the politics. Enough is enough with 
finding excuses. This is about people in our States who are struggling 
today to get back on their feet. This is a basic measure that we can 
pass, fully paid for, at a time when our States--not just our States 
but our children, our families, and our communities need it the most.
  I urge our colleagues to work with us, to do what a legislative body 
does. When you compromise and you compromise and you compromise and you 
have reached an agreement that makes a difference for people, let's 
move it forward and start to help our families get back on their feet. 
That is what this amendment is about, and I hope we get to the 60 votes 
and then can move, before we all go home for an August recess, to make 
sure people are breathing a little bit easier--the kids who are going 
to go off to school and the parents who are worried they are not 
getting the right kind of education; in our States, the many 
communities of people who are worried, who are in poverty, who are 
going to lose their health care; state employees who work in our jails 
or provide very important functions for our States that we count on. 
They are invisible. We don't see them all the time. But they make sure 
our lives are safe, that we can go to work and be cared for. That is 
what this amendment provides our States with the ability to do.
  We all want our economy back on track. We all wish we were not here 
having to do this. But we are naive if we think our States are at a 
point where this Federal Government, our United States, can start 
ignoring them. That is what this amendment is about, and I urge our 
colleagues to vote yes.
  I see my colleague from New York has arrived, and I yield him the 
remainder of the time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New York is 
recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I very much thank my colleague from 
Washington, who has been such a leader on this issue and on so many 
issues involving our economy, jobs, and the middle class. I thank her 
for her leadership on this issue as on so many others.
  Today, I rise in ardent support of the legislation before us. Let me 
be clear. This critical funding bill is about one thing and one thing 
only; that is, saving American jobs. Congress should be focused like a 
laser on fighting unemployment and getting the economy humming on all 
cylinders again. This bill is part of that ongoing effort.
  Our economy is starting to show signs of life again, but we have a 
long, long way to go. We are on the road to recovery, but it is a rocky 
and uncertain one. Too many American families are still suffering from 
the immeasurable hardship and heartache wrought by the worst recession 
since the 1930s. We all know the unemployment rate is unacceptably 
high. What we cannot forget is that high unemployment is not a blue 
State problem or a red State problem; it is a national problem, and it 
demands immediate bipartisan attention. If there is only one issue on 
which we can find common ground this year, it should be jobs. Yet the 
minority party has blocked this bill at every turn.
  There is no doubt about it, if we fail to pass this bill, hundreds of 
thousands of teachers and firefighters will lose their jobs. 
Nationwide, 140,000 teachers

[[Page 15090]]

will be kicked out of the classroom if this bill does not become law. 
In my home State of New York, there are 7,100 teacher jobs on the line. 
From Watertown to Buffalo, from Oneida to Queens, every school district 
will have to make painful cuts. Will those cuts hurt only the teachers? 
Of course not. Our kids--their education is our future. They will have 
vital programs cut, their education will decrease, and we all know that 
a child who loses something in the third grade or the sixth grade or 
the ninth grade doesn't gain it back. How can you look a kid in the eye 
and explain that their beloved teacher, Mrs. Ross or Mr. O'Malley, is 
no longer able to teach this year? We must pass this bill for the good 
of our Nation's schoolchildren.
  From coast to coast State budgets are bleeding. Many States have made 
tough, responsible choices--cutting important programs and making 
necessary revenue adjustments. We cannot afford to kick them while they 
are down by denying them the FMAP and teacher funding.
  We are fighting hard to create private sector jobs, and we should. 
But to then allow so many public sector layoffs robs Peter to pay Paul. 
We will not be able to reduce unemployment unless both the public and 
private sectors are healthy.
  The bill directly injects money into our economy, and the best thing 
about it is it saves jobs without adding a dime to the deficit. I say 
to my colleagues on the other side, again, it saves jobs without adding 
a dime to the deficit. We cut in other places to help save the jobs of 
firefighters and teachers. This bill is fully offset. It closes tax 
loopholes multinational companies use to dodge taxes abroad. We should 
do that on its own, but the fact that now we have that as the offset, 
to do something so necessary and so good, is important.
  I ask my colleagues to think of this not in terms of macronumbers but 
in terms of individuals--individuals who have worked hard their whole 
lives and are now about to be laid off; kids in classrooms who, again, 
will not be able to have their teacher teach them. Maybe it is that 
special science class. Some schools are cutting football. Some people 
think that is frivolous. I think that is an important part of school 
life.
  The greatness of this country depends on us overcoming our problems. 
Unemployment is a huge problem. The lack of having the best education 
in the world is a problem. Keeping our streets safe from fire and crime 
is a problem. We are running away from it here to hide behind 
ideological barriers.
  Let me repeat, this bill saves hundreds of thousands of jobs, 
provides vital help to the States, and reduces the deficit. For the 
good of the country, I implore my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle to support this sensible and important bill. It is the right 
thing to do. Maybe just this once, in a bipartisan way, we will rise to 
the occasion.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am voting to end a filibuster that is 
blocking critical funding for Wisconsin. Passage of this bill, as 
amended, would help prevent major cuts to education and health care 
funding as my State, and other States, continue to struggle to make up 
budget shortfalls due to the biggest recession since the Great 
Depression. While I do not agree with all of the offsets in the bill, I 
am pleased that it is fully offset. In fact, according to the 
Congressional Budget Office, the bill will reduce the budget deficit by 
$1.4 billion over the next decade. Supporting this fiscally responsible 
funding is the right thing to do for our children and for the many 
Wisconsinites who depend on BadgerCare.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a package that 
would provide critical relief to school districts across the Nation. 
The proposed amendment would provide $10 billion in additional support 
to local school districts to prevent imminent layoffs.
  It is estimated that this fund will help keep nearly 140,000 
educators employed during the upcoming school year.
  The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act has been credited with 
saving 300,000 education jobs and has mitigated that impact of the 
recession.
  As that funding comes to an end, however, massive job cuts once again 
threaten to stall economic recovery and damage our educational system.
  Thus far, almost 80 percent of school districts across the Nation 
have had to lay off educators. My home State of Maryland, which is No. 
1 in education according to Education Week for the second year in a 
row, is not immune. One Maryland county has seen 800 jobs cut, 355 of 
those classroom positions.
  These job losses have an economic ripple effect. The Economic Policy 
Institute projects that every 100,000 education jobs lost causes an 
additional loss of 30,000 private sector jobs in local communities.
  This can take a devastating toll on families and on whole 
communities.
  As our children prepare to go back to school, let's think for a 
moment about what these job cuts will mean for them.
  For some, the bus route has changed since there are fewer drivers so 
it takes a bit longer to get to school.
  When students get to class, it will be a little more crowded as the 
class size grows to accommodate more students and fewer teachers.
  The lunch lines might be longer because there are fewer cafeteria 
workers to serve the students.
  Art, music, and even social studies programs have been cut and 
teachers dismissed.
  Get sick at your own risk because a school nurse will no longer be 
available to assist with treatment.
  So, the remaining teachers, in addition to performing their 
traditional roles, now also become nurses, counselors, and custodians 
to even more students.
  Larger class sizes, cutting programs, and cutting support personnel 
such as school nurses, counselors, bus drivers, and custodians, are 
just a few of the ways school districts are dealing with budgeting 
shortfalls.
  Other options include unpaid furlough days and shortened school 
weeks.
  All of these are detrimental to the educational experience and fly in 
the face of what we are trying to achieve with educational reform.
  There are many theories about education reform. But to put it quite 
simply, there can be no educational reform if there are no teachers!
  The $10 billion that this package puts into the States will provide 
immediate relief to school districts across the Nation.
  In Maryland, it could mean an estimated allocation of $178 million 
for Maryland, translating to 2,200 jobs.
  Yet it does not add 1 cent to the deficit. The education jobs funding 
is fully offset, including $8.4 billion in rescissions. This is not 
without sacrifice. I am particularly disappointed by the rescission of 
$10.7 million in Department of Education innovation and improvement 
funds for public television's ``Ready to Teach'' program.
  However, I am respectful of the difficult choices that must be made 
in these times of economic crisis. We need to make choices about 
spending. And I choose to support putting teachers to work and giving 
students the best chance to learn.
  I urge my colleagues to think of the mixed messages we would send to 
our children by not making this investment and passing this amendment.
  We say to our children that they should work hard to get the best out 
of education but then we are not willing to work to put the best into 
it?
  We say that our children are our future but we are not willing to 
invest in them?
  We expect teachers to equip our children with the knowledge they need 
to succeed but are not willing to equip our teachers with the resources 
they need to succeed?
  It is time to stand up for our students and teachers.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in standing up for education by 
voting yes on the proposed amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington is 
recognized.

[[Page 15091]]


  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There remains 2\1/2\ minutes on the 
majority side and 12 minutes 53 seconds on the minority side.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I reserve 1 minute of our time and ask that the quorum 
call be equally divided between both sides and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without 
objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in 
the Record two letters dated August 4, 2010, from Joseph Conaly.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         United States Department of Education, Office of 
           Elementary and Secondary Education,
                                   Washington, DC, August 4, 2010.
     Hon. James Webb,
     United States Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Webb:  Your office has expressed concerns 
     about whether Virginia would meet the maintenance-of-effort 
     requirement in the Education Jobs Fund legislation that is 
     currently being considered by the U.S. Senate. This letter is 
     in response to those concerns.
       In its applications for phase one and phase two funding 
     under the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) program, 
     Virginia provided data on the levels of State support for 
     elementary and secondary education and public institutions of 
     higher education for fiscal years 2006, 2009, 2010, and 2011. 
     Under the Education Jobs Fund legislation, a State may 
     demonstrate that it is maintaining effort if, among other 
     things, its State tax collections for calendar year 2009 were 
     less than State tax collections for calendar year 2006, and 
     State support for elementary and secondary education and for 
     public institutions of higher education for State fiscal year 
     2011 is not less than the level of such support for each of 
     the two categories, respectively, for State fiscal year 2006.
       Based on our review of the data that Virginia submitted in 
     its SFSF applications and the data on State tax collections 
     from the U.S. Census Bureau, we have every confidence that 
     Virginia will meet the maintenance-of-effort requirements in 
     and be eligible for funding under the Education Jobs Fund 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,

                                             Joseph C. Conaty,

                                                         Director,
     State Fiscal Stabilization Program.
                                  ____

         United States Department of Education, Office of 
           Elementary and Secondary Education,
                                   Washington, DC, August 4, 2010.
     Hon. Mark Warner,
     United States Senate,
     Washington, DC.
        Dear Senator Warner: Your office has expressed concerns 
     about whether Virginia would meet the maintenance-of-effort 
     requirement in the Education Jobs Fund legislation that is 
     currently being considered by the U.S. Senate. This letter is 
     in response to those concerns.
       In its applications for phase one and phase two funding 
     under the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) program, 
     Virginia provided data on the levels of State support for 
     elementary and secondary education and public institutions of 
     higher education for fiscal years 2006, 2009, 2010, and 2011. 
     Under the Education Jobs Fund legislation, a State may 
     demonstrate that it is maintaining effort if, among other 
     things, its State tax collections for calendar year 2009 were 
     less than State tax collections for calendar year 2006, and 
     State support for elementary and secondary education and for 
     public institutions of higher education for State fiscal year 
     2011 is not less than the level of such support for each of 
     the two categories, respectively, for State fiscal year 2006.
       Based on our review of the data that Virginia submitted in 
     its SFSF applications and the data on State tax collections 
     from the U.S. Census Bureau, we have every confidence that 
     Virginia will meet the maintenance-of-effort requirements in 
     and be eligible for funding under the Education Jobs Fund 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,

                                             Joseph C. Conaty,

                                                         Director,
                               State Fiscal Stabilization Program.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have spoken with both Senators Jim Webb 
and Mark Warner about the need for further clarification on what is 
used to define eligibility under the maintenance-of-effort requirements 
in the Education Jobs Fund legislation.
  I have assured them that we will work together, and ensure that the 
Commonwealth of Virginia meets the maintenance-of-effort requirements. 
I have entered into the Record two letters from the Department of 
Education clarifying that Virginia would meet the maintenance-of-
efforts requirements.
  I look forward to continue to work with them to ensure the language 
is clear.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. President, has all time expired?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. All time has expired. The cloture 
motion having been presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the 
clerk to report the motion to invoke cloture.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

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

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. By unanimous consent, the mandatory 
quorum call has been waived. The question is, Is it the sense of the 
Senate that the debate on the motion to concur with amendment No. 4575 
in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 1586, an act to 
modernize the air traffic control system, improve the safety, 
reliability, and availability of transportation by air in the United 
States, provide for modernization of the air traffic control system, 
reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration, and for other 
purposes, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 61, nays 38, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 224 Leg.]

                                YEAS--61

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Goodwin
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--38

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Vitter
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 61, the nays are 
38. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The majority leader.

[[Page 15092]]


  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be 2 
minutes of debate prior to a vote on the Murray motion to waive the 
applicable budget points of order, with the time equally divided and 
controlled between Senator Gregg and myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I further ask unanimous consent that if the vote on the 
motion to waive is successful, then the Senate proceed to Executive 
Session to resume consideration of the Kagan nomination and that the 
time until 12 noon be equally divided and controlled between Senators 
Leahy and Sessions or their designees; that beginning at 12 noon, there 
be 1 hour blocks of alternating time until 8 p.m. tonight, with the 
majority controlling the first hour block; with all time consumed on 
the Kagan nomination counting postcloture.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Chair announces that the invocation of cloture renders the motion 
to refer out of order.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, can we have order in the Senate? Senator 
Gregg wishes to be heard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I made a point of order dealing with the 
budget and the fact that this bill violates the budget, so I find 
myself once again rising with enthusiasm to defend the Democratic 
budget because that is what this bill violates. It is the Democratic 
budget that is violated in this bill. It increases the deficit in 2011 
by $22 billion. That is not small change anywhere in this country. So 
$22 billion is what the budget deficit increase is next year as a 
result of this bill. That is why it violates the Democratic budget.
  I congratulate my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for 
putting in place this point of order. I presume they would want to 
defend their own budget and defend this point of order because they do 
not want to run up the deficit by $22 billion in 2011.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, my good friend, the senior Senator from the 
State of New Hampshire, whom I admire so much, had to be smiling when 
he said that. I think he was part of the time. This is paid for. He 
objects to how it is paid for. That is a new one here. So I ask that we 
overwhelmingly support the motion to waive by Senator Murray.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire will state it.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the time is up. Time for a vote.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry is in order, isn't 
it?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state his inquiry.
  Mr. GREGG. Did not the point of order lie? Is not the bill in 
violation of the Budget Act?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order would lie.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 61, nays 38, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 225 Leg.]

                                YEAS--61

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Goodwin
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--38

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Vitter
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 61, the nays are 
38. Three fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I supported cloture this morning on the 
bill to extend and phase out increases in the Medicaid funding for 
States, including Connecticut, and to provide additional money to help 
local school districts in Connecticut keep teachers in the classroom 
during the upcoming school year. This funding, which was fully offset, 
is necessary as we continue to recover from the recession that began in 
2007.
  However, I do have concerns with some of the rescissions from the 
Department of Defense budget that were used to pay for this funding, 
and I plan to work with Senator Reid and others to ensure that, as this 
bill moves forward, none of the offsets affects the ability of our men 
and women fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan from carrying out their 
mission.

                          ____________________