The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM EXTENSION AND REFORM ACT OF 2011” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Energy was published in the Senate section on pages S5921-S5924 on Sept. 23, 2011.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM EXTENSION AND REFORM ACT OF 2011
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the House message is considered laid before the Senate.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to concur, with an amendment. The amendment is at the desk.
(The text of the amendment (No. 655) is printed in today's Record under ``Text of Amendments.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to concur in the House message with respect to H.R. 2608, with amendment No. 655.
Mr. REID. I move to table that and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker), and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker) would have voted ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 36, as follows:
YEAS--59
AkakaBaucusBegichBennetBingamanBlumenthalBoxerBrown (OH)CantwellCardinCarperCaseyConradCoonsDeMintDurbinFeinsteinFrankenGillibrandHaganHarkinInouyeJohnson (SD)Johnson (WI)KerryKlobucharKohlLandrieuLautenbergLeahyLeeLevinLiebermanManchinMcCaskillMenendezMerkleyMikulskiMurrayNelson (FL)PaulPryorReedReidRischRockefellerRubioSandersSchumerShaheenStabenowTesterToomeyUdall (CO)Udall (NM)WarnerWebbWhitehouseWyden
NAYS--36
AlexanderAyotteBluntBoozmanBrown (MA)BurrCoatsCochranCollinsCornynCrapoGrahamGrassleyHatchHellerHoevenHutchisonInhofeIsaksonJohannsKirkKylLugarMcCainMcConnellMoranMurkowskiNelson (NE)PortmanRobertsSessionsShelbySnoweThuneVitterWicker
NOT VOTING--5
BarrassoChamblissCoburnCorkerEnzi
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The majority leader.
Motion to Concur, With Amendment No. 656
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now move to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2608, with an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] moves to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2608, with an amendment numbered 656.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of Amendments.'')
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Cloture Motion
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a cloture motion at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The assistant 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 Reid motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2608, with amendment No. 656.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On page S5922, September 23, 2011, the Record reads: . . . to H.R. 2608, with an amendment.
The online Record has been corrected to read: . . . to H.R. 2608, with amendment No. 656.
========================= END NOTE =========================
Harry Reid, Daniel K. Inouye, Tom Udall, Charles E.
Schumer, Richard J. Durbin, Mary L. Landrieu, Patty
Murray, Patrick J. Leahy, Richard Blumenthal, Benjamin
L. Cardin, Sheldon Whitehouse, Sherrod Brown, Maria
Cantwell, Daniel K. Akaka, Jack Reed, Debbie Stabenow,
Kay R. Hagan.
Amendment No. 657 to Amendment No. 656
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now have a second-degree amendment at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment numbered 657 to amendment No. 656.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end, add the following new section:
Section __
This Act shall become effective 4 days after enactment.
Motion to Refer, With Amendment No. 658
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a motion to refer the House message to the Appropriations Committee with instructions to report back forthwith, with an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] moves to refer the House message on H.R. 2608 to the Senate Appropriations Committee with instructions to report back forthwith, with an amendment numbered 658.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end, add the following new section:
Section __
This Act shall become effective 3 days after enactment.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Amendment No. 659
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have an amendment to my instruction that is also at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment numbered 659 to the instructions of the motion to refer.
The amendment is as follows:
In the amendment, strike ``3 days'' and insert ``2 days''.
Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays on that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Amendment No. 660 to Amendment No. 659
Mr. REID. I have a second-degree amendment to my instructions at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment numbered 660 to amendment No. 659.
The amendment is as follows:
In the amendment, strike ``2 days'' and insert ``1 day''.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum requirement under rule XXII be waived with respect to the cloture motion I just filed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to concur with an amendment occur at 5:30 p.m., Monday, September 26.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The minority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object and with the indulgence of my friend the majority leader, let me make some brief remarks about where we are.
For anyone who is confused about what is going on in Congress right now, let me make it easy. In order to keep the government running beyond next week, Congress needs to pass a short-term bill that funds government operations at a spending level to which both parties can agree. The good news is, we have already agreed on a spending level. That has already been done. Last night, the House of Representatives passed a bill that meets that figure we agreed on a couple of months ago.
Here is the holdup. Because of some of the horrible weather we have had over the past several weeks, we have all agreed to add emergency funds we didn't originally plan in this bill, and Republicans have identified a couple of cuts to make sure we don't make the deficit any bigger than it is already, including an offset Leader Pelosi has used in the past. The rest is from a cut to a loan guarantee program that gave us the Solyndra scandal. I think we can all agree this program should be put on hold until we get more answers, but our friends on the other side don't like the idea. They would rather just add these funds to the deficit. Why? Because, they say, that is the way we have always done things around here. Well, I think there is a lesson we can draw from the debates we have been having here over the last 6 months; that is, the American people won't accept that excuse any longer. The whole
``that is the way we have always done it'' argument is the reason we have a $14 trillion debt right now.
If we pass this bill, FEMA will have the funds they need--have the funds they need--to respond to these emergencies. That is not the issue. What is at issue is whether we are going to add to the debt.
We have a path forward to get disaster funding done right here, today. There is absolutely no reason, in my judgment, to delay funding for disasters until Monday, as my friend the majority leader is now asking us to do. I don't think we ought to delay at all. We just received the amendment a few minutes ago, but we are aware of what it does, and I think it is important for us to try to resolve this issue sooner rather than later.
Let's just walk through the next few days. If we don't have this vote until Monday, that leaves 24 hours or so before the Jewish holidays begin and then several days before the end of the fiscal year. It strikes me that we would be better off going ahead and having this vote now and entering into the discussions that will probably now be delayed until sometime Monday night to see how we can resolve this impasse between the House and Senate.
We would be happy to have the cloture vote on the proposal of my friend the majority leader right now rather than Monday night so we can get a clear sense of where we stand. It is my view that we ought to have the vote today rather than wait until Monday and basically squander the next few days toward getting an agreement we know we have to reach. Therefore, Mr. President--and I thank my friend the majority leader for letting me explain my position--I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The majority leader.
Mr. REID. First of all, my friend, I am sure, understands that this great piece of legislation that was sent to us by the House received 36 votes over here. It was tabled on a bipartisan basis.
The matter that is now before the Senate is really a nice piece of legislation. It funds the government until November 18. That is what the House wanted. There also is money in this bill to take care of FEMA. And even though we passed a bill here with bipartisan support that had $6.9 billion, which we believed was an appropriate figure, in an effort to compromise on this CR, we have the number the House thinks is a better number. That is what is before us.
So, Mr. President, my suggestion to my friend--and he is my friend--
is that the two Democratic leaders, Reid and Pelosi, and the two Republican leaders, McConnell and Boehner, should just cool off a little bit and then work through this. There is a compromise here, and the compromise is now before the Senate. Everyone, once in a while, needs a little cooling-off period.
The government is not shutting down. I spoke to Mr. Fugate myself, and FEMA is not out of money. We will come here Monday, and more reasonable heads will prevail. I hope over the weekend the four leaders can lead their troops in the right direction.
So I again ask unanimous consent that the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to concur with an amendment occur at 5:30 p.m., Monday, September 26.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object, obviously, here in the Senate we would have a 60-vote threshold, and that is what we will have Monday afternoon. I see no reason why we shouldn't advance that to now so it can be clear whether this measure would pass the Senate. I am pretty confident it will not, and I don't see any purpose to be served by delaying the outcome of that, making the outcome clear on Monday when we could have a clear outcome today; therefore, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, first of all, we have a piece of legislation at the desk that takes care of all the issues. It takes care of funding the government after October 1, and it also takes care of FEMA for the foreseeable future. It is a nice piece of legislation.
It is not our number; it is the House number.
I ask unanimous consent that the Reid motion to concur to the House amendment to the Senate amendment H.R. 2608 with amendment No. 656 be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements relating to this bill be placed in the Record at the appropriate place as if read. In fact, what we are asking here is the CR, with the FEMA language, be passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we will have that vote on Monday. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. REID. I renew my request. I would tell everyone--as my friend said, we will have the vote on Monday. We will keep the vote open, and if people are pressed on planes, I will work with the Republican leader and make sure that everyone is protected as much as possible.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the renewed request for Monday?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as my colleagues know, last night the House of Representatives approved a continuing resolution which includes critical funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA. It has been reported that my friends on the other side of the aisle are committed to defeating this measure because the FEMA spending has been offset by a $1.5 billion reduction in the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program.
I would like to remind my colleagues that in 2009, before the change of leadership in the House, that body sent over a bill, H.R. 3435, to
``Make supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Program''--otherwise known as
``Cash-for-Clunkers.'' That bill provided an additional $2 billion, on top of an already appropriated $1 billion, for a program that did nothing to boost long-term car sales in this country.
And how was the second appropriation to ``Cash-for-Clunkers'' paid for? You guessed it, unused funds from a Department of Energy loan guarantee program. The former leadership in the House transferred money from the Department of Energy Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program that was funded by the stimulus bill.
If ``Cash-for-Clunkers'' was important enough to transfer money from a loan guarantee program that was not being utilized, why not the disaster relief we are seeking to fund now? I would like to hear from my friends on the other side of the aisle as to what made ``Cash-for-
Clunkers'' so critical to our Nation's health that we could pay for it with money from a loan guarantee program but are unable to do the same with FEMA?
And what is it about the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program that the majority prioritizes over FEMA's disaster relief efforts?
According to the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Energy has not obtained technical expertise to monitor the loan program, developed sufficient performance measures to ensure the loan guarantee program achieves its intended goals, and ``could not provide Congress with information on whether the program was achieving its goals and warranted continued support.''
There is absolutely no excuse for not passing the continuing resolution approved by the House last night.
Mr. REID. I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. CANTWELL. I ask consent to speak as if in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
