[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 38 (Tuesday, March 16, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1582-S1607]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          TAX ON BONUSES RECEIVED FROM CERTAIN TARP RECIPIENTS

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 1586, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1586) to impose an additional tax on bonuses 
     received from certain TARP recipients.

  Pending:

       Rockefeller amendment No. 3452, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Sessions/McCaskill modified amendment No. 3453 (to 
     amendment No. 3452), to reduce the deficit by establishing 
     discretionary spending caps.
       Lieberman amendment No. 3456 (to amendment No. 3452), to 
     reauthorize the DC opportunity scholarship program.
       Vitter amendment No. 3458 (to amendment No. 3452), to 
     clarify application requirements relating to the coastal 
     impact assistance program.
       DeMint amendment No. 3454 (to amendment No. 3452), to 
     establish an earmark moratorium for fiscal years 2010 and 
     2011.
       Feingold amendment No. 3470 (to amendment No. 3452), to 
     provide for the rescission of unused transportation earmarks 
     and to establish a general reporting requirement for any 
     unused earmarks.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


    AmendmentS Nos. 3472, 3475, 3527, and 3528 to Amendment No. 3452

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and that I be allowed to call up four amendments that 
are at the desk. They are amendment No. 3472, Amendment No. 3475, an 
amendment that has been at the desk on FAA reauthorization and--they 
are all at the desk--and the fourth concerns the Federal Aviation 
Administration finance proposal for development and implementation of 
technology for the Next Generation Air Transportation System.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendments.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes amendments 
     en bloc numbered 3472, 3475, 3527, and 3528 to amendment No. 
     3452.

  Mr. McCAIN. Is amendment No. 3528 on the Grand Canyon National Park?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, it is.
  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 3472

  (Purpose: To prohibit the use of passenger facility charges for the 
              construction of bicycle storage facilities)

       On page 29, after line 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 207(b) Prohibition on Use of Passenger Facility 
     Charges To Construct Bicycle Storage Facilities.--Section 
     40117(a)(3) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through (G) as 
     clauses (i) through (vii);
       (2) by striking ``The term'' and inserting the following:
       ``(A) In general.--The term''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Bicycle storage facilities.--A project to construct a 
     bicycle storage facility may not be considered an eligible 
     airport-related project.''.


                           amendment no. 3475

  (Purpose: To prohibit earmarks in years in which there is a deficit)

       At the end, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. EARMARKS PROHIBITED IN YEARS IN WHICH THERE IS A 
                   DEFICIT.

       (a) In General.--It shall not be in order in the Senate or 
     the House of Representatives to consider a bill, joint 
     resolution, or conference report containing a congressional 
     earmark or an earmark attributable to the President for any 
     fiscal year in which there is or will be a deficit as 
     determined by CBO.
       (b) Congressional Earmark.--In this section, the term 
     ``congressional earmark'' means the following:
       (1) A congressionally directed spending item, as defined in 
     Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate.
       (2) A congressional earmark for purposes of Rule XXI of the 
     House of Representatives.
       (c) Waiver and Appeal.--
       (1) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended in the 
     Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members, duly chosen and sworn.
       (2) Appeals.--Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of 
     the Chair relating to any provision of this section shall be 
     limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and 
     controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the bill or 
     joint resolution, as the case may be. An affirmative vote of 
     three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and 
     sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of the ruling 
     of the Chair on a point of order raised under this section.


                           amendment no. 3527

    (Purpose: To require the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
 Administration to develop a financing proposal for fully funding the 
 development and implementation of technology for the Next Generation 
                       Air Transportation System)

       On page 84, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:

     SEC. 319. REPORT ON FUNDING FOR NEXTGEN TECHNOLOGY.

       Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration shall submit to Congress a report that 
     contains--
       (1) a financing proposal that--
       (A) uses innovative methods to fully fund the development 
     and implementation of technology for the Next Generation Air 
     Transportation System in a manner that does not increase the 
     Federal deficit; and
       (B) takes into consideration opportunities for involvement 
     by public-private partnerships; and
       (2) recommendations with respect to how the Administrator 
     and Congress can provide operational benefits, such as 
     benefits relating to preferred airspace, routings, or runway 
     access, for air carriers that equip their aircraft with 
     technology necessary for the operation of the Next Generation 
     Air Transportation System before the date by which the 
     Administrator requires the use of such technology.


                           amendment no. 3528

(Purpose: To provide standards for determining whether the substantial 
  restoration of the natural quiet and experience of the Grand Canyon 
  National Park has been achieved and to clarify regulatory authority 
     with respect to commercial air tours operating over the Park)

       At the end of title VII, add the following:

     SEC. 723. OVERFLIGHTS IN GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK.

       (a) Determinations With Respect to Substantial Restoration 
     of Natural Quiet and Experience.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, for purposes of section 3(b)(1) of Public Law 100-91 (16 
     U.S.C. 1a-1 note), the substantial restoration of the natural 
     quiet and experience of the Grand Canyon National Park (in 
     this subsection referred to as the ``Park'') shall be 
     considered to be achieved in the Park if, for at least 75 
     percent of each day, 50 percent of the Park is free of sound 
     produced by commercial air tour operations that have an 
     allocation to conduct commercial air tours in the Park as of 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Considerations.--
       (A) In general.--For purposes of determining whether 
     substantial restoration of the natural quiet and experience 
     of the Park has been achieved in accordance with paragraph 
     (1), the Secretary of the Interior (in this section referred 
     to as the ``Secretary'') shall use--
       (i) the 2-zone system for the Park in effect on the date of 
     the enactment of this Act to assess impacts relating to 
     subsectional restoration of natural quiet at the Park, 
     including--

       (I) the thresholds for noticeability and audibility; and
       (II) the distribution of land between the 2 zones; and

       (ii) noise modeling science that is--

[[Page S1583]]

       (I) developed for use at the Park, specifically Integrated 
     Noise Model Version 6.2;
       (II) validated by reasonable standards for conducting field 
     observations of model results; and
       (III) accepted and validated by the Federal Interagency 
     Committee on Aviation Noise.

       (B) Sound from other sources.--The Secretary shall not 
     consider sound produced by sources other than commercial air 
     tour operations, including sound emitted by other types of 
     aircraft operations or other noise sources, for purposes of--
       (i) making recommendations, developing a final plan, or 
     issuing regulations relating to commercial air tour 
     operations in the Park; or
       (ii) determining under paragraph (1) whether substantial 
     restoration of the natural quiet and experience of the Park 
     has been achieved.
       (3) Continued monitoring.--The Secretary shall continue 
     monitoring noise from aircraft operating over the Park below 
     17,999 feet MSL to ensure continued compliance with the 
     substantial restoration of natural quiet and experience in 
     the Park.
       (4) Day defined.--For purposes of this subsection, the term 
     ``day'' means the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.
       (b) Regulation of Commercial Air Tour Operations.--
     Commercial air tour operations over the Grand Canyon National 
     Park Special Flight Rules Area shall continue to be conducted 
     in accordance with subpart U of part 93 of title 14, Code of 
     Federal Regulations (as in effect on the day before the date 
     of the enactment of this Act), except as follows:
       (1) Curfews for commercial flights.--The hours for the 
     curfew under section 93.317 of title 14, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, shall be revised as follows:
       (A) Entry into effect of curfew.--The curfew shall go into 
     effect--
       (i) at 6:00 p.m. on April 16 through August 31;
       (ii) at 5:30 p.m. on September 1 through September 15;
       (iii) at 5:00 p.m. on September 16 through September 30;
       (iv) at 4:30 p.m. on October 1 through October 31; and
       (v) at 4:00 p.m. on November 1 through April 15.
       (B) Termination of curfew.--The curfew shall terminate--
       (i) at 8:00 a.m. on March 16 through October 15; and
       (ii) at 9:00 a.m. on October 16 through March 15.
       (2) Modifications of air tour routes.--
       (A) Dragon corridor.--Commercial air tour routes for the 
     Dragon Corridor (Black 1A and Green 2 routes) shall be 
     modified to include a western ``dogleg'' for the lower \1/3\ 
     of the Corridor to reduce air tour noise for west rim 
     visitors in the vicinity of Hermits Rest and Dripping 
     Springs.
       (B) Zuni point corridor.--Commercial air tour routes for 
     the Zuni Point Corridor (Black 1 and Green 1 routes) shall be 
     modified--
       (i) to eliminate crossing over Nankoweap Basin; and
       (ii) to limit the commercial air tour routes commonly known 
     as ``Snoopy's Nose'' to extend not farther east than the 
     Grand Canyon National Park boundary.
       (C) Permanence of black 2 and green 4 air tour routes.--The 
     locations of the Black 2 and Green 4 commercial air tour 
     routes shall not be modified unless the Administrator of the 
     Federal Aviation Administration determines that such a 
     modification is necessary for safety reasons.
       (3) Special rules for marble canyon sector.--
       (A) Flight allocation.--The flight allocation cap for 
     commercial air tour operations in Marble Canyon (Black 4 
     route) shall be modified to not more than 5 flights a day to 
     preserve permanently the high level of natural quiet that has 
     been achieved in Marble Canyon.
       (B) Curfew.--Commercial air tour operations in Marble 
     Canyon (Black 4 route) shall be subject to a year-round 
     curfew that enters into effect one hour before sunset and 
     terminates one hour after sunrise.
       (C) Elimination of commercial air tour route.--The Black 5 
     commercial air tour route for Marble Canyon shall be 
     eliminated.
       (4) Conversion to quiet aircraft technology.--
       (A) In general.--All commercial air tour aircraft operating 
     in the Grand Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules Area 
     shall be required to fully convert to quiet aircraft 
     technology (as determined in accordance with appendix A to 
     subpart U of part 93 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 
     (as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of 
     this Act)) by not later than the date that is 15 years after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (B) Incentives for conversion.--The Secretary and the 
     Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall 
     provide incentives for commercial air tour operators that 
     convert to quiet aircraft technology before the date 
     specified in subparagraph (A), such as--
       (i) reducing overflight fees for those operators; and
       (ii) increasing the flight allocations for those operators.
       (5) Hualapai economic development exemption.--The exception 
     for commercial air tour operators operating under contracts 
     with the Hualapai Indian Nation under section 93.319(f) of 
     title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the 
     day before the date of the enactment of this Act) may not be 
     terminated, unless the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration determines that terminating the exception is 
     necessary for safety reasons.
       (c) Flight Allocation Cap.--
       (1) Prohibition on reduction of flight allocation cap.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the allocation 
     cap for commercial air tours operating in the Grand Canyon 
     National Park Special Flight Rules Area in effect on the day 
     before the date of the enactment of this Act may not be 
     reduced.
       (2) Rulemaking to increase flight allocation cap.--Not 
     later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration 
     shall issue a notice of proposed rulemaking that--
       (A) reassesses the allocations for commercial air tours 
     operating in the Grand Canyon National Park Special Flight 
     Rules Area in light of gains with respect to the restoration 
     of natural quiet and experience in the Park;
       (B) makes equitable adjustments to those allocations, 
     subject to continued monitoring under subsection (a)(3); and
       (C) facilitates the use of new quieter aircraft technology 
     by allowing commercial air tour operators using such 
     technology to petition the Federal Aviation Administration to 
     adjust allocations in accordance with improvements with 
     respect to the restoration of natural quiet and experience in 
     the Park resulting from such technology.
       (3) Interim flight allocations.--
       (A) In general.--Until the Administrator issues a final 
     rule pursuant to paragraph (2), for purposes of the 
     allocation cap for commercial air tours operating in the 
     Grand Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules Area--
       (i) from November 1 through March 15, a flight operated by 
     a commercial air tour operator described in subparagraph (B) 
     shall count as \1/2\ of 1 allocation; and
       (ii) from March 16 through October 31, a flight operated by 
     a commercial air tour operator described in subparagraph (B) 
     shall count as \3/4\ of 1 allocation.
       (B) Commercial air tour operator described.--A commercial 
     air tour operator described in this subparagraph is a 
     commercial air tour operator that--
       (i) operated in the Grand Canyon National Park Special 
     Flight Rules Area before the date of the enactment of this 
     Act; and
       (ii) operates aircraft that use quiet aircraft technology 
     (as determined in accordance with appendix A to subpart U of 
     part 93 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (as in 
     effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this 
     Act)).
       (d) Commercial Air Tour User Fees.--Notwithstanding section 
     4(n)(2)(A) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 
     1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(n)(1)(2)(A)), the Secretary--
       (1) may establish a commercial tour use fee in excess of 
     $25 for each commercial air tour aircraft with a passenger 
     capacity of 25 or less for air tours operating in the Grand 
     Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules Area in order to 
     offset the costs of carrying out this section; and
       (2) if the Secretary establishes a commercial tour use fee 
     under paragraph (1), shall develop a method for providing a 
     significant discount in the amount of that fee for air tours 
     that operate aircraft that use quiet aircraft technology (as 
     determined in accordance with appendix A to subpart U of part 
     93 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on 
     the day before the date of the enactment of this Act)).


                           Amendment No. 3475

  Mr. McCAIN. I would like to discuss all four amendments briefly. The 
first is the prohibition on earmarks in years in which there is a 
deficit. I have been pleased and somewhat surprised over the past week 
to hear about the renewed bipartisan interest in banning earmarks. I am 
thankful for the attention and I welcome the House Democratic 
leadership to the fight against earmarks.
  According to last Thursday's Washington Post:

       Facing an election year backlash over runaway spending and 
     ethics scandals, House Democrats moved Wednesday to ban 
     earmarks for private companies, sparking a war between the 
     parties over which would embrace the most dramatic steps to 
     change the way business is done in Washington.

  I was pleased to see that the Speaker of the House and the chairman 
of the House Appropriations Committee have recognized earmarks for what 
they are: a corrupting influence that should not be tolerated in these 
times of fiscal crisis.
  I applaud my Republican colleagues in the House and Senate, 
especially Senators Coburn and DeMint, who have called for a year-long 
moratorium on all earmarks. I fully support and join them in those 
efforts, but I think we need to do more.
  We need a complete ban on earmarks until our budget is balanced and 
we have eliminated our massive deficit. This amendment promises to do 
just that. I encourage my colleagues to join

[[Page S1584]]

me in this effort. It is what the American people want. We have an 
obligation to give it to them.
  I am pleased to be joined by my good friend from Indiana, Senator 
Bayh.


                           Amendment No. 3472

  The next amendment I would like to discuss very quickly is that no 
funds from the passenger facility fee could be used to construct bike 
storage facilities at airports.
  As many know, the passenger facility fee is assessed on every ticket 
for any flight. Currently, this fee is $4.50 per flight. During these 
very difficult economic times for most Americans, the bill from the 
House raises this fee to $7 and indexes it to inflation. It is 
frustrating, but it is more frustrating that taxes and fees make up as 
much as 25 percent of every passenger's airline ticket.
  I think most airline passengers would agree with me that they would 
rather see more improvements to ensure faster travel times and safer 
departures and arrivals.
  The Atlanta Journal Constitution reported earlier this year, on 
January 14, 2010, that $1.5 million of passenger facility fees were 
used for a ``function art project of glass panels laminated with 
patterns of tree bark.''
  It sounds beautiful, but I know most Americans want these excessive 
fees and charges to be used effectively and for the goal that Congress 
intended: to improve safety and performance.


                           Amendment No. 3527

  On the issue of the amendment concerning moving Next Generation air 
traffic control forward, this amendment would require the FAA to report 
back to Congress in 90 days with proposals for innovative financing 
mechanisms to further the deployment and implementation of a modernized 
air traffic control system known as NextGen.
  Specifically, the report requires these innovative financing 
proposals to not increase our Federal deficit and consider public-
private partnerships. As the distinguished chairman of the committee 
knows all so well, modernizing our outdated air traffic control system 
will positively impact all Americans by decreasing airport delays, 
improving the flow of commerce, and advancing our Nation's air quality 
by reducing aircraft carbon emissions.
  Every day Americans sit on a runway and miss meetings, children's 
soccer games, family dinners, and other important events due to air 
traffic delays that could have been avoided if our Nation had a 
modernized air traffic control system.
  Thousands of goods are delayed for delivery each year due to air 
traffic delays which results in more than $40 billion in costs each 
year that are passed on to consumers, according to the Joint Economic 
Committee.
  The Government Accountability Office estimates that one in every four 
flights in the United States of America is delayed. The airlines have 
called our air traffic control system ``an outdated World War II radar 
system.''
  The FAA's Next Generation Air Transportation System, NextGen, will 
transform the current ground-based radar air traffic control system to 
one that uses precision satellites, digital network communications, and 
an integrated weather system.
  Moving from a ground-based to a satellite-based system will enable 
more flights to occupy the same airspace, meaning the ontime 
performance improvements would be a reality, and would triple the 
aircraft capacity according to airlines. However, the administration 
and Congress have not provided adequate funding toward air traffic 
control modernization, and instead continue to fund billions of dollars 
of earmarks. The FAA estimates it will cost up to $42 billion to 
implement a modern air traffic control system.
  Congress appropriated $188 million for air traffic control 
modernization in 2008, and $638 million in 2009, then another $358 
million in the fiscal year 2010 Department of Transportation 
appropriations bill. However, that same bill dedicated $1.7 billion on 
transportation earmarks. We have to stop spending billions of dollars 
and instead cut spending or at least spend taxpayers' dollars on worthy 
projects.
  Again, I would like to thank the chairman of the committee for his 
efforts over many years on FAA modernization. There is no doubt the 
airlines are right when they describe our air traffic control system as 
``an outdated World War II radar system.''
  It is a shame that all of these years we have had attempts that 
failed and wasted billions of dollars in our efforts to modernize the 
air traffic control system, and we have failed. But we have to redouble 
our efforts.
  As we expect the economy to recover, there will be more aircraft 
flying in crowded airspace. There will be a more dangerous situation 
unless we modernize our air traffic control system.


                           Amendment No. 3528

  The final amendment I have is to provide standards for determining 
whether the substantial restoration of the natural quiet and experience 
of the Grand Canyon National Park has been achieved, and to clarify 
regulatory authority with respect to commercial air tours operating 
over the park.
  I see my colleagues waiting, and I will not take a lot of time on 
this amendment. But I would like to mention to my colleagues that it 
was approximately 25 years ago that I proposed legislation to restore 
natural quiet in the great experience over the Grand Canyon National 
Park.
  All of these years have intervened and there still have not been 
regulations written to implement that legislation. All of us share the 
same goal. We have been able to sit down, with the help of the majority 
leader's office, Senator Ensign's office, Senator Kyl's office, and 
others to try to make progress on this important issue.
  I think we have brought all parties together. I think there is 
consensus. So I am hoping that we will be able to adopt this amendment 
without further disagreement. It is important that we restore the 
natural quiet and experience of the Grand Canyon National Park. At the 
same time, it is also very important that people from all over the 
world have the opportunity to enjoy one of the great and magnificent 
experiences that any person can have; that is, to view the Grand Canyon 
from the air as well as from the ground.
  I think this legislation represents that careful balance. I thank 
Senator Reid and Senator Ensign and Senator Kyl for their efforts in 
crafting this legislation. It is time we acted. I appreciate the 
indulgence of my colleagues.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I would say to the good Senator from 
the State of Arizona that we have a number of amendments that are 
already more or less agreed to. More amendments are coming in, 
including several that he has mentioned. We want a chance to look at 
those to see whether those are--I heard one amendment, for example, 
that sounded pretty easy to do.
  The earmark amendment, I actually--I am not dissing this, but I just 
cannot resist but point something out; that is, on earmarks, this would 
ban earmarks for the foreseeable future. Let me redefine that.
  In the last 71 years, the Congress of the United States has not had a 
budget deficit in only 13 years. So you can see for the foreseeable 
future it is sort of a large matter. Nevertheless, we welcome the 
chance to look at that and work on it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to talk about two issues. First, 
I will talk about the pending business before the Senate, which is the 
FAA reauthorization, in a moment. I certainly want to commend my dear 
friend and colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Commerce 
Committee, for what he has done in bringing the reauthorization to the 
floor and the manner in which he has fashioned it.
  This is an opportunity to create 150,000 jobs, modernize our system 
for this 21st century, save millions of gallons of fuel that get spent 
under a system that is antiquated, and people sitting in planes just 
idling, and $9 billion in lost revenue to the Nation as a result of an 
antiquated system. All of this will be dealt with, with the FAA 
reauthorization.
  But before I get to that I want to speak for a moment on an item that 
we will be voting on tomorrow which is critically important to make 
sure we put the Nation back to work, the HIRE Act. One of those items I 
believe is incredibly important that has been getting the wrong view 
here is the question of the Build America Bonds. It is

[[Page S1585]]

one that has been debated quite a bit on the Senate floor the last 
couple of times we have been in session. My view is that these bonds 
have been one of the most successful pieces of the economic recovery 
package passed last year. They have helped to finance nearly $80 
billion in economic development projects in all 50 States.
  Those are projects that are a win-win for America. By helping States 
and local governments finance vital public infrastructure projects, we 
are putting Americans back to work; building better, stronger 
communities, better schools, retooling our infrastructure, and 
preparing for the new economy. That is what makes the Build America 
Bonds so effective. By lowering borrowing costs, these bonds 
incentivize investments in our communities across America. This gives 
State and local entities resources to fund badly needed projects, 
projects from which we all benefit.
  These bonds have been a resounding success. As a matter of fact, in a 
November article by Stephen Gandel that appeared on time.com, it ran 
under this headline: ``A Stimulus Success: Build America Bonds Are 
Working.''
  In this article, Amy Resnick, the editor in chief of a publication 
which follows bond markets, was quoted as saying: ``It's clearly been a 
success as a means of stimulating the economy.''
  When we talk about stimulating the economy, ultimately we are talking 
about putting Americans back to work. The bill we have before us, that 
we will vote on tomorrow, expands this successful program to allow 
issuers of school construction and energy project bonds to convert 
these tax credit bonds into a Build America Bond. Seems like a rather 
simple provision to me, a commonsense provision that says if it has 
been successful, why not expand on it. If we can stimulate needed 
construction for schools and communities across America, if we have a 
proven way to promote putting people to work on critical energy 
projects, why wouldn't we do it?
  Some of my Republican friends say they want to work on job creation, 
but I find it ironic that on one hand they speak about creating jobs, 
but on the other hand they criticize Build America Bonds for ``doing 
too much'' to create jobs and facilitate investment in vital public 
projects in communities across America.
  You can't have it both ways. You can't blame the majority for not 
focusing on job creation while criticizing one of the most successful 
programs as having done too much. At a time of 10 percent unemployment, 
the question is not are we helping our communities too much; rather, 
the fundamental question the Congress must be focused on is how do we 
create more investment so we can create more jobs so that we can put 
more Americans back to work. The lessons of history are important. 
Build America Bonds, the jobs they create, the good they do, underscore 
some of the historic differences between this side of the aisle and the 
other. History tells us that in difficult economic times, creating 
badly needed jobs for families struggling to make ends meet strengthens 
the economy and helps us rebuild a better future.
  In the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt understood the need for 
government to step in and create jobs. He rebuilt America's rusted old 
19th century infrastructure, retooled old systems and prepared the 
Nation for the 20th century. History has a way of repeating itself. We 
should not ignore it. We should instead learn from it, learn from our 
great successes so we don't repeat our worst failures. A proactive 
government creating a jobs agenda and putting people back to work 
during the New Deal and rebuilding our infrastructure was one of those 
successes. On the other hand, a static government doing nothing to 
create jobs in the face of massive unemployment, as Herbert Hoover did, 
was one of our worst failures.
  The lesson of history is clear. If we are too shortsighted to repeat 
the things that work, we are doomed to repeat the things that failed.
  Finally, on the second issue and the pending issue before the Senate, 
we need this FAA reauthorization bill because it will create jobs, over 
150,000. It will reduce congestion, that $9 billion lost for America by 
airplanes idling and people not being productive at work as they try to 
get to their business appointments and others who get lost along the 
way in terms of the time lost being with their families and friends. It 
also improves safety, which should be job 1. It will invest in 
infrastructure that will get more people to their destinations on two 
words we want to hear more and more, as the chairman is trying to make 
happen: On time.
  It will address several essential safety issues related to oversight, 
pilot training, pilot safety, and pilot fatigue after the tragic Colgan 
Air crash last year in Buffalo. This bill takes several steps to ensure 
that, 1, an extremely high level of safety exists throughout the entire 
transportation system. It protects passengers from being stranded on 
the tarmac like those at Stewart Airport in New York who sat on a plane 
that ran out of food. Things got so bad that each passenger was given 
four potato chips and half a cup of water. That is simply ridiculous 
and unacceptable. This bill will put an end to these stories by 
requiring each airline to provide adequate provisions to stranded 
planes and give all passengers the right to deplane after 3 hours, if 
not sooner.
  I salute Senator Rockefeller and the members of the Commerce 
Committee who have worked to bring this important bill to the floor.
  There are some things I hope we have offered that will be accepted 
into a managers' amendment. I look forward to some opportunities. We 
have something called the Clear Airfares Act. I believe when you buy a 
ticket, you should have the right to know what you are paying for. 
Anything short of that is simply unfair. My amendment No. 3506 would 
require airlines to be upfront with their fees so consumers can make an 
informed decision. It seems as though the airlines never have met a fee 
they do not like. These are some of them. We have two easels here to 
try to make the case. It is rather busy, but this gives you a sense to 
these two chart that lay out 13 common airline fees that 18 different 
airlines assign--fees for ordering tickets by phone, fuel surcharges, 
for traveling with a pet. Last year they invented a new fee. It is 
called the holiday fee. Because these fees don't appear alongside a 
ticket's base airfare, consumers have little idea of how much the 
ticket will eventually cost them.
  I brought an example we worked on to dramatize what we are talking 
about here. Airline A's ticket from BWI to La Guardia appears to be $2 
cheaper than airline B's ticket, $223.50 compared to $225.40. But then 
come the hidden fees. Airline A charges you $120 round trip to check 
two bags plus an additional $200 to travel with a pet. By contrast, 
airline B allows you to check two bags for free and charges you $150 to 
travel with a pet. The end result, when you add up the fees, what 
appeared to be the least expensive ticket for the same exact flight is 
actually $150 more expensive. My amendment shines a light on airline 
fees and surcharges so consumers have an accurate picture about what 
their trip is likely to cost them. We hope the committee will accept 
that.
  We also have an amendment on focused flying which was written in 
response to the flight that flew 150 miles beyond its destination, 
allegedly because the pilots were too distracted to notice the airport. 
I am pleased. Working with the committee and Senator Dorgan, we were 
able to include language in the underlying bill that would prohibit 
unnecessary electronic devices from the cockpit. However, it is 
important we look at all pilot distractions. Our amendment calls for 
the FAA to conduct a study on the broader issue of distractive flying 
and its impact on flight safety.
  The last amendment I have filed would require the FAA to monitor the 
air noise impacts of New Jersey, New York, and Philadelphia airspace 
redesign and simply provide the data to the public. I have not been 
supportive of the airspace redesign in part because it was done in such 
a way where noise impacts are rather severe. Now that the redesign is 
being implemented, the public has a right to know what consequences 
there are in that redesign and that some level of transparency should 
be provided to the flying public and the communities affected.
  Lastly, I look forward to what I hope is an end product, as we move 
through this Chamber and have a conference,

[[Page S1586]]

that no longer makes it tougher for some workers to organize unions 
than others who do the same work. I believe the rules should be applied 
evenly across the board. Unions help improve safety standards which not 
only benefit workers, they touch all of us who drive on the roads and 
fly in the skies. I hope the ultimate result will create that 
opportunity. It is time we finally pass the FAA reauthorization. It 
will create jobs. It will make our flying experience safer. It will 
make it more efficient. We will save money in our economy.
  I look forward to working with Chairman Rockefeller to make the bill 
one we can continue to be proud of as we fly the skies of our country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from New 
Jersey who is complimented far too little for doing so many good things 
but did a lot of them on the floor this afternoon. I appreciate what he 
said which is not related to aviation, about the school bond. It makes 
an enormous difference. It has been changed a bit to make it more 
effective at the State level. I appreciate the fact that he said that. 
And the points he made with respect to some of the amendments to the 
aviation bill seemed to make a lot of sense. The last one may cause 
some discussion, but I know the Senator and I know what is in his 
heart. He always speaks the truth.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank my distinguished colleague and chairman for his 
remarks and observations. We look forward to working with the committee 
to achieve some of these things and to achieve ultimate success with 
him at the end of the day.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. You could join the Commerce Committee. You are right 
up there in the leadership. I respect everything the Senator from New 
Jersey does.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. 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. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have just visited with Senator 
Rockefeller. Of course, we, along with Senator Hutchison, are trying to 
pass an FAA reauthorization bill, which is not as easy as it sounds. 
This is not one of the most controversial or difficult or passionate 
issues that divide America. We have plenty of those issues around. But 
this is about modernizing our air traffic control system, about 
reauthorizing the Airport Improvement Program, improving air safety--a 
wide range of issues. Still, anything that is brought to the floor of 
the Senate these days slows down--way, way, way down--and that is the 
case with this bill as well. I have described it as similar to trying 
to walk through wet cement to try to get something through the 
Congress.
  We have amendments pending dealing with school vouchers, putting 
discretionary caps on budgets, earmark reform--things that have very 
little or in most cases nothing to do with this underlying bill. It is 
just that this is an authorization bill open for amendment, so we have 
amendments on a wide range of issues. We also have other amendments 
that have been offered that are germane and relate to this piece of 
legislation, and we have been working through trying to put together an 
en bloc amendment with our staffs and Senator Rockefeller's staff, 
working through, with other colleagues, some of the suggestions. They 
make a lot of sense. I think we are making progress there.
  I have described before the need for this legislation. Last year, I 
met with some of the Europeans who are putting together the 
modernization program in Europe. This issue of modernization of the air 
traffic control system--I think I heard Senator McCain talk about World 
War II vintage air traffic control. It is the case that for those who 
are now taking off this minute from National Airport, when that 
airplane leaves the runway and is in the national airspace, it is the 
case that someone in a control tower somewhere is watching that 
airplane. Why? Because there is a lot of traffic up there.
  This is the most complex airspace in the world here in the United 
States, and I think the FAA, the Federal Aviation Administration, does 
a terrific job in operating the most complex system in the world. We 
have the safest skies in the world, there is no question about that. We 
have had one particularly fatal accident in the last year. That tragedy 
occurred in Buffalo, NY, with Colgan Air, in which 50 people tragically 
lost their lives, including the pilot and copilot and flight attendant. 
But the fact is, we have safe skies, and I would be the last to come to 
the floor of the Senate and say the American public should be worried 
about safety. It is the case, however, that the Colgan crash gave us a 
roadmap to some changes that I believe are necessary and that I and 
Senator Rockefeller and Senator Hutchison have put in this bill. The 
issues we have discovered from that tragedy persuaded us that a number 
of things needed to be done.
  The FAA itself has worked on aviation safety for a long while. The 
National Transportation Safety Board, which investigates aviation 
accidents, has made recommendations. In fact, they have a most wanted 
list. There are some recommendations that will improve air safety that 
have been on the most wanted list for a long, long time, some for well 
over a decade and not yet adopted. So the Administrator of the FAA, 
Randy Babbitt, has worked with us. I know he is working diligently to 
try to address some of those issues.
  Let me mention safety in just a moment, but let me talk for a moment 
about modernizing the system.
  When people say: Well, what is that about, it means we are moving 
from the tracking of that airplane that just left National Airport--I 
think we have about one a minute that is authorized at that slot 
airport, so every minute, an airplane is leaving that airport. When 
that airplane is at cruising altitude and on its way up to cruising 
altitude, it has a transponder, and that transponder is sending 
signals. That signal shows up on a screen. That screen is in front of 
an air traffic controller. That screen shows that airplane, in most 
cases by number, and that air traffic controller is directing that 
airplane with its traffic through other routes flown by other 
airplanes. It is all about safety, making sure airplanes can fly in a 
congested, crowded sky.
  The dilemma--by the way, it has been relatively safe. It certainly is 
safer than in the old days when they first started flying at night. 
During the day, they would fly by sight, years and years ago. Then, at 
night, they would fly to bonfires. They would fly to a bonfire and then 
fly 50 miles to another bonfire as they carried the mail at night. 
Eventually they would fly to lights, and then eventually they would fly 
to ground-based radar. It has been around a long time.
  The problem is, ground-based radar only shows where a jet plane is 
right at that moment--any airplane, for that matter, but a jet moves 
very fast, so at that nanosecond when that sweep of the radar shows 
that airplane in that airspace, that is exactly where it is. But a 
nanosecond later, it is somewhere else. Especially with a jet, with the 
next 5 or 7 seconds it takes to sweep the radar, that jet is somewhere 
other than where the dot showed it on the screen. Now we have the 
capability to know much more precisely than that where the airplane is, 
but because we only know about where that airplane is, we have to space 
airplanes for a margin of safety and we fly less direct routes. The 
result is, we use more fuel in that plane by flying a less direct 
route. We have to have much wider spacing of airplanes in a congested 
airspace. We are polluting the skies with more fuel used. We are 
costing the airplanes and the passengers the extra fuel. We are also 
taking extra time for the passengers to get to where they are headed 
because of less direct routes.
  All of that can change with a new system of global positing, GPS. 
Everybody understands what GPS is. You have GPS in your automobile in 
many cases. You type in an address and it shows you where your car is 
and where the address is and it takes you right to the address. If your 
child has a cell phone, in most cases they have access to GPS in their 
cell phone. In many cases, your child with a cell phone has

[[Page S1587]]

the opportunity, with some of the providers, to link with their best 
friends--their five best friends, for example--and each of them with 
their cell phone can have GPS locators, so they can access their five 
friends and know exactly where each of the five is. We can do that with 
children and cell phones. We cannot do it today with commercial 
airplanes. We cannot know exactly where that airliner is with GPS 
technology. That is because we have not yet modernized.
  That is what this is all about--modernization of the air traffic 
control system. When we do--and we will--we will be able to fly much 
more direct routes, have a greater margin of safety, save fuel, save 
the environment. We will do all of these things. Other parts of the 
world are doing it, and so must we. That is why Senator Rockefeller and 
I have brought a bill to the floor that moves directly and aggressively 
toward what is called modernization of the air traffic control systems. 
It sounds complicated. It is less complicated than one would think. It 
needs the FAA to build the facilities on the ground, and it needs the 
airplanes to have the equipage in the jet or the airplane itself. When 
we do that and have the procedures and the developed process, we will 
have modernized the air traffic control system. That is what the 
legislation is about.
  The legislation is also about building infrastructure across the 
country. If you are going to fly, you have to have someplace to land 
and someplace for passengers to embark and disembark. It means runways 
and terminals. It means a wide range of things. This also includes the 
Essential Air Service Program, which provides essential air service 
through contracts to smaller communities. As I indicated earlier, it 
addresses the issue of safety.
  Let me describe safety for a moment, as I have done a couple of times 
on the floor because I think it is very important.
  One-half of the flights in this country are by regional airlines. The 
passengers do not necessarily know it is a regional airline. They get 
on, in most cases, a smaller airplane, and it says United, US Airways, 
Delta, Continental, but it is not that company at all. That is just the 
brand on the airplane, and it is a regional company, in most cases, 
that is flying for the larger carrier. In some cases, the larger 
carrier owns the regional, but in most cases, it is a regional flying 
under contract to one of the major carriers.
  What we have discovered in several hearings, in the aftermath of the 
Colgan accident, is some very difficult circumstances in terms of 
mistakes that were made and things that we think we need to improve and 
correct. Some of it we do in this bill.
  The pilot who was in charge of the Colgan plane that evening--flying 
at night, in ice, in the winter, into Buffalo, NY, from Newark 
Airport--that pilot, we discovered later, had failed a number of pilot 
exams along the way. We have learned that the CEO of this company, 
Colgan, indicated: Had we known about these multiple failures along the 
way of this pilot's credentials, we would not have hired the pilot. But 
they did not know because they did not have access to all of that 
information. This legislation provides that access shall be made 
available. So those hiring decisions will be better decisions.
  The issue of fatigue is very important and was very evident as part 
of the cause, I believe, of that Colgan accident in Buffalo. There is 
almost never a circumstance where there was an airplane accident in 
this country where the accident report says definitively: This was 
caused by fatigue. But we know, of course, there are a number of 
tragedies that were caused by fatigue.
  Let me point out something we learned with respect to this particular 
flight, and my assumption is it is not peculiar to this flight. This 
chart shows the Colgan Air pilots' commuting prior to a flight. On this 
particular flight, on that evening, when the passengers boarded that 
flight, the copilot, who got in the right seat of that cockpit, had 
flown from Seattle, WA, to Newark Airport in order to reach her duty 
station. She lived in Seattle and she worked out of Newark. She flew 
all night long, deadheaded on a FedEx plane to Memphis, changed, and 
flew to Newark all night long. The pilot commuted from Florida to 
Newark. So you have two people in the cockpit: one from Florida who 
commuted to Newark and one from Seattle who commuted to Newark.
  What we now have heard from testimony from the National 
Transportation Safety Board is the pilot of that airplane had not slept 
in a bed the two previous nights, the copilot had not slept in a bed 
the previous night. Was this crash caused by fatigue? There will never 
be something that definitively suggests that, but if you were a 
passenger on an airplane and in the cockpit sat a pilot and copilot, 
neither of whom had slept in a bed the previous night or two nights, 
would you believe fatigue was the cause of perhaps a misjudgment in the 
cockpit? I would. I would.
  The question is not, Can you end all commuting? I do not expect you 
can probably end all commuting. But the question is, Does some of this 
commuting invariably cause fatigue? I believe it does. And how do you 
begin to address that? The FAA Administrator has now sent to the Office 
of Management and Budget, I believe, his rulemaking on fatigue, so that 
is a step forward because we have to address that.
  As shown on this chart, this quote is from a discussion by a regional 
pilot in the Wall Street Journal of September 12, 2008. He said:

       Take a shower, brush your teeth, pretend you slept.

  That is what a regional pilot says about the kind of work on regional 
carriers, where you have a lot of stops, small routes or short routes: 
``Take a shower, brush your teeth, pretend you slept.''
  Again, I think it raises the question--and a reasonable question--
about how do you make this circumstance change. How do you promote 
greater safety in circumstances where there is so much commuting, where 
you have duty time that often allows for less than is necessary to 
sleep at night? There is the full 8 hours, to be sure. But by the time 
you get to a hotel somewhere during duty time, it is quite often the 
case you have not slept a full night.
  In this case of the Colgan flight, we have now learned the copilot on 
that airplane not only traveled all the way across country to reach her 
duty station, but she is someone who made in the neighborhood of 
$20,000 to $23,000 a year. Does anybody believe a copilot on a 
commercial carrier paid $20,000 to $23,000 a year is going to be able 
to afford hotel rooms when they get to their duty station prior to 
taking a flight? I don't think so. That is not an unreasonable thing to 
expect to have happen.
  Let me say, my discussion of this is not to tarnish regional 
airlines. They play a very important role in our air traffic system in 
the commercial aviation system--very important. My hope is, though, 
working with the regional carriers, these safety provisions we have 
included in this piece of legislation will substantially improve safety 
and avoid the kind of circumstances that existed on that particular 
Colgan flight.
  I mentioned previously the families of the victims on that Colgan 
flight have been real champions for aviation safety. They have never 
missed a hearing. They have shown up at all the events in Washington, 
DC, whether it is a hearing or other activities, to say: I am here on 
behalf of my son, my daughter, my brother, my mother who perished in 
that crash. The fact is, that diligence and that effort has made a 
difference and shows itself in this legislation.
  We also, in this legislation, are addressing the issue of pilot hours 
as qualifications. I will talk about that some other time.
  I think there is a lot here to commend this bill to my colleagues. It 
is urgent we get this passed through the Senate, get to conference, be 
able to reach a conference agreement with the House, and get the bill 
signed. We will, by that, I think improve the infrastructure in this 
country, substantially increase jobs--we are estimating 150,000 new 
jobs as a result of it--and dramatically change the air traffic control 
system from an archaic system to a modern system. All that is good for 
the country.
  There is way too much that is needed to be done in this country to 
improve things, especially in areas of infrastructure and 
modernization, that is

[[Page S1588]]

left undone. Let's at least get this piece for commercial aviation and 
for all aviation completed.
  I have mentioned almost exclusively the issue of commercial aviation. 
I do not want to leave the floor again without saying there is another 
component to aviation in our country; that is, general aviation. Many 
of us fly on small planes a lot. I learned how to fly a small plane 
years and years ago. General aviation plays a very important role in 
the area of aviation in our lives.
  In States such as Alaska, the Presiding Officer's State, or perhaps 
West Virginia or North Dakota, in States such as that, the ability to 
get on a Cessna 210 or a King Air, if we are lucky, or perhaps even a 
Mooney or a 172 Cessna and go someplace and get there, sometimes in 
circumstances where there are not a lot of roads, as would be the case 
in Alaska, and other circumstances where you have wide distances to 
travel on a Friday, Saturday or Sunday--general aviation is so 
important and they do so much good work.
  In addition, very few people talk--it is true of general aviation and 
also commercial aviation--about the mercy flights, flying a heart for a 
donor on a mercy flight, or flying someone who needs desperate 
treatment to save a life. It goes on every day all across this 
country--corporate jets, private planes, and, yes, even with commercial 
airliners.
  We are in the process right now of beginning to fight a flood in 
Fargo-Moorhead. That river will go up 20 feet in about 10 days. It is 
going to be 20 feet by Friday from 2 weeks ago. I recall last year when 
the flood occurred, then Northwest Airlines, now Delta Airlines, flew 
some very large planes into Fargo for relief purposes. They never asked 
for anything. They just said they were coming. There is a lot of work 
that goes on by some of the major carriers, as well as corporate and 
general aviation, that is very important.
  Again, I thank Senator Rockefeller for the work he and Senator 
Hutchison have done. I, as chairman, and Senator DeMint, as ranking 
member, of the Subcommittee on Aviation are pleased to be working with 
them.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Gillibrand). The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  United States and Israel Controversy

  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition to comment on 
the current controversy between the United States and Israel on the 
settlement issue.
  Before the current controversy between the United States and Israel 
escalates further, I suggest all parties cool the rhetoric, avoid 
public recriminations, determine exactly what happened and consider 
some fundamental questions.
  What are the facts? It has been reported that there are 1,600 new 
settlements in East Jerusalem in violation of Israeli commitments. 
Authoritative sources insist that the announcement by a mid-level 
official at the Ministry of the Interior only involved planning subject 
to judicial review with no groundbreaking for 3 years. Another report 
said U.S. officials extracted a secret promise from Prime Minister 
Netanyahu not to allow provocative steps in East Jerusalem. Is it true 
that the United States accepted the 10-month moratorium on settlements 
with caveats that excluded East Jerusalem in line with the insistence 
by Israeli officials dating back to Prime Minister Golda Meir that 
Jerusalem was under Israeli exclusive sovereignty?
  It is conceded that Prime Minister Netanyahu was blindsided by the 
announcement. It is further acknowledged that the Israeli Minister of 
the Interior is a member of the ultra-conservative Shaos party whose 
participation is essential to the continuation of the coalition 
government.
  These matters need to be thought through before making public 
pronouncements that could significantly damage the U.S.-Israeli 
relationship and give aid and comfort to the enemies of the Mideast 
peace process.
  The rock solid alliance between the United States and Israel has 
withstood significant disagreements for six decades. The mutual 
interests which bind these two countries together have always been 
stronger than the most substantial differences. The United States needs 
to respect Israeli security interests, understanding that Israel cannot 
lose a war and survive. The United States has many layers of defense to 
protect our security interests and survive.
  I suggest that if we all take a few deep breaths, think through the 
pending questions and reflect on the importance of maintaining U.S.-
Israeli solidarity, we can weather this storm.
  (The further remarks of Mr. Specter pertaining to the introduction of 
S. 3120 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank my distinguished colleague from Connecticut for 
awaiting those few comments and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.


                           Amendment No. 3456

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, it was a pleasure to yield that time 
to my friend from Pennsylvania, which he used very well.
  I rise to continue a discussion of amendment No. 3456, which has been 
offered by Senators Collins, Byrd, Feinstein, Voinovich, Ensign, and 
myself, which would reauthorize the Opportunity Scholarship Program for 
students, needy and deserving students here in the District of 
Columbia, sometimes referred to as the DC voucher program.
  This amendment would, as I say, reauthorize this program which 
otherwise would either atrophy over time--there are still 1,300 
students in it, but now, for the last 2 years, it has not been 
reauthorized. President Obama in his budget says this probably will be 
the last year that Federal funding would be in it. The nonprofit 
corporation that has administered this program has said--under the 
circumstances the Congress by our inaction and in some sense 
interruption have created--they cannot continue to administer the 
program. No one else has come forward to do that.
  This amendment says, effectively, it would be a tragedy, a human 
tragedy, 1,300 human tragedies--that 1,300 economically disadvantaged 
students in the District of Columbia who have been given a lifeline out 
of failing public schools to try to better educate themselves so they 
can live a life of self-sufficiency and satisfaction--that all that 
hope would be ended, all that opportunity would be ended.
  This amendment would turn all that around and say the Senate believes 
this program is at least worth continuing as an experiment. But more 
than that, it has worked, by independent evaluation. Why terminate it? 
There is no good reason to terminate it. Would the Chancellor of the 
District of Columbia School System, Michelle Rhee, obviously an 
advocate for the public schools here--as I am, as the other Senators, 
Collins, Byrd, Feinstein, Voinovich, and Ensign are--would the 
Chancellor of a public school system here support this program if it 
were not a good program? Of course not. Would she support it if she 
thought it was a threat to the public schools? Of course not. That is 
her first and major commitment. She supports a 5-year extension of this 
program that this amendment would authorize because, as she said 
poignantly to our Government Affairs Committee, which has jurisdiction 
over matters related to the District of Columbia--she said until she 
can say to a parent of a child at a school that has been designated 
under Federal law as a failing school, a school that has failed to give 
those children an equal educational opportunity--until, Chancellor Rhee 
has told us, she can say to the parent, ``that public school that your 
child is in here in the District of Columbia, our Nation's Capital, is 
prepared to give your child an equal and good educational 
opportunity,'' then she cannot say terminate the DC Opportunity 
Scholarship Program which gives low-income, economically disadvantaged 
children a lifeline, a passport, a scholarship they can use at a 
private or faith-based school of their choice.
  This program was started after difficult and intricate negotiations 
in

[[Page S1589]]

2004. It was started with a basic premise that is deeply and 
wonderfully American, which is: Hey, this is the country whose 
Declaration of Independence said that the government was being created 
in the first place, in 1776, to secure the rights to life, liberty, and 
the pursuit of happiness; that everybody has an endowment from our 
Creator--not by the government; the government is there to secure those 
rights--the endowment came from God, from our Creator. One of the 
fundamental ways in which we have attempted over our history to secure 
those rights is through the public school system, through our school 
system.
  Generations and generations of Americans, new Americans, immigrant 
Americans, have come here and the school system has given them an 
opportunity for education and they have gone on to not only make a 
success of themselves but contribute enormously to our country.
  The sad fact is that a lot of our public schools today are failing 
particularly our economically disadvantaged students. There is a 
terrible gap based on income and race and ethnicity, an achievement 
gap, in our public school system. No Child Left Behind and various 
Federal programs are trying hard to close that, but it has not been 
closed yet.
  That is why a lot of us got together in 2004, the administration and 
both parties, and tried to negotiate and ultimately did negotiate a 
compromise which was based not on supporting any particular educational 
institution but founded on that goal that was in the Declaration of 
Independence, that is characteristically and fundamentally American, 
the individual and, in this case, the individual child. How many 
individual children, in this case in the Nation's Capital, can we give 
a better education so they can develop their God-given talent to the 
highest level possible, which they cannot do if they are not getting a 
good education?
  So in this compromise that was enacted in 2004, we basically created 
new income streams. Some people say: Oh, the DC Opportunity Scholarship 
Program looks like it is working. It is a good idea to help kids get a 
scholarship to a private or faith-based school, but I am against it 
because it takes money from public schools. Wrong. That was the whole 
premise.
  In fact, to even it out, when we adopted this program we gave an 
equal amount of additional money to the DC Public Schools as went into 
the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, then a new stream of money into 
charter schools in the District of Columbia. That was the agreement 
that was made. It was a good agreement. Those of us who support the DC 
Opportunity Scholarship Program are not at all unhappy to give an equal 
amount of extra money to the public schools and to the charter school 
movement in the District.
  I guess the program is controversial because some people do not want 
to experiment with something other than the public school system on how 
to educate the individual. OK, I respect that. I understand that.
  Teachers unions are at the forefront of the opposition. They are 
against this bill. I understand that. But I disagree, respectfully. 
This is not an assault on teachers or the public schools. As Chancellor 
Rhee has said: This is a temporary lifeline for students who are in 
schools designated under Federal law as inadequate to educate them, to 
give them an opportunity to step up and go to a private or a faith-
based school where they can do better.
  I do not know why anyone would want to terminate this program. It is 
a small program. As I will make clear in a few moments, it has been 
positively evaluated. Particularly, I repeat, why would we want to 
intervene when the leader of the DC Public Schools says this 
Opportunity Scholarship Program should be continued because it is good 
for kids in the District of Columbia. She cannot really say to parents: 
I can give a good, first-class education to all of your children.
  Parents like this program a lot. Kids like it. We heard moving 
testimony from children in the system. Polling in the District of 
Columbia shows very strong support for it, particularly and not 
surprisingly in economically disadvantaged areas.
  Look, let's talk from the facts. Most of us, I will say ``us,'' 
including me, have the money to send our kids to either private or 
faith-based schools because we think they can get a better education 
there or the kind of education we want them to get, particularly if it 
is in a faith-based school.
  These are parents who do not have that choice because they do not 
have the money. Imagine the frustration that we would feel if our 
children were trapped in a public school where we knew they were not 
getting a good education that would compromise the rest of their life 
and yet we did not have the money to get them a better education.
  That is all this program deems, the Opportunity Scholarship Program. 
It is a scholarship to give economically disadvantaged kids an 
opportunity to rise to the limits of their ability. A vote against this 
amendment, I really believe, is a vote to take away opportunity for 
1,300 economically disadvantaged students who are now in the program 
and hundreds of others who would join if and when this program is 
extended.
  There have been hundreds of students involved. At its peak there were 
1,930 students enrolled for the 2007-2008 school year. Because no new 
students could enroll, because the program was not reauthorized to that 
extent by Congress, enrollment declined to 1,721 for the 2008-2009 
school year. It is now at 1,319.
  Here is a terrible thing that happened: Last year, 216 students were 
offered a scholarship for the year that followed, the school year that 
followed. Then that offer, because of opposition to this program and a 
decision not to allow new students into it, was revoked by the 
Secretary of Education of the United States.
  Since its inception, the Opportunity Scholarship Program has served 
over 3,000 students, and more than 8,400 have applied to participate. 
Over 85 percent of the students in this program would be attending a 
school in need of improvement, corrective action, or restructuring as 
designated under Federal law. This is a remarkable program that really 
does deserve to be continued.
  I note the presence of my colleague and friend and cosponsor, Senator 
Ensign. If the Senator would like to speak at this time, I will be glad 
to yield the floor, and then I will take it back after he has 
concluded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, first of all, I appreciate all of the 
great work that the chairman has done on this piece of legislation. 
This is a bipartisan piece of legislation that we are talking about 
today. We are talking about the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program.
  Why is it on the bill that deals with the FAA, people would ask? 
Well, it is on there because we have been trying to get this 
reauthorized for a long time. In the Senate, we have to take whatever 
vehicle we can get.
  I appreciate the leadership of Senator Lieberman and the work he has 
done, as well as many of my other colleagues. Unfortunately, there are 
forces on the other side who apparently think giving opportunity 
scholarships for 1,300 poor children in the District of Columbia is 
somehow a threat to our public education system in America.
  I heard the chairman talk about Michelle Rhee. Michelle is one of the 
true reformers of education. She is a believer in the public education 
system in America, as I am. I know that Chairman Lieberman is a big 
believer in the public education system. That is one of the reasons we 
want to explore and test various reform proposals to actually see if 
they will work, or see if they do not work.
  Well, so far, there have been 1,300 students participating in the DC 
Opportunity Scholarship Program. Based on the satisfaction of their 
parents, it is serving the students well. Remember, when they get a 
scholarship, they do not have to go. Let me repeat that. If they are in 
a public school system, they are zoned for that public school system. 
They cannot afford to go anyplace else; they do not have any choice. 
But if they get one of these DC scholarships, nobody forces them to use 
it. Nobody forces them to go to one of those other private schools.
  Why do the parents and the kids like it? They like it because they 
are escaping from a bad school.
  As Senator Lieberman discussed, 85 percent of the kids who 
participate in

[[Page S1590]]

this program are from failing schools; failing based on objective 
criteria. The average household income is about $25,000 a year for the 
families of these kids who are participating in the DC Opportunity 
Scholarship Program. These are kids are from low-income families. They 
cannot afford to take their kids out of these failing schools by 
themselves. That is why we wanted to experiment to see whether the DC 
Opportunity Scholarship Program worked. Did it help the kids' 
educational system? Education in America has been called the new civil 
right. Well, I think that is exactly right. I think we need to look at 
education as a way to lift people out of poverty. But just because kids 
are getting an education at school, it does not give them the 
opportunities that other kids are getting. It is not a question of 
money. The DC Public School System spends $15,000 per year per student. 
It is one of the highest, if not the highest, in the country. It is 
about $4,600 a year more than the national average. It is almost three 
times more than what Nevada spends per student.
  But I can guarantee you, I do not know of anybody in Nevada who would 
rather have their kids going here in Washington, DC, Public Schools 
than going to public school in Nevada. It is because of the poor 
performance of Washington, DC Public Schools.
  Now, Michelle Rhee, to her credit, is doing a good job improving the 
public schools. But they have so far to go. The Mayor of Washington, 
DC, supports the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. The parents of 
these children--there were over 7,000 people who just signed a petition 
in Washington, DC, to continue this program. I have met many of these 
students. When you talk to them, and you look in their faces and you 
say: Do you want this program to continue? Is this something that has 
helped you in your life? The students who have participated in the DC 
Opportunity Scholarship Program say it is one of the best things that 
ever happened to them in their life. DC Opportunity Scholarship Program 
allowed the students to get out of a school that had high crime rates, 
that had low performance, and where sometimes the teachers did not have 
great attitudes. The students went to a caring, loving atmosphere where 
they had a chance to succeed.
  That is really what this whole thing is about. Recent data shows that 
about 26 percent of eighth graders in the DC Public Schools score below 
basic in math. Students of DC Public Schools rank near the bottom in 
the Nation in both SAT and ACT scores. About half of the DC students do 
not even graduate from high school.
  On the other side of the coin, when you look at what has happened 
with the DC Opportunity Scholarship kids, a rigorous study by the 
Institute of Education Services found that students in the program 
experienced statistically significant improvements in reading that were 
equal to more than 3 months of additional schooling.
  The study also found that students in five out of ten subgroups 
improved in reading, and parents experienced increased satisfaction 
with the quality and the safety of their children's schools.
  Dr. Wolf, who was the principal investigator for the Department of 
Education study, has stated:

       . . . the D.C. scholarship program has proven to be the 
     most effective education policy evaluated by the federal 
     government's official education research arm so far.

  You know, Rome was not built in a day. I believe we owe it to DC's 
children to continue this program and to continue the research on these 
promising gains.
  Do we know that the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program will work in 
the future? No. But it is promising research so far. So we should not 
discontinue the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. We should fund it, 
make sure that it continues and continue to study it.
  Unfortunately, what has happened is that in the public school system, 
there are forces who believe that giving parents choice is somehow a 
threat to our public school system. To me, it is just about the kids 
and their education. That is who should come first in our education 
system, the children. Let's put their education and future first. Let's 
not have special interests decide who is going to control education.
  That is what the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program is all about. I 
see Senator Collins is on the Senate floor. I appreciate her work, 
Senator Lieberman, Senator Voinovich, and many others in the Senate who 
have worked in a bipartisan fashion. Let's not let this bill go down.
  Secretary Duncan is a reformer. There is no question he has brought 
some reform proposals that I think deserve looking at.
  He has talked a lot about putting our kids first in our education 
system. This is one way we can do it. We need to support Michelle Rhee 
in her efforts to improve the public school system, but we also need to 
keep this valuable program, the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, 
intact for those 1,300 kids and their families who are enjoying its 
benefits.
  I yield the floor and thank the chairman for allowing me to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank Senator Ensign for his 
cosponsorship, for his convincing and informed argument for this 
amendment. I couldn't agree more. There is such an irony here. 
Secretary Duncan of Education is a reformer. The President supports 
school reforms. Michelle Rhee is trying very hard and valiantly and 
effectively to reform the DC Public Schools. Why would Secretary Duncan 
and members of the administration and some in this body and our 
colleagues in the other body oppose this program, an opportunity 
scholarship program which Chancellor Rhee supports because it is 
consistent with her attempt and the attempt of Secretary Duncan to 
reform our public schools? The only answer I can think of is that 
certain interest groups, including particularly teachers unions, oppose 
this measure.
  For me, that is not an acceptable reason to terminate the hopes of 
1,300 children in a program in the Nation's Capital.
  I note, with pleasure, the presence of our colleague from Maine, 
Senator Collins.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, let me begin by saluting the leadership 
of my colleague, the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, 
Senator Lieberman. He has been so persistent in ensuring a debate on 
this program. His leadership on this issue, as on every other issue I 
work with him on, has been exemplary.
  I am pleased to join Senators Lieberman, Ensign, Voinovich, 
Feinstein, and Byrd in offering this amendment to reauthorize the DC 
Opportunity Scholarship Program.
  More than 5 years ago, leaders in the District of Columbia became 
frustrated with institutionalized failure within the public school 
system, and designed a ``three-sector'' strategy that provided new 
funding for public schools, public charter schools and new educational 
options for needy children. Working with the District, Congress then 
implemented the DC School Choice Incentive Act in 2004, giving birth to 
the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. The program is the first to 
provide federally funded scholarships to students, and has enabled low-
income students from the District of Columbia public school system to 
attend the independent-private or parochial school of their choice. For 
many of these students, this was their first opportunity to access a 
high quality education.
  The program has clearly filled a need, a fact that is illustrated by 
the long lines of parents waiting to enroll their children in the 
program. Since its inception, more than 7,000 students have applied for 
scholarships. With demand so high, it is dismaying that critics would 
seek to dismantle the program.
  The inspiring stories we have heard from parents and students 
participating in the program, parallels what we have learned from 
recent independent studies conducted by the University of Arkansas and 
the Institute of Education Sciences at the U.S. Department of 
Education.
  In December 2009, University of Arkansas researchers released the 
findings of a new evaluation entitled ``Family Reflections on the 
District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program.'' The project 
sought to ``capture the contextual nuances of what is

[[Page S1591]]

happening in the lives of the families experiencing the Program'' by 
conducting a qualitative assessment.
  The study showed that parents were overwhelmingly satisfied with 
their children's experience in the program. Common reasons for this 
higher level of satisfaction included, appreciation for the ability to 
choose their child's school, the success their children are having in 
new school environments, and the support provided by the Washington 
Scholarship Fund.

  In March 2009, the Department of Education released its evaluation of 
the program's impact after three years, which showed that overall; 
students offered scholarships had higher reading achievement than those 
not offered scholarships, the equivalent of an additional three months 
of learning.
  As I noted previously, this amendment has bipartisan support and was 
crafted using input from Members on both sides of the aisle. As chair 
and ranking member of the Financial Services General Government 
Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Durbin and I held a hearing last 
September on funding for schools in the District. We heard from 
stakeholders representing DC Public Schools, DC Public Charter Schools, 
and the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. This amendment is the 
byproduct of their input as well as that of my distinguished colleague, 
Senator Durbin.
  In addition to providing scholarships for low-income students and 
their family's real choice in education, the amendment authorizes $20 
million for DC public schools and $20 million for pubic charter 
schools--so that all students in the District have access to a high 
quality education.
  Further, our amendment includes provisions supported by Senator 
Durbin. Among other things, it provides that all participating OSP 
schools maintain a valid certificate of occupancy issued by the DC 
government, that core subject matter teachers in OSP schools must hold 
at least a bachelor's degree, and that all OSP schools must be 
accredited.
  We all must place what's best for students first. If Congress were to 
discontinue funding for DC opportunity scholarships, it is estimated 
that 86 percent of the students would be reassigned to schools that did 
not meet ``adequate yearly progress'' goals in reading and math for the 
2006-07 school year. We simply cannot afford to allow that to happen. I 
urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  We are talking about averting a true tragedy by adopting the 
Lieberman amendment, which I am pleased to cosponsor. I do not use that 
word ``tragedy'' often nor lightly. That is what we are talking about. 
We are talking about the futures of young people in the District of 
Columbia. That is what is at stake in this debate. It is that serious.
  It is important to go back and look at the history of the DC 
scholarship program. More than 5 years ago, the leaders of the District 
of Columbia became so frustrated with the institutionalized failure 
within the District's public school system that they came to Congress 
and worked with Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to 
design a new three-sector strategy that provided new funding for public 
schools in the District, for public charter schools, and for 
scholarships for low-income children who might choose to attend a 
private school.
  Working with the District's leaders, Congress then passed the DC 
School Choice Incentive Act of 2004, giving birth to the DC Opportunity 
Scholarship Program. For many of these students, this was their first 
opportunity to access a high-quality education, an education that would 
give them the opportunity to excel, the opportunity for a bright 
future. That is what the debate is about. Indeed, we have seen 
incredible enthusiasm for this program, and the three-pronged approach 
has helped DC's public schools to get on the path of improvement and 
DC's charter schools which are also providing some quality educational 
opportunities.
  But a young man who testified before our Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Committee put it very well when he was asked by a 
Senator who opposed the DC scholarship program why we should not, 
instead, focus solely on the DC Public Schools.
  He said: Mr. Senator, the DC schools didn't get bad overnight, and 
they are not going to get better overnight.
  Clearly, what he was saying was, why should he lose the opportunity 
for a good education and a bright future while he is waiting for DC 
Public Schools to get better.
  I join in the admiration for Michelle Rhee, who is working very hard 
with the mayor and with the city council to improve the DC Public 
Schools. We are making progress. We rejoice in that progress. We 
support that progress. That is why we are continuing to provide Federal 
funding for DC's public schools. But as this young man told us, the DC 
schools did not get bad overnight, and they are not going to get better 
overnight, no matter what extraordinary leadership they are receiving.
  The DC scholarship program has clearly filled a need, a fact that is 
illustrated by the long lines of parents waiting to enroll their 
children in the program. Since its inception, more than 7,000 students 
have applied for scholarships. With demand so high, with the stakes so 
great, it is dismaying, to say the least--I think it is tragic--that 
critics are seeking to dismantle this program.
  The inspiring stories we have heard from parents and students 
participating in the DC scholarship program parallel what we have 
learned from recent independent, rigorous studies conducted by the 
University of Arkansas and the Institute of Education Sciences at the 
U.S. Department of Education. Senator Lieberman and I heard firsthand 
from the researcher who conducted that study. He told us parents were 
overwhelmingly satisfied with their children's experience in this 
program, and they also told us the students offered scholarships had 
higher reading achievement than those not offered scholarships, the 
equivalent of an additional 3 months of learning. Given that these 
students had not been enrolled in these better schools for very long, 
that is impressive progress. I am certain as their education continues, 
if it is allowed to continue, we will see even more substantial 
educational gains.
  It is so disappointing--it is discouraging and dismaying--that we are 
having to fight for the continuation of a program that each and every 
day is making a difference in the lives of these children.
  I am going to challenge my colleagues, before you decide how you are 
going to vote on this program, if you are inclined to vote against our 
amendment, first talk to just one student who is enrolled in this 
program and their parents. If you then can come to the floor and, in 
good conscience, vote against the Lieberman-Collins amendment--well, 
suffice it to say, I don't think our colleagues can, in good 
conscience, vote against our amendment, if they have talked to any of 
the students and their families who are benefiting from this program.
  It would be truly a tragedy for the children of the District of 
Columbia if this program is not continued.
  Let me end my comments with one startling fact. If Congress were to 
discontinue funding for DC opportunity scholarships, it is estimated 86 
percent of the students would be returned to schools that are failing 
schools, schools that did not meet the adequate yearly progress 
standard for reading and math for the 2006-2007 school year. We simply 
cannot, in good conscience, allow that to happen.
  I hope my colleagues will take a close look at the facts revealed by 
our hearing, the rigorous studies that have been done to compare 
educational progress, the recommendations of the chancellor of the DC 
Public Schools and, most of all, I hope they will listen to the 
students and to the families whose lives have been changed for the 
better due to this program.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaufman). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my colleague, Senator Collins, for coming to 
the floor, for being a cosponsor of this amendment. And for the 
passionate and reasoned way in which she spoke.
  Two things come to mind in listening to her remarks. One is, we are 
very often dealing with big national or international matters on the 
floor of the Senate--health care reform, jobs act, whatever. They all 
involve people,

[[Page S1592]]

of course. But here is one which is local, and we can actually quantify 
the people. We have 1,319 children who are in private or faith-based 
schools because of this DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, getting, by 
their own telling and that of their parents, so much better an 
education, feeling better about themselves, being on the road of 
opportunity.
  If we don't authorize this, although the administration has said it 
is committed to at least following these students through high school, 
there is not enough money there to do that. The President, in the 
budget, said this is probably the last year he will fund it. There is 
not enough money to carry these students through high school.
  The second point is, with all the uncertainty in the program, the 
current administrator of it, a nonprofit corporation, has said they 
don't want to do this anymore. So far, no one else has been found to do 
it.

  So this definitely closes the door to opportunity for hundreds of 
other students in the District and their parents to give them a better 
education, while Chancellor Rhee, over the next 5 years, is trying to 
make every school in the District of Columbia a good school.
  But, secondly, it really focuses us on the possibility that these 
1,319 children will be forced to go back to the public schools in their 
neighborhoods, and 86 percent of those schools, as Senator Collins has 
said, are designated under Federal law as inadequate. None of us would 
let our kids go there, and we would pay their way out. But these 
parents who benefit from this program cannot.
  So Senator Collins has really spoken of this as a tragedy, a human 
tragedy--she is right--that you could look into the face of each of 
these 1,319 kids and say: Sorry, you can't go on in this school you all 
are so happy to be going to at this point.
  The second point is this, and I say this respectfully: It has been 
very rare, when I have been involved in a debate in the Senate on a 
matter, that I have not felt there were some respectable, good 
arguments on the other side. I did not agree with them. On balance, 
they did not convince me my position was wrong. But I must say that on 
this one I cannot think of a single good reason to be opposed to this 
amendment: 5 more years of an experimental program, $20 million to the 
DC Opportunity Scholarship Program out of, by my recollection, $13 
billion of Federal taxpayer money that goes to title I schools, and 
over $25 billion that goes from the Federal Government to public 
schools around America in the No Child Left Behind Program--a total of 
$25 billion or $26 billion.
  This is $20 million for these DC Opportunity Scholarships, alongside 
$20 million more to the DC Public Schools that they will not otherwise 
get, and $20 million more for the charter schools. In fact, if this 
program is allowed to die and those 1,319 students are forced back into 
the public schools in their neighborhoods, that adds, by the estimate 
of one independent authority I have seen, at least $14 million more to 
the expense of the DC Public School System to take them back.
  So I welcome people who oppose this amendment to come to the floor to 
debate it, but honestly, listening to Senator Collins, I cannot think 
of a good reason to be against this amendment. I thank the Senator very 
much for coming over, for her cosponsorship, and for all the work we 
have been able to do together.
  Again, I say, why did this come before the Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Committee? Because historically--the Presiding 
Officer, I am now proud to say, is a new member of the committee--the 
Governmental Affairs Committee has been given jurisdiction over matters 
regarding the District of Columbia. It is in that capacity that we have 
done oversight of this program.
  I note the presence of another cosponsor--and I will give her a 
moment to get ready--Senator Feinstein of California, whom I will yield 
to whenever she wants to speak.
  One of the arguments against this--actually, since no one is on the 
floor opposing this, I am going to use a memo sent out this afternoon 
by staff to Senators opposing the amendment from the Democratic 
leadership office, I believe. I will just pick out a few of these.
  The first problem cited: This program was passed in 2003 as a 5-year 
pilot program. It has now been extended twice through appropriations 
bills to minimize the disruption to students already in the program, 
and a plan for winding it down is in place. But that is the point.
  So they say: Reauthorization is not needed to keep students in the 
schools they are in. That, according to the DC authorities on this, is 
not true. There is not enough money in it to keep them in there. The 
President said, in his budget this year, this would probably be the 
last time he would recommend appropriating to this program. The promise 
was to keep these students in the Opportunity Scholarship Program right 
through graduation from high school. There is not enough money there.
  But more to the point, there is every reason to do it, based on the 
independent evaluation of the program, based on Michelle Rhee, 
chancellor of the DC Public Schools, who is supporting the 5-year 
reauthorization because she feels it is necessary.
  Incidentally, this reauthorization is also supported by Mayor Fenty. 
He supports the tripartite appropriation: public schools, charter 
schools, and the Opportunity Scholarship Program. And it is supported 
in a letter from a majority of the members of the city council of the 
District.
  I want to quote--I will come back to it again--Michelle Rhee. This is 
why it is not adequate to say this ought to be just appropriated every 
year and keep these students in the program dangling every year, making 
it harder to find an independent administrator of the program, why 
reauthorization is needed. But listen to this. This is Michelle Rhee in 
testimony before the Financial Services and General Government 
Subcommittee on September 16 of last year. She says:

       [O]n a regular basis, I have parents from Wards 7 and 8 
     (which are our highest poverty wards, which are also the home 
     of our lowest performing schools) come to me and they've done 
     everything a parent should do and they say, ``I've looked at 
     all the data, I know my neighborhood school and the schools 
     surrounding are not performing at the level that I want them 
     to. So I participated in the out-of-boundary process; I went 
     through the lottery and I didn't get a slot at one of the 
     schools I wanted.'' So they look at me and say, ``Now what? 
     What are you going to do?''

  Michelle Rhee answered in her testimony:

       And I cannot look at those parents in the eye right now at 
     this point and offer every single one of them a spot in a 
     school that I think is a high-performing school.

  Here is a gutsy comment from this chancellor who is really devoted to 
the improvement of the public schools. Chancellor Rhee says:

       And until I think we are able to do that, which I think is 
     on that five-year horizon, then I believe that we do need to 
     have choice for our families and I think they do have to have 
     the ability to participate: either to move into a charter 
     school or to use the opportunity scholarships.

  End of quote from the chancellor of the DC Public School System. I 
have the greatest respect for her. It took a lot of guts to say that. 
But she said ``5-year horizon,'' and that is what this reauthorization 
does. It gives these kids--these parents who know their children are 
not getting a good education in the public school they are in--who have 
not been able to go to one of the out-of-boundary, out-of-their-
neighborhood schools because the schools are packed, have not made it 
into a charter school because I gather there are thousands waiting who 
cannot get into the existing charter schools--let's give them an 
opportunity to get one of these opportunity scholarships and have a 
chance for a better education and a better life.
  Mr. President, I am going to stop now. I am very grateful for the 
cosponsorship by the distinguished Senator from California, a former 
mayor, of course, who is intimately knowledgeable on public education, 
who is committed to public education and yet really concerned about 
every child. That is what this program is about.
  I will yield the floor at this moment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank you for the recognition.
  I thank the distinguished Senator and chairman of the committee for 
his leadership on this issue. Also, the Senator from Maine is in the 
Chamber. I thank her for her support.

[[Page S1593]]

  This has not been an easy program. It has always surprised me that 
people oppose anything that might give an individual another 
opportunity. I believe very deeply that some children do well in one 
kind of setting, other children do well in another kind of setting, and 
the real goal of education ought to be to provide a number of different 
choices for youngsters so you can see where they learn best and then 
enable them to be in that situation. I also have always had a hard time 
understanding why only the well-to-do can afford a private school, why 
youngsters have to go to schools that are among the most troubled and, 
candidly, the worst anywhere because that is the way it is and that is 
what public education insists it be. So I have supported this program 
for some 6 years now, since its inception under the leadership of 
District of Columbia Mayor Anthony Williams, and I strongly believe it 
should be continued. It is right.
  It started out as a 5-year pilot program to determine whether 
youngsters, low-income students, do, in fact, learn more and learn 
better in some of DC's private and parochial schools. The program's 
most recent evaluation results show this program is, in fact, valid and 
students are, in fact, improving. So I say, why not reauthorize it? 
What is everybody scared of? Why not reauthorize it? The scholarships 
of up to $7,500 that are offered through the DC Opportunity Scholarship 
Program help children make their education in a private or parochial 
school possible.
  Currently, we know this: There are 1,319 children who attend 45 
private and parochial schools. They all come from families where the 
average income is $25,000, and 85 percent of these students would be in 
DC's worst performing public schools if it were not for this program.
  This amendment would extend the life of this worthy program for 5 
more years and allow both current and new students the opportunity to 
participate. What are we afraid of? It is supported by DC Mayor Adrian 
Fenty, as the chairman said; DC School Chancellor Michelle Rhee--one 
very gutsy young superintendent; a majority of the District's council; 
and by parents in the District.
  What are we afraid of?
  Preliminary evaluations by the U.S. Department of Education's 
Institute of Education Sciences have shown academic gains and student 
improvement. When these students entered the program 6 years ago, they 
were performing in the bottom third on reading and math tests in the 
District's public schools. Last year's more comprehensive evaluation 
shows that reading test scores of students receiving a scholarship were 
higher by the equivalent of 3 months of additional schooling. It showed 
that they increased to the 35th percentile on the SAT-9 national 
standardized test from the 33rd percentile where they were before 
entering the program. So progress has been made. Specifically, pilot 
program students scored 4.5 points higher in reading on the SAT-9, with 
a total score of 635.4 when compared to the District's public school 
students' score of 630.9. These academic gains are despite the many 
challenges these students face outside the classroom, coming from 
families where the average income is $25,000.
  I look forward to learning more in the months ahead of how students 
are performing in the program and the impact it has had on them. But in 
the meantime, there are these results. They may not be major, but what 
they are showing is that youngsters are learning to read better in this 
new setting than they were in the public school setting. That, indeed, 
is something.
  I would like to share three examples with you of how the program has 
helped change the lives of the District's youngsters and how it has 
shown to give them a chance to reach their highest potential.
  Let me give you the first one. OK. Here we are. This is a picture of 
Shirley-Ann Tomdio, a ninth grade student at Georgetown Visitation High 
School. I have someone very close to me at Georgetown Visitation. This 
is a tough academic school, so this youngster has gone from one of the 
worst schools to a very strong academic school. The scholarship has 
allowed her to attend this school for the past 5 years. She is now a 
ninth grade student at Georgetown Visitation School, and she wants to 
go to college and become a surgeon. She was the eighth grade 
valedictorian at Sacred Heart Middle School which is located in the 
District's neighborhood of Columbia Heights.

  Shirley-Ann said at her eighth grade graduation speech last year:

       The DC OSP [Opportunity Scholarship Program] is important 
     to me because without it I wouldn't be able to receive the 
     best education possible. It should continue so that my 
     brother, sister, and other students get the same chance. 
     Every child should get the chance to go to a good school.

  Who can disagree with that? That is her statement. She is one of the 
lucky ones. She will go on, and she will do well.
  The second student is Carlos Battle. He is a twelfth grade student at 
Georgetown Day School. He has attended a private school for the past 6 
years, since the program started. He is a well-rounded student, 
participating in school plays. He enjoys classes in classical and 
modern dance. He plays on the basketball team. And he maintains a solid 
grade point average of 3.1. He wants to go to college and has already 
been accepted to Northeastern University with a possible full 
scholarship, and Loyola University, among other colleges.
  He comes from a family with a single mother and has a younger brother 
named Calvin who is currently an eighth grader at St. Francis Xavier 
Academy, also with a scholarship from the program.
  Carlos said this about his experience in the program:

       The scholarships I have received through the Washington 
     Scholarship Fund have afforded me countless opportunities, 
     but most important, I have been given the chance to better 
     myself. Now, instead of wanting to be someone who is well-
     known on the streets, I'd rather be someone who is well-known 
     for his education, communication, and advocacy skills. I now 
     no longer have to worry about fights breaking out in my 
     classroom, or being threatened on a constant basis.
       With this security, I'm able to focus harder and become 
     more active in my school's community. Even better, I can look 
     forward to the future. If I keep on this same track, I am 
     almost guaranteed a better future for my family and for 
     myself.

  Why should we be afraid of this program?
  Let me show you a third youngster, Sanya Arias. This is someone who 
is now attending St. John's University in New York. She graduated last 
year from Archbishop Carroll High School with a 3.95 grade point 
average and is now in her first year at St. John's University in New 
York with a full scholarship, and she loves it.
  The DC opportunity scholarship helped Sanya attend Archbishop Carroll 
High where she was vice president of her class, captain of the soccer 
team, on the lacrosse team, and president of the International Club.
  In addition to her many extracurricular activities, Sanya took all 
honors and advanced placement courses. She said this about her 
experience in the program after just graduating from Archbishop Carroll 
High School:

       It just shows the difference from 7th and 8th grade to 
     where I am now, where my friends strive to succeed and they 
     influence me to want to succeed along with them. So, I'm 
     really grateful for this opportunity.

  Why don't the words of students such as Sanya, Carlos, and Shirley-
Ann affect us? Why don't they enable us to see that choice in education 
is not something that is threatening?
  I serve on the Appropriations Committee. I was one of the deciding 
votes in that committee when this came up. We put a lot of amount of 
money, additionally, into the District for public education to be able 
to sustain a simple choice opportunity program.
  This program goes to the District's neediest students from the 
District's most failing schools. I have just shown my colleagues three 
who have succeeded. Is that not worth it? I do not understand why we 
are so afraid to give needy youngsters the opportunity of choice in 
education, to allow someone who cannot do well in a certain setting to 
have a different setting in which they may well be able to do very 
well.
  I say to these three youngsters: All the more power to you. I am very 
proud. We should listen to students such as Sanya, Carlos, and Shirley-
Ann and continue to provide this program to the District's neediest 
children. We need different models for different children, and I think 
this program is showing that.

[[Page S1594]]

  I don't know, there is a lot of lobbying against the program. The 
teachers union does not like the program. I don't understand why. I 
don't understand what is to fear. I don't understand why, if you 
provide some funding for poor children to go to a special environment 
to learn and they learn and this youngster now is in a university 
because of it--I think that is what we are all about. I strongly 
support this program.
  I thank Senator Lieberman for his support and advocacy for it and his 
leadership in bringing this to the floor. I hope we have the votes.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, briefly, I thank my colleague and dear 
friend from California for a wonderful statement. First, I say 
officially as an Independent that the Senator from California has begun 
demonstrating her independence of mind, spirit, and heart.
  Secondly, I cannot tell the Senator how important it was that she did 
what she did with those three students because this is personal. This 
matters to individual students. It is hard to imagine the talents these 
three have shown and have developed would have been developed in the 
same way, unfortunately, at the school they were consigned to by their 
neighborhood.
  Years ago, I learned an expression from some wise person--a hundred 
years ago--that if you save one life, it is as if you saved the whole 
world because every individual has all the potential of the world 
within them. That probably was talking more about physically saving a 
life. The truth is, in a way, that is real. By giving these kids an 
equal educational opportunity, we are giving them the ability to save 
their own lives.
  I cannot thank the Senator from California enough for a wonderful 
statement. I appreciate it very much.
  I note the presence of my friend and colleague from Ohio, Senator 
Voinovich, who has been a long-time advocate, going back to his days in 
Ohio, for better educational opportunity for every child.
  I yield the floor and look forward to his statement at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I thank Senator Lieberman for the 
leadership he has shown in this effort to make a difference in the 
lives of students in the District of Columbia. The Senator from 
California did a beautiful job of outlining the difference it has made 
for just a few who have been able to participate in the program thus 
far.
  I rise, of course, to support the amendment--the amendment that will 
continue to give thousands of children in the District of Columbia an 
opportunity for a good education.
  It was first authorized in 2004. The program has the potential to 
provide 1,700 children with scholarships of up to $7,500 each to attend 
the school of their choice. To qualify, students must live in the 
District and have a household income of no more than 185 percent of the 
poverty line. In the District, recipients' average family income is 
$24,300. These are very poor kids from families who are just making it. 
It is not something we have created to make available to everyone.
  Unfortunately, while the program can provide 1,700 children with 
scholarships, it does not. Increasingly, prohibitive language in the 
appropriations bills and a hostile administration--and I mean hostile--
has already decreased participation significantly. The program now 
helps just over 1,300 students.
  It is baffling to me why this administration has focused so much 
attention opposing a successful program which has provided a high-
quality education to more than 3,300 children. According to the 
independent evaluator of the program, ``participating DC students are 
reading at higher levels as a result of the Opportunity Scholarship 
Program.'' That is why, since 2004, approximately 9,000 families have 
applied for spots in the program--nearly three applications for each 
available scholarship.
  In its fiscal year 2011 budget request, President Obama has indicated 
this will be the last year he expects to request funding for the 
program based on declining participation. Give me a break. I say to the 
President: It is difficult to participate in a program that is closed 
to new applicants. Participation levels are down because the Secretary 
of Education rescinded more than 200 scholarships to deserving children 
for the current school year, and he did so after enrollment in 
desirable charter and public schools had already begun.
  Are we going to allow these children to return to failing, unsafe 
schools? High school graduation rates in the District's public schools 
are consistently among the worst in the Nation. According to the 
Washington Post--which, by the way, has editorialized in favor of this 
over and over--just over half the District's teenage students attend a 
school that is ``persistently dangerous,'' as defined by the DC 
Government. On an average school day, nine violent incidents are 
reported throughout the school system.
  I would like to say that Michelle Rhee is doing her very best to 
bring back the school system. The DC Tuition Assistance Grant Program 
has been a help to many of these students. In fact, we increased 
attendance to college education because of the TAG Program. She is 
doing everything she can. Here is someone who came in here and wants to 
make a difference for the District. Before our Governmental Affairs 
Committee, she came out strongly and said this program should be 
continued. Mayor Fenty, the Mayor of the District of Columbia, again 
said this program should be continued.
  What I find troubling is that some of our leaders who have exercised 
their right to school choice are denying that right to District 
parents. President Obama enrolled his children in a private school. 
There is no way he would allow his kids to attend the DC public 
schools.
  Listen to this: Secretary of Education Arne Duncan moved his family 
to Virginia, saying:

       I didn't want to try to save the country's children and our 
     educational system and jeopardize my own children's 
     education.

  Hear that?

       I don't want to try to save the country's children and our 
     educational system and jeopardize my own children's 
     education.

  He has that opportunity. These people who take advantage of the 
program do not have that opportunity.
  To quote former DC Mayor Anthony Williams:

       It is only fair to allow low-income parents the same 
     choices that we all have, to select the best educational 
     environment for their child.

  In a letter to Senate Democrats regarding the DC program, the 
National Education Association wrote:

       Throughout its history, NEA has strongly opposed any 
     diversion of limited public funds to private schools.

  Unfortunately, the letter neglects the fact that the scholarships 
were designed according to a three-sector approach under which not a 
single dime has been cut from public schools. In fact, when we came in 
with this program--I think the Senator from Connecticut remembers--we 
put $14 million into charters, $14 million into the public school 
system, and $14 million into the scholarship program. We did not take a 
dime away from the District. In fact, they made out quite well on it. 
Add up 3 times 14, whatever that is. That is not bad coming from the 
Congress so we can move forward with some new ideas.
  I have to tell my colleagues something. The merits of the program are 
of little importance to the NEA. I know this because after endorsing my 
1998 Senate campaign, here is what they said. I love this:

       It is fair to say that no other Governor has done more for 
     education and Ohio's children.

  That is the NEA. They then quickly withdrew support for my 2004 
campaign because I supported the DC School Choice Act. I was told--I 
will never forget it. I went into the interview. They all sit around. 
You know how it is. I answered their questions. After it was over, my 
opponent did the same thing.
  Later on I heard back from the people who were there. They said: You 
did a terrific job. We appreciate what you have done, but you are not 
going to get it because we have been told from the boys in Washington: 
There is no way you are going to be allowed to endorse George Voinovich 
because he came out for the DC Scholarship Program.
  Mr. President, I know the same kind of pressure is on many Members of 
this

[[Page S1595]]

Senate. What they are afraid of is, if they vote for this amendment 
Senator Lieberman has, it will hurt them with the OEA or the NEA they 
have in their respective States. Senator Lieberman has done the job 
explaining what this is. This is not a big deal. Why can't they stand 
and say: This is a little bitty program that is helping a bunch of kids 
in the District of Columbia. Give me a break. Why shouldn't I support 
it?
  I may be a little emotional about this, but Ohioans knew this was a 
good program way back in 1995 when, as Governor, I supported the 
opportunity scholarships with the Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring 
Program Office. This was opposed--of course it was--but Ohioans knew it 
was a good program. Over 1,900 students participated in the first year. 
So with hard work and dedication, we fought for the program for nearly 
a decade. Finally, on June 27, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 
landmark decision, agreed that the program was constitutional in Zelman 
v. Simmons-Harris.
  When I leave the Senate, I am going to write a book. One of the 
things I am going to talk about in that book is that landmark decision 
that started out in the State of Ohio in 1995 because I told the 
legislature the Cleveland system was going down the tubes and they 
needed to do something else. We finally got them to agree to put that 
scholarship program into Cleveland, OH. As a result of that program, 
over 1,900 participated in the beginning of it. Today, there are 6,000 
students who are participating in that program.
  The benefits, I would like to say, go beyond the academic. I think 
the Senator from California did a beautiful job in laying out how this 
helps academically, but a study by the Buckeye Institute in Ohio found 
students involved in the Cleveland program are gaining access to a more 
integrated school experience. It is very important they have this kind 
of experience.
  This program wasn't available when I was mayor, and my children 
probably wouldn't have been eligible for it, but I will never forget 
that my son George was the only White kid in his class in a major work 
program in the city of Cleveland, and I have to tell you he is a 
different person because of the fact that he had that experience.
  My daughter was one of two White kids who were in a class that was 
all African American. The program was terrific and they took advantage 
of it and they had a learning experience they would not have had if it 
hadn't been for this program that brought kids together for a special 
program.
  In his closing testimony before our committee, former Mayor Anthony 
Williams said:

       Quite frankly, I am befuddled by the proposal to have the 
     program die by attrition. I cannot understand why anyone 
     could eliminate a program that has uplifted the lives, 
     fulfilled the dreams and given hopes to thousands of low-
     income families.

  I am also befuddled by that idea, and I urge my colleagues to stand 
and be counted. Support the Lieberman amendment. Let's let these kids 
have an opportunity that without this program they are not going to 
have available to them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to thank Senator Voinovich for 
his statement. He brings several thoughts to my mind. The first is: 
Senator Voinovich, I am going to miss you when you retire at the end of 
this year. You are a straight shooter, you are a straight talker, and 
you speak from your heart. You have had a lot of practical experience--
as mayor, as Governor, and as a Member of the Senate--and you bring it 
all to bear in what you said.
  Secondly, I look forward to buying that book you are about to write. 
I hope it is about your career broadly, but I would be real interested 
in that Ohio opportunity scholarships or voucher program.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. If the Senator would yield, Mr. President, I would 
like to say, I hope that one of the things I write about is the 
Lieberman amendment that passed the Senate.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Well, let's call it the Lieberman-Voinovich amendment.
  Senator Voinovich has spoken from his own experience in the Ohio 
case. As he said, sometimes people say opportunity scholarships or 
vouchers are constitutionally suspect or unconstitutional. Not true. 
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Ohio voucher program was a neutral 
private choice program that did not violate the establishment clause.
  But I will tell you what rings in my ear is the questions that have 
been raised by my colleagues in support of this amendment. Senator 
Voinovich said: Why would you vote against this amendment? Why would 
you vote against this program? As the Senator from California, Mrs. 
Feinstein, said: What is there to be afraid of in this program? It 
doesn't take money away from the public schools. The head of the DC 
Public School System is for the program because she thinks it will 
benefit the children who need it, whom she knows she can't give a 
quality eduction to over the 5 years of the authorization program.
  This program has been tested by an independent evaluator, Dr. Patrick 
Wolf, principal investigator for the U.S. Department of Education 
study, and he concluded that:

       The DC voucher program has proven to be the most effective 
     education innovation policy program evaluated by the Federal 
     Government's official education research arm so far.

  Of the 11 innovation programs investigated, studies showed only 3 
have reported any statistically significant achievement gains, and the 
gains reported in the Opportunity Scholarship Program in the District 
of Columbia are the highest thus far.
  I know Senator Rockefeller wants to return to the FAA authorization 
bill, so I will begin to wind this up. I thank all my colleagues who 
came over to speak on behalf of the amendment. I regret that nobody has 
come to speak against it. I was looking forward to a good debate. So I 
have to go back to this staff memo sent out to Senators against the 
amendment. We have actually dealt with all the arguments made:
  Public dollars should be spent on public schools that accept all 
students subject to uniform public standards. This program accepts the 
students who apply, and when there are too many, they subject them to a 
lottery. It is a wide-open program.
  They cite the Department of Education study. They do not do it 
fairly. They speak wrongly: DC parents already have choices about where 
to send their children with the public charter school network. Yet we 
know those programs are oversubscribed.
  The fact is, all the arguments made in this memo against the DC 
Opportunity Scholarship Program and keeping it alive in the hopes that 
the lives of a limited number of students in the DC school system--
1,300; maybe with this reauthorization they will be able to add a 
couple hundred more in each year for the next 5 years; maybe it will be 
1,000 more children--will be better and for whom the doors of 
opportunity will be opened in a way they are not opened now. Why would 
anybody oppose this? I can't think of a good reason.
  The group that has been most vigorously opposed has been the teachers 
unions. I understand why, but their interests do not outweigh the 
interests of these children, economically disadvantaged, with dreams 
and hopes they can't realize in the schools they are in but who have 
those hopes elevated and realized--as those three beautiful pictures of 
students who have been in this program that Senator Feinstein showed 
us.
  Look, along with Chancellor Rhee, I hope for and, in fact, envision a 
day when the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program is not needed and it 
will not be needed because the DC Public School System will be 
providing a good education to every student who lives in the District 
of Columbia. But that, as Chancellor Rhee has said, is not the reality 
these children and their families live in today. Many schools in our 
Nation's Capital, as the chancellor has said, are not providing an 
adequate education to the students.
  I repeat: I will bet there is not a Member of this Senate, if their 
children were consigned by neighborhood allocation systems, who would 
not spend the money to get their children out of those schools because 
their children's lives and hopes and dreams would be compromised, 
through no fault of their own, simply because the schools were not 
adequate to educate them. So this is all about helping some

[[Page S1596]]

of those students by supporting this amendment to reauthorize the DC 
Opportunity Scholarship Program 5 more years.
  I hope and pray what Chancellor Rhee said is right; that in 5 years 
she can look every parent of every student in the DC Public School 
System in the eye and say: Your child is at a school where he or she 
can get a good education so we don't need the DC Opportunity 
Scholarship Program anymore. But for now, Chancellor Rhee says we need 
it, Mayor Fenty says we need it, former Mayor Williams--who helped to 
create the program--is strongly for it, and a July 2009 poll conducted 
in the District of Columbia says, 75 percent of District residents want 
and need the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program.
  I don't see a reason why a majority of Members of this Senate, 
hopefully an overwhelming bipartisan majority, would speak against 
this; would frustrate the hopes of all these families, all these 
students, and all these leaders of education in the District of 
Columbia. So I am going to yield the floor with the hope that we can 
have a vote on this soon, and I urge my colleagues to think about the 
1,319 children whose lives will be compromised, whose dreams will be 
stifled if this program is not reauthorized.
  I thank Senator Rockefeller for his patience while we continued on 
this amendment, and with that, I yield the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to vehemently oppose Senator 
Lieberman's amendment to reauthorize the District of Columbia 
Opportunity Scholarship Program. This amendment would extend a program 
that impacts fewer than 5 percent of the District's public school 
children, and, after more than 5 years in operation, has proved to be 
little more than an ineffective exercise in ideologically driven 
education reform.
  The DC Opportunity Scholarship Program has minimal impact and scant 
evidence of any academic benefit to the students who participate in the 
program. It also siphons vital Federal money away from DC families that 
enroll their boys and girls in public schools. I would rather see that 
money invested in research-driven, high-impact education initiatives 
that benefit public schools open to all children. Let's invest more in 
DC's early education programs, so that moms and dads have kids ready 
for kindergarten when they get there. Let's boost funding for teacher 
recruitment to bring the best teachers into DC's most challenged 
schools, which can have a tough time recruiting top talent. Let's 
invest in the renovation and modernization of DC's oldest school 
buildings, so students and families are guaranteed safe, clean, and 
healthy learning environments. Let's ramp up funding to improve DC's 
special education programs, so that parents aren't forced to send their 
children to costly, private special education providers.
  I can understand why parents would be excited about the opportunity 
to send their child to a private school. I myself am the product of a 
Catholic education. But I cannot reconcile that potential benefit to 
parents with the fact that certain members of Congress believe they can 
act like DC's school board. I believe the District of Columbia should 
have a voice and a vote in Congress; that they should receive 
statehood. I believe they should control their own money. And, I 
believe that if DC would like to have a voucher program the DC School 
Board should vote for it and pay for it with local, not Federal, tax 
dollars.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing Senator Lieberman's 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise to get back to something 
called the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill. It is 
the bill we are on. I do not hesitate to say my daughter was one of the 
cofounders of a charter school, very successful, in Washington, DC, but 
I would also say to her, as I would to proponents of this legislation 
which is being discussed--vouchers--that in the Federal aviation bill, 
we are talking about 500 million Americans who fly every year. Not to 
diminish them nor my daughter's incredible work--1,300 students--that 
figure is going to rise very shortly to over 1 billion, and therefore 
what we do in the Federal aviation bill, which is the pending business, 
is incredibly important.
  Senator Byron Dorgan has discussed safety issues and other aspects of 
the legislation and he is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation 
Operations, Safety, and Security, which I was for 10 years before I 
became chairman of the full committee, so I care passionately about the 
Federal Aviation Administration bill. I recognize it is not the most 
colorful, gallant legislation in the history of the world but, believe 
me, it affects every single American. It used to be that only 16 
percent of Americans fly. Now everybody flies.
  There is no way to describe how frustrated passengers are, and they 
have every right to be. This Federal aviation bill, incidentally, has 
been extended or laid over 11 different times. Eleven different times 
we have not been able to get to it, until this day. So I am glad we had 
the previous discussion and we are going to get to a number of 
amendments and vote on them before 6 o'clock this evening, after I 
announce some agreements that have been already been reached. So 
progress is being made, and I just wish to see it continue being made.
  You have to figure that some passengers--not many cases but in some 
cases--have been kept waiting 9 hours on a tarmac. I can't even begin 
to do the body math of 9 hours, but I don't choose to because it is not 
pleasant. How does one eat? How does one keep sanity? Presumably, the 
engines are running. If they are, there is air. If they are not, there 
is no air. So it is extremely stuffy. You are without food, you are 
without water, you are without facilities and, most important, you are 
without any information to know where you are. This is all absolutely 
unacceptable.

  In one little section of the bill, I want to say a couple of the 
things we do to fix that. This bill requires that air carriers in 
coordination with airports develop contingency plans to make certain 
they are prepared for these kinds of delays which will happen and which 
do happen. As more and more people fly, they will happen more 
frequently. It is a fact of life.
  Under our bill, passengers have to have access to water, they have to 
have access to food, to restroom facilities, and to medical attention. 
They cannot remain on the tarmac for over 3 hours. I think that is 
stretching it. There is one little caveat which I sort of accept--at 
least it is in the bill--that if a pilot in his or her judgment 
believes that within the next 30 minutes or less they will take off, 
they do not have to go back to the terminal to disgorge their 
passengers so they can get caught up on water, facilities, medical 
attention, all the rest of it.
  These are such commonsense protections, but they affect so many 
people and children. I have five grandchildren. I am trying to think 
what my five grandchildren would be acting like after 3 hours on a 
plane that has not gone anywhere. I am trying to imagine that from 
various points of view and none of them comes out very favorably, not 
one of them.
  The air carriers will also have to post on their Web site which of 
their flights as a matter of their record tend to be delayed, tend to 
be canceled, tend to be on time, or diverted. That is a matter of 
record. It is not doing every one, but those which are likely to do 
that. That is on the Web site so when the passenger purchases tickets 
they get that, and that information has to be updated on a monthly 
basis and it has to be provided to customers before they purchase a 
ticket, Web site or no Web site. That is an advance in keeping 
passengers happier.
  Any air carrier selling a ticket must disclose the actual air 
carrier. Why do I say that? Because, as Senator Dorgan has said a 
number of times, oft you do not know what you are flying on. There is a 
United up here, and a Colgan down here, and you don't know what you are 
flying on so you do not know who to hold accountable. We think 
accountability matters so you are told before you get the ticket what 
plane you are going to be flying on--who owns that plane, who flies 
that plane. So you do not, as I routinely--in West Virginia, this 
Senator--they are all propeller flights with one or two exceptions.
  Senator Dorgan has also pointed out that 50 percent of all our 
aviation in

[[Page S1597]]

America--and we do fly half the people in the world. We are half the 
world's air traffic, right in North America. So we have to know whether 
they are a regional carrier and we have to know the information about 
them before people buy their ticket.
  Passengers have been overlooked. They have been dismissed by the 
aviation system for so many years because we could get away with it and 
everybody was prospering. But along this time people were suffering, 
grievously sometimes. I think a lot of people--in fact, I think of a 
couple of my sisters and some people in my office, who, just when they 
are in an airplane, they change. They get white-knuckled. It is a 
cylinder, and people react in different ways to that. So we need to 
give passengers all the comfort, the information, and the transparency 
they can possibly have.
  I just make that short statement. It is one aspect of our very long 
and comprehensive FAA authorization bill which has been waiting now for 
3 years to reauthorization, and which we wish to do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, as the Senator from West Virginia said, 
we are on the FAA reauthorization bill, that is reauthorizing the 
programs that deal with aviation safety and air traffic control and 
airport improvement funds and essential air service--all of these 
issues. For the last hour we have been hearing debate about a school 
voucher program in the District of Columbia. Why would that be the 
case? Because this is an authorization bill and anyone can come and 
offer any amendment to an authorization bill. So Senator Lieberman and 
the cosponsors of his amendment are well within their rights to do 
that. It has nothing at all to do with the bill on the floor of the 
Senate, however.
  Because we are going to vote on it, however, let me say a few words 
about it. I have spoken about the FAA reauthorization bill previously 
this afternoon and will again later, but let me talk for a moment about 
the issue of school vouchers. First, this is not the place to do it. 
This is not the place to offer the amendment. They have the right to 
offer the amendment but we are trying to get a bill done here.
  The rest of the world is moving forward to modernize the aircraft 
control system and we, with the most congested and complicated air 
traffic control space in the world, we have extended the FAA 
authorization 11 straight times because we have not been able to get a 
bill done.
  We will probably have three or four votes today and none of them have 
anything to do with the FAA. I hope we will clear some amendments. 
Senator Rockefeller has been working hard to clear some amendments, but 
the votes we will have today have to do with earmark reform or school 
vouchers or any number of other subjects, discretionary budget caps, 
having nothing to do with the underlying bill. But if we must vote on 
them, let me at least take a couple of moments to respond to what we 
have heard for the last hour.
  I know the people who came here to support the voucher amendment are 
enormously passionate about their support. The amendment is providing 
vouchers paid for by the American taxpayer for about 1,200 students in 
the District of Columbia, to attend private schools. In short, it 
provides public funding for certain students to attend private schools.
  I am a big supporter of education. I believe education is our future. 
I believe when Thomas Jefferson said that anybody who believes a 
country can be both ignorant and free believes in something that never 
was and never can be. I understand that. I think education is the 
building block and foundation for America's future. In fact, it has 
been the success of America, that we designed education from the very 
start differently from many other countries. We said we are going to 
have a system of public education--public education, that means public 
schools that allow every child to go into that school and come out of 
that school with whatever their God-given talents allow them to become. 
We are not going to move people off, in the sixth grade or eighth 
grade, based on ability. That is not the way we are going to do it. 
Every child can enter those classrooms and decide to graduate with 
whatever their God-given talent allows them to achieve in this 
education system.
  That is public education. I know people say to me America's schools 
do not work. Oh, really? Really? If you get to the Moon, anybody, would 
you please tell me whose bootprints are on the Moon? They are not 
Chinese or Russian, they are bootprints made by an American, made 
possible by people who were educated in America's public school system, 
who helped us to understand the science and math that allowed us to 
learn to build airplanes and learn to fly them and then build rockets 
and walk on the Moon and plant an American flag on the Moon. Public 
education has been remarkable for this country.
  I walked into the oldest House Member's office the first day I came 
to the Congress. His name was Claude Pepper and he had two photographs 
behind his chair, at his desk, that I have never forgotten. Claude was 
in his mid- or late eighties. One photo was of Orville and Wilbur 
Wright making the first airplane flight, December 17, 1903, 59 seconds 
off the ground, the first human-powered flight. The photo was 
autographed ``To Congressman Claude Pepper with deep admiration, 
Orville Wright,'' before Orville died.

  But just behind it was a second photograph of Neil Armstrong stepping 
gently with his boot on the surface of the Moon. I thought to myself, 
what is the distance measured between those two photographs? About four 
inches. But think of the distance in education, to learn to fly and fly 
to the Moon. Someone else didn't do that. We did that, with a network 
of public education that says to every kid: You can become whatever 
your God-given talents allow you to become.
  Universal education in a system of public schools. Is it perfect? 
Certainly not. Has it worked? You bet. I am so tired of people trashing 
public schools. I go into a lot of classrooms and I almost never leave 
the classroom without thinking to myself: What an American hero 
teaching in that classroom. They didn't choose the profession that pays 
the most, for sure. But that teacher, that man or woman who is teaching 
those kids, what a remarkable person that is. I always leave classrooms 
feeling that way.
  Let me talk about this program very quickly. This program, a voucher 
program to create public funding for a certain number of students here 
in the District of Columbia to attend private schools, was established 
as a 5-year pilot program in 2003. That is 7 years ago; a 5-year pilot 
program. It has now been extended twice through appropriations bills in 
order to minimize the disruption for students already in the program 
and a plan to wind it down is now in place. Reauthorization is not 
needed to keep current students in their schools.
  In my judgment, public dollars should be spent on public schools. 
Yes, there are improvements that are needed in public schools. Why 
don't we invest in those improvements. Here in the District of Columbia 
they are $40 million short of what is needed. Yet we are using public 
dollars to support vouchers for private schools. I know it is not a lot 
of money but this is a program that, 7 years ago, was authorized for 5 
years. It demonstrates how hard it is to shut down any program. At a 
time when education budgets are being slashed for public schools, we 
ought to be directing the money we have in the public domain for public 
schools.
  Those who wish to attend private schools, they pay private tuition, I 
understand that. But our public funding ought to be devoted to 
strengthen our public schools.
  Let me talk for a moment about a study that has been done of this 
voucher program. It has produced very mixed results. The Department of 
Education did a study that was mandated. After 3 years, no 
statistically significant achievement impacts were registered for 
students coming from the lowest performing schools. The reason that is 
important is that was the target of this program, low-performance 
schools, to allow those parents to get those kids out of those schools 
and give them a voucher to go to a private school. What we have 
discovered from the Department of Education study is for those very 
schools, the target schools, the lower performing schools, there is no

[[Page S1598]]

statistical achievement impact for students who came from those schools 
going into this voucher program.
  Some of my colleagues said you have to give these people a choice and 
a chance. How about giving them a choice? The District of Columbia 
already has choices. There are choices available to parents on where to 
send their kids. There is a robust public charter school network with 
60 charter schools here in the District of Columbia. Unlike voucher 
schools, public charter schools are open to all students, subject to 
the same accountability as all other schools, public schools; the same 
accountability standards. So the parents in DC already have some of 
that flexibility about which schools their children shall attend.
  This program has not gone through the full committee process since 
2003. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has yet 
to mark up this legislation in this Congress. More important, this 
amendment has nothing at all to do with the bill that is on the floor 
of the Senate.
  I do not support this on its merits. I didn't support it in the 
Appropriations Committee. I do not support it now. I believe we ought 
to defeat it at this point, not because I do not support education but 
it is precisely because I support public education that we ought not be 
spooning off money here into a voucher program, taking public funds and 
moving them into private schools with, as I indicated, very mixed 
results as reported in a study that was done by the U.S. Department of 
Education.
  I want for our children, for all children, to have the best education 
they can have. Our public school system has served this country well, 
but we have a lot of challenges. I will, finally, say this: One of the 
significant challenges of the public school system is not that teachers 
are poor teachers; it is not that the school is a bad school; it is, a 
school inherits virtually everything that exists in that town or that 
neighborhood and has to deal with it. That is just a fact.
  So it is a challenge sometimes to, in public schools, do all that we 
want to do. But if we look at a couple of hundred years of history in 
the United States of America, it is pretty hard to conclude that we, as 
opposed to all other countries, we are the ones with universal 
education. We are the ones who supported public education. It is pretty 
hard to conclude that we have come up short relative to other 
countries.
  Let me make one other point and perhaps boast just for a moment. If 
North Dakota were a country and not a State, a country not a State, we 
would rank second in the world next to Singapore in eighth grade math 
scores.
  Does good news get reported very often? Not very often. It is just 
bad news that sells. This is an old saying: Bad news travels halfway 
around the world before good news gets its shoes on.
  We ought to spend a day talking about the good news of education and 
then spend time as well addressing the challenges because there are 
some difficulties that we need to address. But I did want to say I am 
not going to vote for this voucher amendment. I do not think it is the 
right choice. I believe the proper choice is to strengthen public 
education, address the challenges of public education. We can do that. 
Our parents did it, our grandparents did it, and we can have the same 
kind of impact on our future as they did.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 25 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Lehman Brothers

  Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, last Thursday the bankruptcy examiner 
for Lehman Brothers Holdings, Incorporated released a 2,200-page report 
about the demise of the firm, which included riveting detail on the 
firm's accounting practices. That report has put into sharp relief what 
many have expected all along: that fraud and potential criminal conduct 
were at the heart of this financial crisis.
  Now that we are beginning to learn many of the facts, at least with 
respect to the activities of Lehman Brothers, the country has every 
right to be outraged.
  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. ROCKEFELLER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senate now resume consideration of the DeMint amendment No. 3454, and 
that at 6 p.m. the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment, 
with the time until then divided and controlled between Senators Inouye 
and DeMint or their designees; and that upon disposition of amendment 
No. 3454, the Senate then proceed to vote in relation to the following 
amendments with 2 minutes of debate prior to each vote equally divided 
and controlled in the usual form; and that after the first vote in this 
sequence, the remaining votes be limited to 10 minutes each; and that 
no amendment be in order to any of the amendments in this order, prior 
to a vote in relation thereto; and that in the case where there is a 
modification, the amendment be so modified with the changes at the 
desk.
  The amendments are Feingold amendment No. 3470, as modified; Vitter 
amendment No. 3458, as modified; Lieberman amendment No. 3456.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I will not object, but I would like 
to add that Senator Cochran be protected, with Senator Inouye, to have 
some of the divided time but that it not affect the 6 o'clock 
beginning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the understanding of the Chair.
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments, as modified, are as follows:


                    amendment no. 3458, as modified

       At the end of title VII, add the following:

     SEC. 7__. COASTAL IMPACT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AMENDMENTS.

       Section 31 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1356a) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Application requirements; availability of funding.--
     On approval of a plan by the Secretary under this section, 
     the producing State shall--
       ``(A) not be subject to any additional application or other 
     requirements (other than notifying the Secretary of which 
     projects are being carried out under the plan) to receive the 
     payments; and
       ``(B) be immediately eligible to receive payments under 
     this section.''


                    amendment no. 3470, as modified

       At the end, insert the following:

  TITLE ___--RESCISSION OF UNUSED TRANSPORTATION EARMARKS AND GENERAL 
                         REPORTING REQUIREMENT

     SEC. _01. DEFINITION.

       In this title, the term ``earmark'' means the following:
       (1) A congressionally directed spending item, as defined in 
     Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate.
       (2) A congressional earmark, as defined for purposes of 
     Rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

     SEC. _02. RESCISSION.

       Any earmark of funds provided for the Department of 
     Transportation with more than 90 percent of the appropriated 
     amount remaining available for obligation at the end of the 
     9th fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the 
     earmark was made available is rescinded effective at the end 
     of that 9th fiscal year, except that the Secretary of 
     Transportation may delay any such rescission if the Secretary 
     determines that an additional obligation of the earmark is 
     likely to occur during the following 12-month period.

     SEC. _03. AGENCY WIDE IDENTIFICATION AND REPORTS.

       (a) Agency Identification.--Each Federal agency shall 
     identify and report every project that is an earmark with an 
     unobligated balance at the end of each fiscal year to the 
     Director of OMB.
       (b) Annual Report.--The Director of OMB shall submit to 
     Congress and publically post on the website of OMB an annual 
     report that includes--
       (1) a listing and accounting for earmarks with unobligated 
     balances summarized by agency including the amount of the 
     original earmark, amount of the unobligated balance, and the 
     year when the funding expires, if applicable;
       (2) the number of rescissions resulting from this title and 
     the annual savings resulting from this title for the previous 
     fiscal year; and
       (3) a listing and accounting for earmarks provided for the 
     Department of Transportation scheduled to be rescinded at the 
     end of the current fiscal year.


[[Page S1599]]


  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I just wanted to say to my 
colleagues that they need to prepare now for a 6 o'clock vote. Anyone 
wanting to debate will be able to do so within the constraints of the 
resolution that we just passed.
  Senator Inouye is on the Senate floor. We are expecting Senator 
Cochran and Senator DeMint. So I hope if anyone else wants to have time 
within those timeframes that they would come to the floor now because I 
will object to any delay beyond 6 o'clock to start these four votes.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. 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. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, the amendment offered by the Senator 
from South Carolina is, simply stated, a misguided attempt which would 
turn over the power of the purse to the executive branch. It will not 
save a penny toward the deficit. It will allow unelected bureaucrats 
who have no accountability to voters to determine how Federal tax 
dollars are expended instead of the Congress.
  Despite the protestations of a few Senators and an active media 
campaign spurred on by well-financed so-called watchdogs, this 
amendment is a solution to a problem that does not exist.
  For the sake of my colleagues who may still want to support a 
moratorium on earmarks, let me point out where we are at this moment. 
Since retaking the majority in 2006, the Democratic-led Congress has 
reduced funding for earmarks by more than 50 percent.
  As the new chairman of the appropriations committee last year I vowed 
with the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Representative 
Obey, that we would continue on the path set by former Chairman Byrd to 
reduce earmarks until they represented less than 1 percent of 
discretionary spending.
  We achieved that objective in the fiscal year 2010 Appropriations 
Bills, and we have agreed that we will not exceed 1 percent as long as 
we are chairmen of our respective committees.
  If we look at the numbers in 2006, the completed appropriations Acts 
included $16.7 billion in what are called ``Non-project Based Earmarks.
  Madam President, $8.4 billion of these were in defense and the 
remainder in non-defense programs. In the fiscal year 2010 bills, we 
ended the year with a total of $8.2 billion in earmarks, $4.1 billion 
in defense and $4.1 billion in non-defense, well below 50 percent of 
the amount in 2006.
  As a percentage of discretionary spending, non-project based earmarks 
are hardly \1/2\ of 1 percent. Not only have we accomplished our 
objective, we have exceeded our goal.
  I am sure others will cite different numbers and try to say that we 
have many more earmarks than we are counting. The earmark definition 
that we use for FY 2010 is the one that comes from the Senate rules. 
Other outside groups may want to consider additional congressional 
items as earmarks, but we can only go by what the Senate has declared 
as earmarks.
  In summation, let me say this. Since the Democrats have retaken the 
Congress we have reduced earmarks by more than 50 percent. We are well 
below 1 percent of total discretionary spending for non-project based 
earmarks, and we will not be going above 1 percent as long as I am 
Chairman.
  As the Senate considers this amendment, I believe it is time we have 
an honest debate about the overall subject of earmarks. What they are 
and what they aren't.
  First and foremost, earmarks have nothing to do with the deficit. And 
let me say that another way to make sure everyone understands.
  If we eliminate all earmarks this year or forever, it will not save a 
nickel in Federal spending. Not a dime. Not this year, next year, or 
ever.
  So to continue on this theme, if we adopt the amendment from the 
senator from South Carolina, we won't save a penny in fiscal year 2010 
or fiscal year 2011. We just change who gets to decide what we spend.
  The definition of an earmark is to carve out funding from a budget 
for a specific purpose. It is not adding to the budget. When we specify 
that we want an agency to spend a portion of its budget on a specific 
item we aren't increasing that agency's budget, we are simply 
reallocating funding within the budget for that purpose.
  If that is not completely understood let's look at it this way. The 
president submits his request to the Congress for funding by agency and 
budget functions.
  Our budget committee reviews the funding requested and tells the 
appropriations committee how much funding it can spend in the budget 
resolution.
  The budget resolution makes no assumptions about earmarks. It doesn't 
designate earmark levels in any way, shape or form.
  The appropriations committee then divides the total funding provided 
in the budget resolution among its subcommittees.
  The committee doesn't increase an allocation for earmarks, nor does 
it reduce the allocation if earmarks are not funded.
  Instead it provides the subcommittee with a total amount it can 
spend. For example, the Foreign Operations subcommittee usually chooses 
not to proide earmarks. That doesn't change the amount of spending the 
subcommittee provides.
  If the Senate adopts this amendment it will dictate that the fiscal 
year 2011 there will be no earmarks, but the budget committee won't be 
reducing the allocation to the appropriations committee. The 
appropriations committee won't reduce the subcommittee allocations. We 
will just defer to the executive branch to determine how taxpayer funds 
are spent.
  So this debate like all others on the issue of earmarks is who gets 
to determine how taxpayer funds are allocated, the congress or the 
Executive Branch?
  All my colleagues are aware that the Constitution requires the 
Congress to determine where our Nation's funds should be spent. There 
can be no argument on that.
  Why then do a handful of members persist in advocating the 
elimination of the congressional discretion to allocate funds?
  Some raise the factor of corruption. We are all too aware the role 
that earmarks played in the corruption and eventual conviction of one 
Republican member of the House of Representatives.
  While other corruption has swept other Members of the House, little 
of that had to do with earmarks. It has involved paid vacations or 
gifts. It has had to do with sweetheart deals in legislation, or 
possible bribes for legislative favors.
  Moreover, the appropriations committee has enacted reforms to 
minimize any possible chance of corruption by increasing transparency.
  As Chairman I now require members to place all of their earmarks on 
their website 30 days before we act upon their requests.
  We then post all earmarks that are to be included in appropriations 
bills on the committee's website 24 hours before the full committee 
takes action on the bill.
  Furthermore, as directed under Senate Rules, we require each Senator 
to certify that he or she has no pecuniary interest in any earmark that 
is requested.
  We cannot legislate morality. What we can do and have done, however, 
is to put safeguards in place to ensure that our actions are above 
board, transparent, and in the best interest of our constituents.
  Clearly if this amendment were to become law it would change who does 
the earmarking, not whether earmarks are done.
  On February 1, the President submitted his appropriations requests to 
the Congress. The staff of the appropriations committee has begun its 
detailed examination of that request.
  My colleagues should know that our review by the staff and the 
members of our subcommittees takes months to complete. However, in our 
preliminary review of the budget we have discovered that the President 
has requested earmarks totalling $25 billion.
  This is a conservative estimate of the executive branch's earmarks 
and it

[[Page S1600]]

uses the same criteria as we would use to identify a congressional 
spending earmark, specific location or entity, noncompetitive award, 
and specific dollar amount.
  In this first assessment, we find that the administration request 
exceeds congressional earmarks that were approved last year by more 
than 100 percent, twice as much.
  This amendment would do nothing to stop the practice of earmarking, 
but rather only eliminate the congressional influence in that process.
  But for those who want to persist in championing this amendment as a 
reform, they should seriously think about the following information.
  Last week, the democratic leadership of the House Appropriations 
Committee announced that they no longer would include earmarks done on 
behalf of for-profit entities, that means for all practical purposes, 
private companies.
  The reaction from the lobbying community and other interested parties 
was swift.
  According to a March 11 Washington Post article:

       Lobbyists said a prohibition against for profit earmarks 
     will shift their focus from Capitol Hill to the Federal 
     agencies.

  Mr. Alan Chvotkin, a lobbyist for the Professional Services Council, 
was also quoted saying:

       There will be greater attention focused on protecting 
     programs in the President's Budget.

  Lobbyists and oversight organizations both agree--the lobbyists will 
simply go around the Congress and attempt to get their earmarks in the 
President's Request.
  A story that appeared in the March 11 edition of Roll Call reports 
that Bill Allison of the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation, which 
advocates for government transparency, said earmarks should remain in 
appropriations bills.

       ``The dangerous earmarkers are those going underground,'' 
     Mr. Allison said. ``The real solution is to make them 
     transparent.''

  Instead of banning earmarks, Mr. Allison said Congress should focus 
on creating a centralized place for the public to see who is requesting 
earmarks and an easily navigable process for following an earmark from 
start to finish.
  Let me say for the record we already do that.
  And finally, this from Laura Peterson of Taxpayers for Common Sense, 
an organization that has been outspoken in its criticism of the 
appropriations committee.
  In a March 10 Congressional Quarterly article, she said:

       Any ban on spending defined as earmarks could end up 
     increasing the practice of securing funding without formally 
     requesting an earmark. I would be concerned that some 
     earmarks might just migrate to the appropriations bills as 
     committee adds.

  If it weren't so serious it would be almost laughable. Under this 
amendment, we won't eliminate earmarks, we will only eliminate our 
role, a role the Constitution has assigned to the Congress.
  Moreover, all our efforts at making earmarks more transparent would 
be rendered moot.
  The reforms we have implemented, which ensured full and open 
disclosure of who sponsors earmarks, as well as who has given money to 
those sponsoring earmarks, would be irrelevant.
  Instead, we will have these decisions made by unelected bureaucrats 
in back rooms of agencies scattered all over this city. Is this the 
transparency that earmark opponents desired? I think not.
  I don't understand why those who are the most opposed to the policies 
of the current president are so intent on putting additional power into 
his hands and those who serve the Executive Branch. Article I of the 
Constitution states very clearly:

       No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in 
     consequence of appropriations made by law.

  The DeMint amendment tramples on the framework established by our 
founding fathers. In fact, James Madison believed the power of the 
purse to be the most important power of congress. He called it ``The 
most complete and effectual weapon with which any Constitution can arm 
the immediate representatives of the people.''
  I want all my colleagues to understand what we are doing today. I 
want everyone watching this body on the television to understand what 
we are doing today, so that in the future, no one can say, ``I didn't 
know.''
  This amendment shifts the power to designate the expenditure of and 
accountability for taxpayers' hard earned dollars away from the 
representatives they elected, to the Executive Branch, where unelected 
bureaucrats who are accountable to no taxpayer will make the decisions 
of where those dollars will be spent.
  There were indeed corruptions in the earmark process in the past. No 
one will dispute that. A Republican member of the House was convicted 
for corruption related to earmarking.
  But we as Democrats addressed that issue when we came into power. We 
implemented reforms which ensured full and open disclosure of who 
sponsors earmarks, as well as who has given money to those sponsoring 
earmarks. It is all outlined for the world to see.
  Now with this amendment, not only is transparency in the Congress not 
continued, but we are shifting the decisionmaking related to billions 
of dollars--which is another way of saying earmarking--to unelected 
bureaucrats.
  As I said, now with this amendment, not only is transparency in the 
Congress not continued, but we are shifting the decision-making related 
to billions of dollars--which is another way of saying earmarking--to 
unelected bureaucrats that do not have to post anything about their 
relationships to recipients, who they meet with, when they meet with 
them, or who bought them dinner. None of those reporting requirements 
apply to unelected bureaucrats.
  I am a strong proponent of earmarks. I am proud to sponsor earmarks 
that meet the needs of my constituents. Like every other Member of this 
body, I believe I understand the needs of my State better than the 
bureaucrats downtown do. I am closer to the people of Hawaii and I owe 
my allegiance to them.
  I will continue to support earmarks for Hawaii as I will support the 
legitimate earmarks from other members of this institution.
  The founders of our great Nation in their wisdom correctly placed the 
power of the purse in the hands of our elected legislators.
  Those who seek to overturn that decision by placing artificial 
constraints on our ability to carry out that mandate are ultimately 
undermining our Nation's freedoms. They would create a system where 
there is no accountability to the voter on how their tax dollars are 
spent.
  This amendment is one of many this institution has faced and will 
continue to face that seeks to alter the way taxpayer funds are 
allocated.
  Perhaps unwittingly, but if enacted it would turn over spending 
decisions to the executive branch and weaken our separation of powers. 
We should not tolerate that.
  Finally, to remind my colleagues, this amendment won't save a nickel. 
It has no impact on the deficit. The amendment serves no purpose other 
than to take away the Congress's right to determine how funds are 
allocated. I urge all my colleagues to reject this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Hawaii has 
expired.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I thank you very much and I hope this 
amendment is defeated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, 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. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I understand we have time allocated to 
this side of the aisle, and the Senator from South Carolina has agreed 
to yield me a few minutes, and then he is going to close up debate 
after I speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I oppose the amendment of the Senator 
from South Carolina. He is a friend of mine. He is a distinguished 
Senator. He makes an impact here in the Senate that is very impressive. 
But I think his proposal to impose a virtual moratorium on 
congressionally directed spending is not in the public's interest.

[[Page S1601]]

  Some Senators who support the amendment voted earlier this year 
against creation of a deficit reduction commission and against pay-as-
you-go rules. They argued that those initiatives were merely fig leaves 
and might make Congress feel good, but would not serve any useful 
purpose and might actually operate against our effort to reduce the 
national debt.
  This amendment also may make you feel good, feel like you are doing 
something to reduce spending, but in reality, it does not accomplish 
that goal. Earmarking has nothing to do with how much the Federal 
Government spends, but it has everything to do with who decides how the 
Federal Government spends.
  The DeMint amendment applies to earmarks in any bill--whether it is 
authorizing legislation, tax bills, or appropriations bills. The 
Appropriations Committee drafts bills that conform to the discretionary 
spending levels established in the annual budget resolution. If it is 
the will of the Congress, as expressed in the budget resolution, to 
increase domestic spending by 5 percent, the Appropriations Committee 
produces bills to conform to that level of spending. If the will of the 
Senate is to cut discretionary spending below a certain level, the 
committee will do that as well.
  In any case, the committee allocates the discretionary amounts of 
funding for Federal programs as provided in the budget resolution. We 
also review the President's budget request, the levels of funding in 
prior years, and other considerations that are important. We meet with 
many outside groups during the annual hearing process. We review the 
requests for funding of every government agency in the executive 
branch. We also consider the priorities expressed by Members of the 
Senate. Some come to our hearings and testify as witnesses. We have an 
annual series of hearings reviewing every Department's budget requests 
and the agencies that operate within those Departments.
  We subject the entire process to careful scrutiny. The Senate as a 
whole is involved as they want to be in negotiations with the other 
body, letting us know what their views are, and what we should argue 
for during conferences with the House. In disagreements with the 
administration, the Congress really has the power for the final say-so.
  We do not all agree on the spending levels approved in the budget 
resolution. The Senator from South Carolina and I are likely to agree 
that the discretionary spending level approved for fiscal year 2010 was 
too high. But the level of spending is not the question before us. The 
question proposed by the DeMint amendment is whether Congress will 
allow the executive branch to make 100 percent of all the decisions 
about how spending is allocated or whether Congress will preserve its 
constitutional prerogative to appropriate funds for the purposes it 
deems meritorious.
  There are many outstanding civil servants within the executive branch 
who do their best to manage in a careful way Federal funds in a 
professional manner. But those persons are not necessarily familiar 
with the interests of the people in our respective States and with the 
needs of those we represent.
  It is naive to think that political considerations are not going to 
be a part of the executive branch decisionmaking process. History 
belies the notion that executive branch judgment with regard to 
spending is superior to the legislative branch.
  Are my colleagues happy with the way stimulus funding has been spent, 
unfettered by congressional earmarks? Will western Senators be 
comfortable appropriating lump sums of money to the Department of the 
Interior for land acquisition not knowing what lands will be acquired? 
Inspector general reports arrive almost weekly describing wasteful and 
sometimes fraudulent spending by executive branch agencies.
  Some may think executive branch spending decisions are entirely merit 
based, immune from political pressure and lapses in judgment. But they 
are not. That is one of the reasons I am not willing to cede every 
spending decision to the executive branch. I am not talking about 
political party-driven decisions, but I am not willing to concede 
superior public interests in the executive branch as compared with the 
legislative branch. I think the people of my State are entitled to be 
represented by advocates of projects that are important to the 
interests of their State. The programs and legislation that benefit our 
State they want me to support, and they want it to be in the best 
interests of my State and the country.
  Each Member has to make his or her own analysis of each bill based on 
the entirety of its contents, the Member's views and background, his or 
her view of the national interest. So the presence or absence of 
earmarks is not the determining factor in the quality of the 
legislative process.
  Every piece of legislation we consider in the Senate affects all of 
our citizens, communities, and industries in different ways. The bill 
currently before the Senate, which is the FAA authorization bill, has 
many provisions of particular interest and benefit to communities and 
sectors of the aviation community.
  Madam President, I know the time is limited, and I do not want to 
prolong the debate. I do not question the motives of any Senator in 
this legislative process. Actions that we are taking are driven by 
notions of what is in the best interests of the country. We just happen 
to disagree, and I strongly disagree with this amendment.
  Should we throw up our hands and say: This is a tough job, and let's 
turn it over to the executive branch; let's respect their decisions, 
forget our own interests in our States, and our own individual 
backgrounds and experience? Of course not. That would be an abdication 
of our responsibilities as Senators.
  So the solution is to adopt an aggressive budget resolution; consider 
all spending and tax bills in a transparent fashion; subject them to 
public, careful scrutiny; allow Members to propose amendments on any 
and all provisions of any and all appropriations bills. When they judge 
it to be wasteful, vote against it. Cut the spending or approve it. In 
any case, do what each individual Senator thinks is in the public 
interest, unfettered by makeshift budget restraints that accomplish 
nothing except shift power from the Congress to the Executive.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina. Mr. DeMINT. 
Thank you, Madam President. I thank the Senator from Mississippi and--
--
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DeMINT. No.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DeMINT. No.
  Mr. INHOFE. For a question?
  Mr. DeMINT. Yes, sir.
  Mr. INHOFE. Would you be willing to give me 2 minutes? That is all I 
need. I want to say and make sure everyone understands this. I have a 
totally different argument against this. I happen to be ranked as the 
most conservative Member of the Senate, and all you are trying to do 
with this thing--all you will end up doing, if you are successful, is 
giving all this to the executive branch.
  Mr. DeMINT. I thank the Senator. I reclaim my time.
  Mr. INHOFE. Well----
  Mr. DeMINT. All the time so far----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. All the time so far has been used----
  Mr. INHOFE. Let me ask----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. INHOFE. For a unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina has the floor.
  Mr. INHOFE. I ask for a unanimous consent request, please.
  Mr. DeMINT. Thank you, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does not have the floor.
  The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. If the Senator will yield, all the time so far has been 
yielded to those who oppose the bill. As I understand it, the time will 
be cut off at 6, and I will use that remaining time.
  I do want to thank the appropriators, the Senator from Mississippi, 
all of those who work for the entire Senate to do what the Members ask 
as far as to look out for their States, and I do not call into account 
their motives at all. But I think as Members of the Senate we have to 
ask ourselves: Is the way we are doing this working?
  We can have all the theoretical arguments we want. But what we have 
is trillions of dollars of debt, many wasteful projects. The trust in 
our government is at an all-time low, and the earmarks we are sending 
out all across the

[[Page S1602]]

country are mostly now with borrowed money.
  So we can talk about our theories all we want, but what we are doing 
is not working, and perception is reality. With all of our debt, the 
corruption, the waste, every American has a right to question what we 
are doing right now. Clearly, if it is a constitutional responsibility 
for all of us to be here to get money for our States, somehow for the 
first 200 years of our country that was missed because even a few years 
ago Ronald Reagan would veto a bill with less than a couple hundred 
earmarks in it because of all the pork and waste. But now we are in the 
thousands and tens of thousands. It is out of control. The waste and 
the fraud and the abuse is so obvious that it is time we see it in the 
Senate.
  If you look at the Constitution, a couple of principles are clear. 
They expect uniformity across the States, nonpreferential treatment, 
and that is not what happens with earmarks. Folks, we have to admit, 
while a lot of the proponents of earmarks will say it is a small part 
of our total budget, that is like looking at a long train that covers a 
whole mile and saying the engine is just a small part of that train. 
But the engine is what pulls the whole train, and earmarks are what 
pull through a lot of spending and a lot of borrowing.
  Just going back 1 year, the big bailout bill--almost a trillion 
dollars--failed to pass the House, and then they added earmarks and it 
passed. Following that was a stimulus bill, a candy store of earmarks. 
After that, the omnibus bill with thousands of earmarks that sailed 
through the Congress, and even the health care bill. With the 
``Nebraska kickback,'' the ``Louisiana purchase,'' Americans now know 
that we buy votes with earmarks.
  Isn't it time we just take a timeout for 1 year and see if we can 
reform this system? Some of the reforms people are talking about that 
we have been talking about for years that we have not done--it is time 
to admit what we are doing is not working.
  In the House of Representatives, yesterday, the Republicans led the 
way. They do not agree on how to deal with earmarks long term, but they 
agreed that it is enough of a problem that they decided to take a 1-
year moratorium on earmarks. The House Republican Conference voted to 
eliminate earmarks for 1 year. It gives us a chance to take a timeout 
to try to work on this.
  As to the argument that if we do not do earmarks, the administration 
will do it, folks, we have every power here by the way we appropriate 
to disallow the use of funds for certain things. We could not only here 
do what we are supposed to do, which is pass bills that provide funding 
for programs, and then provide the oversight for the administration--
and we require they only use the funds in a nonpreferential, formula-
based way or competitive grants or bids--we have every way to restrain 
the way the administration uses the funds that we appropriate. Then 
what would happen is, we would resist big spending bills because we did 
not have our parochial interests, our conflicts of interest to get 
money for our States.
  Senators, we are not here to get money for our States. We are here as 
representatives of our States in the United States of America, and we 
put up our hands and say: We are going to defend and protect the 
Constitution that is about the general welfare of America. We cannot 
continue to come here every day and talk about our unsustainable debt, 
and then say: I have to have $1 million for my museum or my local sewer 
plant when, in fact, this is borrowed money.
  We do not have the money we need to keep the promises to seniors we 
have made for Social Security and Medicare and to defend our country. 
Yet we spend most of the year trying to get earmarks for our local 
communities so we can do a press release, so we can talk about bringing 
home the bacon.
  So we can talk about how a lot of these projects may have merit, but 
what doesn't have merit is when we forgo the interests of our Nation, 
the general welfare of our people, so that we can do our press releases 
on our tens of thousands of earmarks.
  It is time to bring it to a close, at least for 1 year. The House has 
taken a bold stand, at least on the Republican side. Let's vote to take 
a timeout on earmarks, try to get our house in order, re-earn the trust 
of the American people, and stop putting this debt on the shoulders of 
our children.
  We have a chance in a few minutes to vote on a moratorium of earmarks 
for 1 year. This is the very least we can do for the people of the 
United States of America. All of these arguments we can push aside. 
What America thinks right now is true. There is a connection between 
the waste, the fraud, the abuse, the debt, the borrowing, and earmarks. 
There is no question about it.
  I implore my colleagues: Set aside the self-interests for one vote. 
Let's do what is best for our country and vote for a 1-year timeout on 
earmarks.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, could I ask unanimous consent to have 15 
seconds----
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado). The Senator from West 
Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a 
response.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and 
hope it is defeated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma does not have the 
floor and cannot propound a unanimous consent request at this time.
  The Senator from West Virginia has made a motion to table.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) 
and the Senator from Montana (Mr. Tester) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from 
Montana (Mr. Tester) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Utah (Mr. Bennett).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 68, nays 29, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 50 Leg.]

                                YEAS--68

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--29

     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Brown (MA)
     Brownback
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kaufman
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Risch
     Sessions
     Thune
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bennett
     Byrd
     Tester
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3470

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes debate equally divided 
prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 3470, offered by the 
Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold.
  The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Feingold-Coburn-Sherrod Brown-
McCain-McCaskill amendment rescinds any earmarks that have sat on the 
shelf at the Department of Transportation for more than 10 years 
without more than 10 percent of it being obligated or spent. It also 
requires a report by the OMB on how many of these old,

[[Page S1603]]

unspent earmarks are at all Federal agencies. This would save an 
estimated $626 million in the first year and more down the road as 
other unused earmarks hit the 10-year milestone.
  I know many Senators support transportation spending to create jobs 
and deal with crumbling infrastructure, as do I. But these unused and 
often unwanted earmarks do nothing to create jobs and fix roads.
  The Bush administration supported the amendment, and the Obama 
administration and Chairwomen Boxer and Murray support the amendment. I 
hope it is adopted easily.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield my 1 minute to the Senator 
from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, I would like to make one 
statement on the DeMint amendment that was just defeated. I have to say 
this, as the person who was most recently characterized as the most 
conservative Member of the Senate: If there is anyone out there who 
thinks that was a conservative vote on earmarks, they are wrong. There 
has never been one case where an earmark has saved one penny that has 
been reduced.
  I have to say this: Senator DeMint had $70 million worth of highway 
earmarks that were in the amendment that we are talking about right 
now.
  Real quickly: The Feingold amendment does not reduce the deficit one 
penny. Because of environmental laws and other things, the CBO and the 
administration have said the average time for a highway project is 13 
years. For example, in my State of Oklahoma, Highway 40--a huge 
project--was started in 1991. If this amendment had been in there, that 
project would have been terminated in 2001.
  I urge my conservative friends, unless you just don't like highways 
and roads, to kill this amendment.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Utah (Mr. Bennett).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 87, nays 11, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 51 Leg.]

                                YEAS--87

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

                                NAYS--11

     Alexander
     Bond
     Brown (MA)
     Cochran
     Inhofe
     Landrieu
     Levin
     Rockefeller
     Shelby
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Bennett
     Byrd
  The amendment (No. 3470), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. STABENOW. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3458

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 3458 offered by 
the Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter.
  The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Hutchison and Landrieu be added as cosponsors of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, in 2005 we passed the CF program, which is 
revenue sharing for States, for coastal conservation and other 
purposes. Unfortunately, that money has been very slow to get to 
States. Only 15 percent that was supposed to have been distributed by 
now has been. This amendment helps fix that. It does not spend new 
money, it does not increase the deficit.
  I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Landrieu.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I join my colleague in supporting this 
amendment. We have modified it from the original version. No 
environmental laws will be ignored. The process will be followed. But 
this amendment would simply expedite getting money to the Gulf Coast 
States and to other States that benefit from this program. I ask my 
colleagues to support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment is completely unrelated 
to the FAA reauthorization legislation. It deals with a matter that is 
in the jurisdiction of the Energy Committee. It would make, in my view, 
inappropriate changes to a program that provides assistance to six 
coastal States.
  I oppose the amendment. I urge my colleagues to oppose it as well. In 
my view, it will dilute the authority of the Secretary of Interior to 
properly oversee and ensure the accountability for the funds that are 
being spent in these programs.
  I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 
311(a)(2)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, with regard to this technical point of 
order, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 
section 4(G)(3) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, I move to 
waive all applicable sections of those acts and applicable budget 
resolutions for purposes of my amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Utah (Mr. Bennett).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 41, nays 57, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 52 Leg.]

                                YEAS--41

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     LeMieux
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                                NAYS--57

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

[[Page S1604]]



                             NOT VOTING--2

     Bennett
     Byrd
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 41, the nays are 
57. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment falls.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Senators should note that the next vote is the last vote 
we are going to have this evening. The managers do have a managers' 
package; they are going to clear it tonight.
  Tomorrow morning after the Senate convenes at 9:30 a.m., we are 
slated to complete action on Job 1, so Senators should expect up to two 
rollcall votes at that time.
  As a reminder to all Senators, at 2 p.m. tomorrow there is going to 
be a live quorum so that we can receive the House managers with respect 
to the impeachment proceedings. Therefore, all Members are urged to be 
in the Chamber at 2 p.m. so that proceedings can be expedited.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 3456

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 3456 offered by 
the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman.
  The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, this is a bipartisan amendment 
introduced by Senators Collins, Burr, Voinovich, Feinstein, Ensign, and 
myself. It would benefit schoolchildren in the District of Columbia, 
reauthorizing a program we created 7 years ago now that has worked: $20 
million to the DC public schools, $20 million to charter schools, and 
$20 million to the Opportunity Scholarship Program.
  The last part is the controversial part. But it should not be. As 
Senator Feinstein said in her remarks on this amendment, what is there 
in this amendment to be afraid of? It has helped 1,300 economically 
disadvantages children to have an opportunity to get out of a public 
school that the Chancellor of the DC Public Schools says is not working 
for them.
  This measure is supported by Mayor Fenty, Chancellor Michelle Rhee, a 
majority of the members of the DC Public Schools, and it has been 
judged by an independent evaluator to be the most effective program of 
its kind in America.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first, this program has never been 
authorized. It was only put into an appropriations bill in 2003. It was 
extended once.
  We had the Department of Education, not this one, the previous one, 
and this one, do studies of whether this was successful. After 3 years, 
no statistically significant achievement impacts were observed for 
students who came from the lowest performing schools--which was the 
target of the program--or for students who entered the program 
academically behind. No achievement impacts were found for male 
students, and there was no statistically significant impact on math 
scores. Already DC parents have a choice. We have over 60 charter 
schools here in the District of Columbia, and it is growing all the 
time. So there is a choice for them to go to charter schools which are 
public schools open to everyone and they do not discriminate.
  So, again, there is no reason for this authorization. The kids who 
are in those schools on those vouchers can continue. There is no 
problem with that. But why open it for vouchers when we have got the 
charter schools building up here?
  I might add the chairman of the Committee also, Senator Rockefeller, 
opposes the amendment.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Utah (Mr. Bennett) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 55, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 53 Leg.]

                                YEAS--42

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

                                NAYS--55

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bennett
     Byrd
     Shelby
  The amendment (No. 3456) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.


Amendments Nos. 3462; 3467; 3472; 3473, as Modified; 3474, as Modified; 
  3482, as Modified; 3486, as Modified; 3487; 3497; 3503; 3504; 3508; 
               3509; 3510; and 3531 to Amendment No. 3452

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment be set aside and that it be in order for the Senate 
to consider en bloc the amendments listed here--I will read them in a 
moment--and that the amendments be considered and agreed to; that in 
the case where an amendment is modified, the amendment, as modified, be 
considered and agreed to; and the motions to reconsider be laid upon 
the table en bloc; and that no amendments be in order to the amendments 
considered in this agreement.
  The amendments are as follows: Bennett-Hatch No. 3462; Reid-Ensign 
No. 3467; McCain No. 3472; Lautenberg No. 3473, to be modified; 
Barrasso No. 3474, to be modified; Durbin No. 3482, to be modified; 
Schumer No. 3486, to be modified; Bingaman No. 3487; Cardin No. 3497; 
Menendez No. 3503; Menendez No. 3504; Johanns No. 3508; Johanns No. 
3509; Johanns No. 3510; and Coburn No. 3531.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3462

   (Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to release 
restrictions on the use of certain property conveyed to the City of St. 
                   George, Utah for airport purposes)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. RELEASE FROM RESTRICTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), and 
     notwithstanding section 16 of the Federal Airport Act (as in 
     effect on August 28, 1973) and sections 47125 and 47153 of 
     title 49, United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation 
     is authorized to grant releases from any of the terms, 
     conditions, reservations, and restrictions contained in the 
     deed of conveyance dated August 28, 1973, under which the 
     United States conveyed certain property to the city of St. 
     George, Utah, for airport purposes.
       (b) Condition.--Any release granted by the Secretary of 
     Transportation pursuant to subsection (a) shall be subject to 
     the following conditions:
       (1) The city of St. George, Utah, shall agree that in 
     conveying any interest in the property which the United 
     States conveyed to the city by deed on August 28, 1973, the 
     city will receive an amount for such interest which is equal 
     to its fair market value.
       (2) Any amount received by the city under paragraph (1) 
     shall be used by the city of St. George, Utah, for the 
     development or improvement of a replacement public airport.

[[Page S1605]]

                           AMENDMENT NO. 3467

   (Purpose: To authorize Clark County, Nevada, to permit the use of 
certain lands in the Las Vegas McCarran International Airport Environs 
   Overlay District for transient lodging and associated facilities)

       On page 364, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:

     SEC. 434. AUTHORIZATION OF USE OF CERTAIN LANDS IN THE LAS 
                   VEGAS MCCARRAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONS 
                   OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR TRANSIENT LODGING AND 
                   ASSOCIATED FACILITIES.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
     and except as provided in subsection (b), Clark County, 
     Nevada, is authorized to permit transient lodging, including 
     hotels, and associated facilities, including enclosed 
     auditoriums, concert halls, sports arenas, and places of 
     public assembly, on lands in the Las Vegas McCarran 
     International Airport Environs Overlay District that fall 
     below the forecasted 2017 65 dB day-night annual average 
     noise level (DNL), as identified in the Noise Exposure Map 
     Notice published by the Federal Aviation Administration in 
     the Federal Register on July 24, 2007 (72 Fed. Reg. 40357), 
     and adopted into the Clark County Development Code in June 
     2008.
       (b) Limitation.--No structure may be permitted under 
     subsection (a) that would constitute a hazard to air 
     navigation, result in an increase to minimum flight 
     altitudes, or otherwise pose a significant adverse impact on 
     airport or aircraft operations.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3472

  (Purpose: To prohibit the use of passenger facility charges for the 
              construction of bicycle storage facilities)

       On page 29, after line 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 207(b) Prohibition on Use of Passenger Facility 
     Charges To Construct Bicycle Storage Facilities.--Section 
     40117(a)(3) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through (G) as 
     clauses (i) through (vii);
       (2) by striking ``The term'' and inserting the following:
       ``(A) In general.--The term''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Bicycle storage facilities.--A project to construct a 
     bicycle storage facility may not be considered an eligible 
     airport-related project.''.


                    AMENDMENT NO. 3473, AS MODIFIED

  (Purpose: To require a report on Newark Liberty Airport air traffic 
                                control)

       At the end of title VII, add the following:

     SEC. 723. REPORT ON NEWARK LIBERTY AIRPORT AIR TRAFFIC 
                   CONTROL TOWER.

       Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration shall report to the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation of the Senate, and the Committee 
     on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives, on the Federal Aviation Administration's 
     plan to staff the Newark Liberty Airport air traffic control 
     tower at negotiated staffing levels within 1 year after such 
     date of enactment.


                    amendment no. 3474, as modified

  (Purpose: To require the Administrator to prioritize the review of 
   construction projects that are carried out in cold weather States)

       At the end of title VII, add the following:

     SEC. 723. PRIORITY REVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS IN COLD 
                   WEATHER STATES.

       The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration 
     shall, to the maximum extent practicable, schedule the 
     Administrator's review of construction projects so that 
     projects to be carried out in a States in which the weather 
     during a typical calendar year prevents major construction 
     projects from being carried out before May 1 are reviewed as 
     early as possible.


                    amendment no. 3482, as modified

       At the end of title VII, add the following:

     SEC. 720. AIR-RAIL CODESHARE STUDY.

       (a) Codeshare Study.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the GAO shall conduct a 
     study of--
       (1) the current airline and intercity passenger rail 
     codeshare arrangements;
       (2) the feasibility and costs to taxpayers and passengers 
     of increasing intermodal connectivity of airline and 
     intercity passenger rail facilities and systems to improve 
     passenger travel.
       (b) Considerations.--The study shall consider--
       (1) the potential benefits to passengers and costs to 
     taxpayers from the implementation of more integrated 
     scheduling between airlines and Amtrak or other intercity 
     passenger rail carriers achieved through codesharing 
     arrangements;
       (2) airport operations that can improve connectivity to 
     intercity passenger rail facilities and stations.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after commencing the 
     study required by subsection (a), the Comptroller shall 
     submit the report to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives. The report shall include any conclusions of 
     the Comptroller resulting from the study.


                    amendment no. 3486, as modified

       On page 201, strike lines 20 through 24, and insert the 
     following:
       (b) Minimum Experience Requirement.--
       (1) In general.--The final rule prescribed under subsection 
     (a) shall, among any other requirements established by the 
     rule, require that a pilot--
       (A) have not less than 800 hours of flight time before 
     serving as a flightcrew member for a part 121 air carrier; 
     and
       (B) demonstrate the ability to--
       (i) function effectively in a multipilot environment;
       (ii) function effectively in an air carrier operational 
     environment;
       (iii) function effectively in adverse weather conditions, 
     including icing conditions if the pilot is expected to be 
     operating aircraft in icing conditions;
       (iv) function effectively during high altitude operations; 
     and
       (v) adhere to the highest professional standards.
       (2) Hours of flight experience in difficult operational 
     conditions.--The total number of hours of flight experience 
     required by the Administrator under paragraph (1) for pilots 
     shall include a number of hours of flight experience in 
     difficult operational conditions that may be encountered by 
     an air carrier that the Administrator determines to be 
     sufficient to enable a pilot to operate an aircraft safely in 
     such conditions.


                    amendment no. 3487, as modified

        (Purpose: To preserve the essential air service program)

       At the end of subtitle B of title IV, add the following:

     SEC. 419. REPEAL OF ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE LOCAL PARTICIPATION 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 417 of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking section 41747, and 
     such title 49 shall be applied as if such section 41747 had 
     not been enacted.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     417 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     the item relating to section 41747.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3497

   (Purpose: To extend the termination date for the final order with 
 respect to determining mileage eligibility for essential air service)

       Strike section 412 and insert the following:

     SEC. 412. EXTENSION OF FINAL ORDER ESTABLISHING MILEAGE 
                   ADJUSTMENT ELIGIBILITY.

       Section 409(d) of the Vision 100--Century of Aviation 
     Reauthorization Act (49 U.S.C. 41731 note) is amended by 
     striking ``September 30, 2010.'' and inserting ``September 
     30, 2013.''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3503

  (Purpose: To require an ongoing monitoring of and report on the New 
   York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Area Airspace Redesign)

       At the end of title VII, add the following:

     SEC. 723. ON-GOING MONITORING OF AND REPORT ON THE NEW YORK/
                   NEW JERSEY/PHILADELPHIA METROPOLITAN AREA 
                   AIRSPACE REDESIGN.

       Not later than 270 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act and every 180 days thereafter until the completion 
     of the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Area 
     Airspace Redesign, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration shall, in conjunction with the Port Authority 
     of New York and New Jersey and the Philadelphia International 
     Airport--
       (1) monitor the air noise impacts of the New York/New 
     Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Area Airspace Redesign; and
       (2) submit to Congress a report on the findings of the 
     Administrator with respect to the monitoring described in 
     paragraph (1).


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3504

    (Purpose: To require the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
 Administration to conduct a study of the safety impact of distracted 
                                pilots)

       On page 204, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
       (e) Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration shall review relevant air carrier data and 
     carry out a study--
       (A) to identify common sources of distraction for the 
     cockpit flight crew on commercial aircraft; and
       (B) to determine the safety impacts of such distractions.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit a 
     report to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives that contains--
       (A) the findings of the study conducted under paragraph 
     (1); and
       (B) recommendations about ways to reduce distractions for 
     cockpit flight crews.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3508

  (Purpose: To require the Coptroller General of the United States to 
study the impact of increases in fuel prices on the long-term viability 
 of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund and on the aviation industry in 
                                general)

       At the end of title VII, add the following:

     SEC. 723. STUDY ON AVIATION FUEL PRICES.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the 
     United States shall conduct a study and report to Congress on 
     the impact of increases in aviation fuel prices on the 
     Airport and Airway Trust Fund

[[Page S1606]]

     and the aviation industry in general. The study shall include 
     the impact of increases in aviation fuel prices on--
       (1) general aviation;
       (2) commercial passenger aviation;
       (3) piston aircraft purchase and use;
       (4) the aviation services industry, including repair and 
     maintenance services;
       (5) aviation manufacturing;
       (6) aviation exports; and
       (7) the use of small airport installations.
       (b) Assumptions About Aviation Fuel Prices.--In conducting 
     the study required by subsection (a), the Comptroller General 
     shall use the average aviation fuel price for fiscal year 
     2010 as a baseline and measure the impact of increases in 
     aviation fuel prices that range from 5 percent to 200 percent 
     over the 2010 baseline.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3509

    (Purpose: To require the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
 Administration to identify the benefits of ADS-B for small and medium-
               sized airports and general aviation users)

       On page 77, strike lines 13 through 18, and insert the 
     following:
       (2)  IDENTIFICATION and measurement of benefits.--In the 
     report required by paragraph (1), the Administrator shall 
     identify actual benefits that will accrue to National 
     Airspace System users, small and medium-sized airports, and 
     general aviation users from deployment of ADS-B and provide 
     an explanation of the metrics used to quantify those 
     benefits.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3510

(Purpose: To extend conditionally the deadlines for equipping aircraft 
                         with ADS-B Technology)

       On page 80, after line 21, insert the following:
       (d) Conditional Extension of Deadlines for Equipping 
     Aircraft With ADS-B Technology.--
       (1) ADS-B out.--In the case that the Administrator fails to 
     complete the initial rulemaking described in subparagraph (A) 
     of subsection (b)(1) on or before the date that is 45 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the deadline 
     described in clause (ii) of such subparagraph shall be 
     extended by an amount of time that is equal to the amount of 
     time of the period beginning on the date that is 45 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act and ending on the 
     date on which the Administrator completes such initial 
     rulemaking.
       (2) ADS-B in.--In the case that the Administrator fails to 
     initiate the rulemaking required by paragraph (2) of 
     subsection (b) on or before the date that is 45 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the deadline described 
     in subparagraph (B) of such paragraph shall be extended by an 
     amount of time that is equal to the amount of time of the 
     period beginning on the date that is 45 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act and ending on the date on which 
     the Administrator initiates such rulemaking.


                           amendment no. 3531

  (Purpose: To discontinue a Federal program that has never been used 
                      since its creation in 2003)

       On page 114, strike line 8 and all that follows through 
     page 116, line 6 and insert the following:

     SEC. 414. CONVERSION OF FORMER EAS AIRPORTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 41745 is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``Sec. 41745. Conversion of lost eligibility airports

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish a program 
     to provide general aviation conversion funding for airports 
     serving eligible places that the Secretary has determined no 
     longer qualify for a subsidy.
       ``(b) Grants.--A grant under this section--
       ``(1) may not exceed twice the compensation paid to provide 
     essential air service to the airport in the fiscal year 
     preceeding the fiscal year in which the Secretary determines 
     that the place served by the airport is no longer an eligible 
     place; and
       ``(2) may be used--
       ``(A) for airport development (as defined in section 
     47102(3)) that will enhance general aviation capacity at the 
     airport;
       ``(B) to defray operating expenses, if such use is approved 
     by the Secretary; or
       ``(C) to develop innovative air service options, such as 
     on-demand or air taxi operations, if such use is approved by 
     the Secretary.
       ``(c) AIP Requirements.--An airport sponsor that uses funds 
     provided under this section for an airport development 
     project shall comply with the requirements of subchapter I of 
     chapter 471 applicable to airport development projects funded 
     under that subchapter with respect to the project funded 
     under this section.
       ``(d) Limitation.--The sponsor of an airport receiving 
     funding under this section is not eligible for funding under 
     section 41736.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     417 is amended by striking the item relating to section 41745 
     and inserting the following:
``41745. Conversion of lost eligibility airports.''.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce an amendment along 
with Senators Reid, Ensign and Kyl to clarify the Grand Canyon 
Overflights Act of 1987 that sought to restore the natural quiet of the 
canyon from commercial air tour overflights. After 23 years of numerous 
rulemakings by the National Park Service and the Federal Aviation 
Administration, and a lawsuit in 2002, it is now time to move forward 
to ensure that the 5 million visitors to the Grand Canyon can enjoy its 
majestic beauty by air or by foot without excessive noise from 
commercial air tour operators.
  Specifically, this amendment would set forth in statute the 
``substantial restoration of the natural quiet and experience of the 
Grand Canyon'' is achieved if for at least 75 percent of each day--
between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m--50 percent of the park is free from the sound 
produced by commercial air tour operations. Additionally, the amendment 
provides curfews for overflights, particularly during the peak visitor 
season, so many visitors can enjoy the grand sunset at the Grand Canyon 
relatively free from overflight noise.
  The amendment also sets forth curfews and reduced flight allocations 
for specific parts of the canyon that are particularly special for many 
visitors, including the Dragon Corridor on the west rim in the vicinity 
of Hermits Rest and Dripping Spring, the Zuni Point Corridor that 
includes the area known as ``Snoopy's Nose,'' and Marble Canyon. I have 
many fond memories of hiking the canyon with my sons, most recently 
just last year, and I hope all Americans are able to enjoy the beauty 
of the canyon without the interference of excessive noise from air 
tours. I believe this amendment allows without waiting another 23 years 
for progress.
  Over the past few years, there have been strong improvements in quiet 
technology for aircraft. I am pleased that several of the air tour 
operators that provide air tours at the Grand Canyon have migrated to 
quiet technology aircraft. This amendment would mandate the conversion 
to quiet technology for all air tour operations within 15 years of 
enactment. Additionally, this amendment provides numerous incentives 
for operators to convert to quiet technology, including a reduced park 
entrance fee and increased flight allocations for aircraft that utilize 
quiet technology.
  Lastly, this amendment requires the FAA to review flight allocations 
for air tour operators serving the Grand Canyon. These allocations have 
not been reviewed since 2001 and are based on 1990s data. Tourism is 
essential to Arizona's economic recovery. Over 37 million visitors came 
to Arizona in 2008 generating over $2.5 billion in tax revenues. There 
are over 300,000 jobs in Arizona that are tied to tourism in Arizona, 
and we must ensure that these jobs continue to exist and grow.
  Over 5 million tourists, hikers and adventure seekers visited the 
Grand Canyon in 2008. These visitors have also contributed millions of 
dollars to the great States of Arizona and Nevada, in addition to the 
local communities surrounding the Grand Canyon. We must ensure that 
these visitors have the ability to view the canyon by air if they wish 
to do so, but in a manner that maintains ``natural quite'' for those 
visiting the canyon by foot. I think this amendment achieves that goal.
  Again, I am proud to have the support of Senators Reid, Ensign, and 
Kyl who share my commitment to continuing the progress that has been 
made toward establishing ``natural quiet'' at the Grand Canyon, while 
continuing to ensure that its majesty is available to be viewed by air 
for those who wish to do so. I hope my colleagues will join me in 
supporting this important amendment.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the FAA bill we are considering contains 
important new changes in both the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise 
Program, DBE, and the Airport Concessions Disadvantaged Business 
Enterprise, ACDBE, program. While we have made progress, discrimination 
in airport related business remains pervasive. Both of these programs 
are critical to our Nation's efforts to level the playing field in 
airport related contracting.
  Over the past couple of years, both in my role on the Commerce 
Committee and Aviation Subcommittee and in my former role as chairman 
of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have 
received an enormous amount of evidence about the ongoing existence of 
race and gender discrimination against minority and

[[Page S1607]]

women owned businesses. Discrimination impacts every aspect of the 
contracting process, every major industry category and hurts all types 
of disadvantaged business owners including African Americans, Hispanic 
Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, and women. Here in the 
Congress, we have received a great deal of evidence about the 
discrimination that specifically impacts minority and women owned 
businesses in the airport business context. In September of 2008 the 
Committee on Small Business heard testimony from diverse perspectives 
about the ongoing problem of discrimination in lending and access to 
capital across the disadvantaged business perspective, including 
discrimination against minority and women businesses in airport related 
business issues. In March of 2009, the House Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure conducted an extensive hearing 
focused on the DBE and ACDBE programs. They heard testimony about 
discrimination and needed program improvements from the administration, 
researchers, advocates and minority and women businesses themselves. 
And the Senate Aviation subcommittee itself received similar testimony 
and evidence in our May 2009 hearing--including a large number of 
disparity studies outlining extremely compelling statistical testimony 
of discrimination in airport related contracting.
  The present day effects of past discrimination, and ongoing current 
discrimination, continue to be barriers to minority and women owned 
businesses. Even in the context of the highest constitutional scrutiny 
required by the Supreme Court, this powerful evidence of discrimination 
makes the maintenance of these programs imperative and constitutional. 
It also makes all the more important the changes we have proposed to 
improve the programs--adjusting the personal net worth cap for 
inflation, prohibiting excessive and discriminatory bonding, and 
improving certification training. The disturbing fact is, 
discrimination is still a major impediment to the formation, growth and 
success of minority and women business owners. That is unacceptable. 
Race and gender discrimination are bad for minority and women business 
owners, bad for our economy and morally wrong. With this bill, we are 
seeking to remedy that wrong in the FAA context.


                            vote explanation

  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, due to a meeting at the White House today, 
I regret I was unable to make the vote on the motion to table the 
DeMint amendment No. 3454 to H.R. 1586, the legislative vehicle for FAA 
reauthorization. If present, I would have voted aye, to table the 
amendment.

                          ____________________