To change the enactment date.

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,

[[Page S6566]]

and prevent states from tightening eligibility standards for
benefits.

The Lieutenant Governor of New York continues:

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.
Mr. President, I wish every State had done what Tennessee has done.
We have a Democratic Governor, Phil Bredesen, who is completing his
time.

[[Page S6567]]

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, 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.

[[Page S6568]]

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 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

[[Page S6569]]

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.
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

[[Page S6570]]

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 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

[[Page S6571]]

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 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

[[Page S6572]]

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.
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:

[[Page S6573]]

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''

____________________