[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 18 (Monday, February 7, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S586-S596]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    FAA AIR TRANSPORTATION MODERNIZATION AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. 223, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 223) to modernize the air traffic control 
     system, improve the safety, reliability, and availability of 
     transportation by air in the United States, provide for 
     modernization of the air traffic control system, reauthorize 
     the Federal Aviation Administration, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Wicker amendment No. 14, to exclude employees of the 
     Transportation Security Administration from the collective 
     bargaining rights of Federal employees.
       Blunt amendment No. 5, to require the Under Secretary of 
     Transportation for Security to approve applications from 
     airports to authorize passenger and property screening to be 
     carried out by a qualified private screening company.
       Nelson (Fl) amendment No. 34, to strike section 605.
       Paul amendment No. 21, to reduce the total amount 
     authorized to be appropriated for the Federal Aviation 
     Administration for fiscal year 2011 to the total amount 
     authorized to be appropriated for the Administration for 
     fiscal year 2008.
       Rockefeller (for Wyden) amendment No. 27, to increase the 
     number of test sites in the National Airspace System used for 
     unmanned aerial vehicles and to require one of those test 
     sites to include a significant portion of public lands.
       Inhofe amendment No. 6, to provide liability protection to 
     volunteer pilot nonprofit organizations that fly for public 
     benefit and to the pilots and staff of such nonprofit 
     organizations.
       Inhofe amendment No. 7, to require the Administrator of the 
     Federal Aviation Administration to initiate a new rulemaking 
     proceeding with respect to the flight time limitations and 
     rest requirements for supplemental operations before any of 
     such limitations or requirements be altered.
       Rockefeller (for Ensign) amendment No. 32, to improve 
     provisions relating to certification and flight standards for 
     military remotely piloted aerial systems in the National 
     Airspace System.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from West Virginia is 
recognized.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I have comments of my own, but I will 
yield to the Senator from Maryland. He has been down here waiting. He 
is interesting, provocative, thoughtful, and always right. I yield to 
him such time as he may feel comfortable with, provided it doesn't go 
past 5 o'clock.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland is 
recognized.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and congratulate him 
on the reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration. It is a 
bill that we can all be proud of. I thank him for his good work.
  Mr. President, I rise to speak today on the legislation to 
reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration.
  Our Nation's economy is recovering from the worst economic recession 
in decades. Critical to getting our economy moving forward and getting 
Americans back to work is building an efficient and modern intermodal 
transportation system built to handle growing commerce in the 21st 
century.
  I am pleased to see that this legislation, which is estimated to 
create 280,000 jobs in airports around the country, is one of the first 
orders of business for the Senate in the 112th Congress. It 
demonstrates this body's focus on job creation and helping get 
Americans back to work while updating the Nation's aviation 
infrastructure to ensure that America is ready for business.
  The airline industry accounts for nearly 11 million U.S. jobs and 
$1.2 trillion in annual economic activity. This bill provides the 
airline industry the essential infrastructure it needs to succeed and 
remain strong and competitive in the global airline industry.
  Every day, the Federal Aviation Administration faces the daunting 
task of marshalling thousands of airliners, and the air travelers on 
those planes, across the country from airports and airfields both large 
and small located in nearly every corner of the United States. These 
members of the Federal workforce safely guide thousands of airplanes, 
serving tens of thousands of air travelers, across America's skies 
every day.
  I applaud Senator Rockefeller's dedication to getting this much 
needed legislation to the floor of the Senate. I greatly appreciate his 
willingness in the last Congress to incorporate a provision of mine 
that is important to keeping small rural airports in Maryland and in 
other parts of the country in operation. I look forward to continue 
working to build upon the great work he has done to get this important 
bill moving forward.
  This bill is not just important to our big airports; it's important 
to all airports in this country. There are many challenges facing the 
FAA and air travelers. This bill sets a clear path towards addressing 
these challenges, not the least of which is working to reduce the 
number of flight cancellations and the frequency of flight delays that 
can range anywhere from 10 minutes to 9 or more hours that air 
travelers experience.
  This bill will reduce delays by more than 20 percent--save passenger 
time, money and reduce airline fuel consumption, making our country 
more energy secure and reducing harmful greenhouse gas emissions.
  While air travel remains a safe and fast way to travel between 
distant destinations, the technology is readily available to make 
essential improvements to our Nation's aviation infrastructure to make 
it even safer and faster.
  The bill's authorization of facility and equipment funding reinforces 
the FAA's commitment to overhauling the guidance systems used to direct 
flights across the country. The deployment of NextGen flight systems 
will cut travel times and save energy by directing flights to take 
shorter routes that use less fuel.

[[Page S587]]

  Domestic commercial flight routes follow the same terrestrial based 
guidance air traffic control system that was put in place more than 
half a century ago. The paths planes follow between airports is not 
based on the shortest most efficient routes, but instead based on the 
location of broadcasting points on the ground. That no longer makes any 
sense. We know that we now have a GPS system that could put our planes 
on a much more direct route, which is faster and will save time and 
energy.
  For example, air travelers flying from National Airport, across the 
Potomac in Arlington, VA, to Boston's Logan International Airport 
currently follow a route north through central Pennsylvania, east 
across New York State and the entire State of Massachusetts to Boston 
located on the Atlantic coast.
  This flight pattern goes 537 miles, takes an hour and 15 minutes to 
fly, and burns 7,376 pounds of fuel.
  Alternatively, NextGen's satellite-based guidance system, using 
global positioning systems, would guide that same flight on a 367 mile, 
northeasterly route directly up the Atlantic coast, that takes less 
than an hour, and use 5,883 pounds of fuel.
  That's a 1,493 pound savings of expensive, carbon emission intensive, 
jet fuel.
  These are significant savings that benefit the environment and the 
consumer. The Air Transport Association estimates that ``even a 6% 
fleet-wide reduction in fuel burn results in fuel savings of 1.16 
billion gallons of jet fuel and emissions savings of nearly 11 million 
metric tons or 24 billion pounds of CO2.'' We would be 
saving fuel and costs and would be polluting much less.
  NextGen is essential to achieving these types of greenhouse gas 
emissions reductions from the aviation sector.
  NextGen is also critical to meeting future air travel demands and 
will go a long way to alleviating the actual ``air traffic'' that is 
responsible for much of the delays air passengers experience when 
travelling.
  The research, engineering and development funding is set to advance 
undergraduate and technical school programs for aircraft maintenance 
focusing on new technology job training for pilots and air traffic 
controllers. This includes essential job training programs for the next 
generation of air traffic controllers that will use NextGen systems to 
guide America's airline fleets.
  Job training and education are important for preparing America's 
workforce to advance into well paid and skilled jobs and are essential 
to the Nation's economic recovery.
  The operations and maintenance, Airport Improvement Program and 
facilities and equipment funding authorizations give the green light to 
hundreds of airports across the Nation to advance pressing maintenance, 
facilities, security and new construction projects that will create 
thousands of jobs in the engineering, computer science, construction, 
and software development sectors and much more.
  For example, at Baltimore Washington International-Thurgood Marshall 
Airport in Anne Arundel County, the Maryland Department of 
Transportation has nearly $400 million in Airport Improvement Program 
projects that are ready to go. These projects will help improve runway 
safety, tarmac capacity and terminal efficiency at Maryland's largest 
airport.
  BWI-Thurgood Marshall served 21 million passengers in 2009 and was 
ranked first out of 140 international airports, worldwide, that serve 
15-25 million passengers annually by the Airports Council 
International's Airport Service Quality survey. We are proud of that 
and want to maintain that service at BWI. The reauthorization of these 
programs is critical to our doing that.
  I appreciate the opportunity this bill gives me to show my support 
for Maryland's flagship airport and the 35 other commercial, municipal, 
regional and general aviation airports across my State.
  I mentioned earlier my colleague's willingness to work with me to 
incorporate an amendment to help small commercial airports. The program 
I am referring to is the Essential Air Service Program, which provides 
funding to keep the small yet critical commercial airports serving 
rural communities viable.
  This program assures that rural communities are provided a minimal 
level of service to preserve their connection to the national air 
transportation system.
  Western Maryland's Hagerstown Airport has benefitted greatly from 
this program and has allowed the airport to secure service contracts 
with Cape Air to fly four daily flights from Hagerstown to Baltimore. 
Without Hagerstown's daily flights to BWI, western Maryland residents, 
as well as people living in eastern West Virginia and southern 
Pennsylvania, would have to drive anywhere from 75 to more than 150 
miles to get to the nearest airport with commercial service.
  There are many other rural communities where major commercial air 
passenger service is located at even greater distances and the 
Essential Air Service helps alleviate the travel isolation of these 
communities. I am pleased that this bill addresses the needs of 
Hagerstown Airport and others like it.
  Another issue critical to the success of Maryland's airports that 
will surely come up during the debate of this bill is changing the slot 
and perimeter rule at Reagan National Airport. This is an issue that I 
care deeply about because it has a specifically targeted effect on the 
economic success and job growth potential at BWI-Thurgood Marshall 
airport and the surrounding area.
  In the 111th Congress, the proposed changes to operations at National 
Airport were made by Senators representing States well beyond the 
Greater Washington region. Changing the slot and perimeter rule in this 
fashion subverts the established process for altering these rules and 
undermines the authority of local transportation experts.
  Restricted service at National Airport lends itself to the steady 
growth at the region's major hub airports, which has been at the heart 
of the region's business communities' economic development plans.
  Companies such as Northrop Grumman, L3, General Dynamics, IBM, 
Deloitte, and other major employers in the Baltimore-Washington area 
strategically located themselves around BWI. The growth of that airport 
is critically important to our economic progress.
  The steady growth in service at the region's large international 
airports helped create an attractive business climate for these major 
companies. This would not have been possible without Congress's 
agreement to maintain the status quo of service at National Airport 
that, in turn, made Dulles and BWI the region's growth airports.
  Based on existing service and prior historical evidence of the 
impacts of increased slots at DCA, allowing flights to be converted 
from within the perimeter to beyond the perimeter would have a direct 
impact on the service offered out of BWI Marshall.
  Under any slot-change scenario, service reductions at BWI Marshall 
will reduce the value and return on Federal and State infrastructure 
investments made at BWI. Maryland has invested more than $1.5 billion 
in the airport over the last 10 years and plans to invest $684 million 
in the next 6 years. I welcome a collaborative and open process should 
changes in the region's airport operations be necessary.
  In regard to another important provision in this legislation, I 
support the passenger bill of rights. No one should ever be forced to 
stay aboard a plane on a tarmac for extended periods of time.
  I also applaud the provisions within the bill that provide customers 
with better information about the wide range of fees airlines and 
airports place upon the flying public.
  I understand that between high fuel costs and the current economy, 
travelers are flying less and this has hurt the airline industry. As a 
result, airlines have resorted to charging a variety of fees for 
services on each flight. Airlines have counted on air travelers 
adapting to each change of policy so much that today's frequent fliers 
rarely expect a free meal or to check their bags for free.
  Air travelers often have no choice but to pay the airlines' fees. The 
problem is how these fees come at the customers, often by surprise. If 
the fees are explained in advance, there is less with which to take 
issue.

[[Page S588]]

  Surprise fees have consumers upset and weary of flying. By the time 
travelers reach the ticket counter, they are committed to getting on 
that plane. At that point, the airlines have the clear upper hand when 
it comes to levying additional charges for baggage based on size, 
weight or type or even fees for simple onboard amenities such as 
refreshments, headphones or blankets once passengers are in their 
seats. In some instances, particularly the at-the-counter baggage fees, 
travelers have no choice but to pay the fee.
  In the 111th Congress, I introduced legislation to ensure air 
travelers were made well aware of the fees they were being charged to 
fly. I look forward to working with my colleagues to make sure this 
issue is adequately addressed in this bill.
  I want the airlines to succeed. Working to improve access to 
information and require the honest disclosure of airline fees and 
improved passenger treatment help public confidence in the airline 
industry.
  Currently, the airline industry can point at high fuel costs and a 
downturn in the economy as the top reasons for why less people are 
traveling by air. As the economy continues to improve and as more 
Americans find work, both business and leisure travel will begin to 
pick up. Whether the travelers look to the skies or the ground to get 
to their destination will largely depend on the users' experience.
  The passenger bill of rights goes a long way to improving the users' 
experience for air travelers.
  Before concluding on this legislation to reauthorize the Federal 
Aviation Administration, I think it is important that I comment on one 
amendment that may be brought up. I wish to express my opposition to an 
amendment that would exclude employees of the Transportation Security 
Administration, TSA, from collective bargaining rights of Federal 
employees. On June 23, 2010, more than 6 months ago, I spoke on the 
floor of the Senate about the need for collective bargaining for more 
than 60,000 TSA employees who work at BWI Marshall International 
Airport and airports around the Nation.
  At that time, some Members of Congress opposed collective bargaining 
for TSA employees because of their concern that we need to be able to 
adapt quickly and effectively to specific aviation threats. The 
underlying premise of that argument is, we must choose between 
protecting the Nation from threats to aviation and collective 
bargaining. As I said in my June 23, 2010, speech, that choice is a 
false choice because national security and what I called smart 
collective bargaining are not mutually exclusive. Under a smart 
collective bargaining agreement, where a true emergency exists, TSA 
would be fully capable of deploying assets without there being any 
negative impact from collective bargaining.
  At his confirmation hearing, Administrator Pistole stated that ``we 
have to be able to surge resources at any time . . . not only 
nationwide but worldwide.'' The smart collective bargaining agreement I 
called for would enable us to do exactly that. Moreover, I believed 
then and I believe now that a smart collective bargaining agreement 
would enhance national security because it would enable TSA to recruit 
and retain better employees.
  Our Nation's history with labor unions clearly teaches us that 
collective bargaining boosts morale, it allows employees to have a 
voice in their workplace, and it allows them to increase stability and 
professionalism.
  On the other hand, poor workforce management can lead directly to 
high attrition rates, job dissatisfaction, and increased costs, which 
lead to gaps in aviation security. In the past, there have been reports 
that the TSA has had low worker morale, which can undermine the 
agency's mission and our national security.
  I am now pleased to learn that after he was confirmed by the Senate, 
Administrator Pistole did what he said he would do--he studied the 
issue and gathered all the facts and information he could from 
stakeholders, including TSA employees, TSA management, union 
presidents, and a variety of present and former leaders and experts in 
law enforcement agencies and organizations.
  This past Friday, on February 4, Administrator Pistole decided that 
the more than 60,000 TSA employees working at BWI Marshall 
International Airport and at airports around the Nation could vote on 
whether they want or do not want representation for limited collective 
bargaining on nonsecurity employment issues.
  Administrator Pistole's determination will provide a framework to 
protect TSA's ability to respond to evolving threats, while allowing 
TSA's employees the right to join a union under clear definitions.
  This is a smart decision and can lead to the kind of solution I was 
talking about 6 months ago.
  On issues of national security, we need to come together and reject 
the either/or. We need to be smart on national security, and this 
collective bargaining decision by Administrator Pistole is a smart 
decision. The fact is, the Department of Homeland Security's Customs 
and Border Patrol officers, some of whom work at the same airports as 
TSA employees, as well as DHS Federal Protective Service and the 
Capitol Police, all operate under collective bargaining agreements.
  As our late colleague, Senator Kennedy, noted in August 2009 when he 
cosponsored a collective bargaining rights bill for public sector 
officers, tomorrow morning, thousands of State and local public safety 
officers, police officers, and firefighters will awake and go to work 
to protect us. They will put their lives on the line, responding to 
emergencies, policing our neighborhoods, and protecting us in Maryland 
and in communities all across the Nation. These dedicated public 
servants will patrol our streets and run into burning buildings to keep 
us safe. No one believes for a moment we are less safe because they 
have secured collective bargaining rights.

  If opponents of Administrator Pistole's decision want to invoke 9/11 
to support their views, they will soon discover that the legacy of 9/11 
shows very clearly that national security will not be compromised by 
smart collective bargaining. Before 9/11, New York Port Authority 
police worked 8 hours a day, 4 days on and 2 days off. By the end of 
the day on 9/11, however, vacations and personal time were canceled and 
workers were switched to 12-hour tours, 7 days a week. Indeed, 
schedules did not return to normal for 3 years. The union did not file 
a grievance, and everyone recognized it was a real crisis.
  Administrator Pistole's decision will enhance our ability to recruit 
and retain the best TSA employees to protect us.
  It will also lead to conditions that will improve our ability to 
recruit and retain the best employees, such as the countless number of 
American heroes who work every day to protect us and keep us safe, 
under collective bargaining agreements.
  In concluding, I wish to acknowledge in the reauthorization of the 
FAA bill the thousands of hard-working government workers, pilots, 
flight attendants, and other members of our Nation's flight crews. 
Without their service, air travel would not be possible. I am pleased 
several of the labor organizations that represent so many hard-working 
Americans in the aviation industry support this bill. I also note the 
important worker safety provisions this legislation provides workers in 
the aviation industry.
  Congress has passed 17 short-term extensions of this authorization. 
It is time for a permanent fix. It is time to pass this bill. It will 
provide stability, safety, and jobs for both the airline industry and 
its passengers.
  It promotes jobs, consumer travel protections, homegrown 
technological innovation, and reductions of fuel consumption and 
greenhouse gas emissions. This could not come at a more opportune time.
  I congratulate the chairman for all the work he has done.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank the good Senator from 
Maryland for his remarks.
  I am sure, as I call on my vice chairman, Senator Hutchison will have 
remarks she will want to make. I simply wish to catch us up to where we 
are.
  This is the Federal aviation bill. It has been deemed to be only the 
Federal aviation bill, which is good, because that means extraneous 
amendments are not germane. We are trying to work our way through this 
aviation

[[Page S589]]

policy issue business, which actually is turning out, so far, to be 
quite smooth. People commented it is being done in a bipartisan 
fashion. That is the way Senator Hutchison and I work always and it is 
the way the committee works and is probably why we put out more 
nominations and legislation than any other committee.
  We have a number of pending amendments. I know my colleagues also 
have others. Some will come to the floor this afternoon to get into the 
queue and speak on those amendments. We are making progress resolving 
some of the pending amendments. Others, I believe, will require votes. 
If we can do something without a vote, that is great. If we have to 
have a vote, that is also fine.
  In addition, Senator Hutchison and I continue to work to resolve the 
issue of slots at National Airport. I thank all our colleagues for 
engaging in a constructive conversation on this very difficult issue. 
It has been very heartening that people seem to understand that if we 
cannot work out this issue, the whole bill goes down and 11 million 
jobs and over $1 trillion of the economy are at risk.
  We have played with fire with this now for 17 consecutive extensions 
of the bill. It is a horrible way to do business, to send out a 3-year 
contract for building an airport runway--it is awful. But we have not 
faced up to this bill. Senator Hutchison and I are doing that.
  I suspect we will be on the bill this week. We hope to finish it the 
following week. I believe we can do that, but then again I am not sure. 
It is how the Senate wants to work its will.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to speak with Senator Hutchison and 
myself if they have amendments they would like to offer. That is what 
we are here for.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I appreciate what the chairman has 
said. His message is the same as my message; that is, this is a very 
important bill. It is one--the authorization of the FAA--we have 
extended, since 2007, with 18 short-term extensions. Neither the 
chairman nor myself want a 19th short-term extension. That is, as he 
mentioned, not the way we ought to be doing business. We ought to be 
able to assure that a contract will be let for a new runway or a repair 
on a runway and that it will be finished. I hope we can get through 
some of the thornier issues, and there are several of those.
  I ask my colleagues to come down and get their amendments pending 
because we want to close out amendments and then deal with the ones we 
have and move on.
  Senator Wicker and Senator Collins are going to be here very shortly. 
They will be talking about the Wicker amendment. That is one I think 
they have now agreed to sponsor together. They have made some good 
changes. We have others that are also being worked on. It is time, if a 
colleague wants to offer an amendment, to come down and do it.
  We are continuing to work on the perimeter slot rule from Washington 
National Airport, with the hope of coming to a consensus that will 
increase the number of opportunities for people from the Western half 
of the United States to come into Washington National Airport. I will 
say, I believe it is in everyone's interest to open Washington National 
on a limited basis. We do not want to add to the congestion. The 
proposals that are being put forward would not add to congestion. They 
would be mostly incumbent carriers already flying, just transferring to 
longer haul flights but not with bigger airplanes.
  So you can't make the argument that it is going to add to ground 
congestion or air congestion because you are not going to add that many 
new flights. It certainly is not a noise issue anymore, because we have 
Stage III aircraft that have made a significant improvement in air 
traffic noise for people who live near airports. I think it is in the 
interest of the people who live around National to have that same 
convenience--to be able to go to the western part of the United States, 
just as people who live farther away from the airports. So I think we 
are working through this. We need to come up with something that 
everyone would say is a fair compromise, and I hope we can do that.
  The underlying bill is important because it does increase the safety 
measures we need to have. It certainly will modernize the air traffic 
control system and put America in the forefront of putting our air 
traffic control on a satellite-based system, rather than a ground-based 
radar system. That is the key reason for needing to go forward on this 
bill so we can start that transformation. It will take time, and it is 
something that needs to be done, but with a longer term authorization, 
which we are trying to do.
  It will improve rural small town access to our aviation system. There 
are also good consumer protections. We don't think anyone should have 
to sit on an airplane for more than 3 hours on the ground with the door 
closed, and that is provided for in this bill. If you are sitting on 
the ground in an enclosed aircraft for more than 3 hours, the airline 
must open the doors and let passengers get off.
  There are a lot of things we need to put into law. We have made a 
good start, and I would ask my colleagues to give us their amendments, 
if they have them, and let us work through them to move this bill.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Mississippi.


                     Amendment No. 14, as Modified

  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment 
No. 14 be modified with the changes I have sent to the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Hearing no objection, the amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. EXCLUSION OF EMPLOYEES OF THE TRANSPORTATION 
                   SECURITY ADMINISTRATION FROM THE COLLECTIVE 
                   BARGAINING RIGHTS OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Termination of Collective Bargaining for Transportation 
     Security Administration Employees Act of 2011''.
       (b) In General.--Section 7103(a) of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in clause (iv), by striking ``; or'' and inserting a 
     semicolon;
       (B) in clause (v), by striking the semicolon and inserting 
     ``; or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(vi) an officer or employee of the Transportation 
     Security Administration of the Department of Homeland 
     Security;''; and
       (2) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) in subparagraph (G), by striking ``; or'' and inserting 
     a semicolon;
       (B) in subparagraph (H), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(I) the Transportation Security Administration of the 
     Department of Homeland Security;''.
       (c) Amendments to Title 49.--
       (1) Transportation security administration.--Section 114(n) 
     of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding ``This 
     subsection shall be subject to the amendments made by the 
     Termination of Collective Bargaining for Transportation 
     Security Administration Employees Act of 2011.'' at the end.
       (2) Personnel management system.--Section 40122 of title 
     49, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by redesignating subsection (j) as subsection (k); and
       (B) by inserting after subsection (i) the following:
       ``(j) Transportation Security Administration.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this section 
     (including subsection (g)(2)(C)), this section shall be 
     subject to the amendments made by the Termination of 
     Collective Bargaining for Transportation Security 
     Administration Employees Act of 2011.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act and 
     apply to any collective bargaining agreement (as defined 
     under section 7103(a)(8) of title 5, United States Code) 
     entered into on or after that date, including the renewal of 
     any collective bargaining agreement in effect on that date.

     SEC. ___. EMPLOYEE RIGHTS AND ENGAGEMENT MECHANISM FOR 
                   PASSENGER AND PROPERTY SCREENERS.

       (a) Labor Organization Membership; Appeal Rights; 
     Engagement Mechanism for Workplace Issues.--
       (1) In general.--Section 111(d) of the Aviation and 
     Transportation Security Act (49 U.S.C. 44935 note) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``Notwithstanding'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in section 883 of the 
     Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 463) and paragraphs 
     (2) through (5), notwithstanding''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Labor organization membership.--Nothing in this 
     section shall be construed to

[[Page S590]]

     prohibit an individual described in paragraph (2) from 
     joining a labor organization.
       ``(3) Right to appeal adverse action.--An individual 
     employed or appointed to carry out the screening functions of 
     the Administrator under section 44901 of title 49, United 
     States Code, may submit an appeal of an adverse action 
     covered by section 7512 of title 5, United States Code, and 
     finalized after the date of the enactment of the FAA Air 
     Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act, to 
     the Merit Systems Protection Board and may seek judicial 
     review of any resulting orders or decisions of the Merit 
     Systems Protection Board.
       ``(4) Employee engagement mechanism for addressing 
     workplace issues.--At every airport at which the 
     Transportation Security Administration screens passengers and 
     property under section 44901 of title 49, United States Code, 
     the Administrator shall provide a collaborative, integrated 
     employee engagement mechanism to address workplace issues.''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--Section 111(d)(1) of such Act, 
     as redesignated by paragraph (1)(A), is amended--
       (A) by striking ``Under Secretary of Transportation for 
     Security'' and inserting ``Administrator of the 
     Transportation Security Administration''; and
       (B) by striking ``Under Secretary'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``Administrator''.
       (b) Whistleblower Protections.--Section 883 of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 463) is amended, in the matter 
     preceding paragraph (1), by inserting ``, or section 111(d) 
     of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (49 U.S.C. 
     44935 note),'' after ``this Act''.

  Mr. WICKER. Secondly, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following two Senators be added as cosponsors to my amendment: Senator 
Collins and Senator Coburn.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I called up my amendment last week. This 
amendment would prohibit TSA employees from entering into collective 
bargaining agreements. A lot has happened since I called up my 
amendment. The Transportation Security Administrator announced his 
intent on Friday to proceed with allowing TSA security employees to 
collectively bargain. That would reverse a decade of policy--since the 
inception of TSA, actually. Currently, TSA employees are not allowed to 
collectively bargain. The 2001 law that created TSA gives this decision 
to the Administrator, and previous Administrators have understood that 
collective bargaining agreements for TSA could compromise our Nation's 
security. TSA employees have been treated like those of the FBI, the 
CIA, and the Secret Service for purposes of collective bargaining. 
These personnel are treated very well by our government and taken care 
of in other ways. But because of the security concerns, collective 
bargaining is prohibited for those security personnel.
  Frankly, I think many observers would conclude that the current 
administration is intent on doling out rewards to campaign supporters 
and, therefore, is moving to reverse this decade-old decision and allow 
for collective bargaining among TSA employees. On November 12, 2010, 
the Federal Labor Relations Authority decided TSA employees will be 
allowed to vote on union representation, and then the decision came 
along on Friday to allow them to have collective bargaining rights.
  I don't believe our country needs 50,000 TSA screeners to be part of 
a union. But the Obama administration does. Adding workers to union 
rolls has been a high priority of the administration since day one. As 
I pointed out, the FBI, the CIA, and the Secret Service do not have 
collective bargaining rights because burdensome union demands could 
limit the ability of those responsible for security at some of the most 
high-risk targets and hamper them in getting their job done.
  Let me review a little bit of history. When a British airliner 
bombing plot was uncovered in 2006, the TSA overhauled security 
procedures in a matter of 12 hours to deal with the threat of liquid 
explosives. They had to act very quickly and flexibly. It is difficult 
to imagine that kind of flexibility under inflexible union rules.
  In 2006, following a severe midwestern snow storm, local TSA 
employees were unable to get to the airport, but TSA was able to fly 
personnel in temporarily from other airports to cover these snowed-in 
personnel. This helped keep the airport open and the security lines 
moving. I wonder how injecting collective bargaining into this type of 
situation would have impacted TSA's ability to be flexible, to be quick 
on its feet, and to move personnel around.
  There is also the issue of testing and rollout of software to protect 
the privacy of passengers utilizing advanced imaging technology. This 
should be done on the basis of national security and passenger safety 
and privacy concerns, and not delayed because of union concerns or 
intervention in the management of TSA employees.
  I would reiterate, TSA has existed for almost 10 years without 
collective bargaining, and there is no legitimate policy reason to 
change this procedure at this time.
  Working with Senator Collins, who I believe is prepared to also speak 
today, I have modified my amendment to make it clear that TSA employees 
have the baseline protections that almost all our Federal employees 
have, while preserving the flexibility needed to keep our Nation safe. 
The modified amendment would codify the 2003 TSA policy that prohibits 
collective bargaining agreements with security screeners. We do not 
need to limit the flexibility to respond immediately to emerging and 
evolving threats.
  My amendment would also allow the Merit Systems Protection Board to 
hear adverse employment actions, such as demotions or firings, so TSA 
employees would have the same protections as other Federal security 
employees.
  Also, if these modifications are accepted unanimously today, they 
would codify protections under the Whistleblowers Protection Act and 
would create an employee engagement process for workplace issues. My 
amendment simply adds these protections into the statute.
  I would also point out that it is the public employees union 
contracts that States are grappling with today. Several of our States 
are literally facing bankruptcy because of the expensive and burdensome 
government union employee contracts--Illinois, New Jersey, California. 
The Governors, on a bipartisan basis, are struggling to get out from 
under these burdens and to free their States from these expensive 
public employee union contracts. They are causing the bankruptcy of 
States.
  In the U.S. Government, we have the ability to deficit spend, and 
that is quite a problem. We will spend $1.5 trillion this fiscal year 
that we don't have, and the American public is demanding that we do 
something about it. It is unimaginable to me that under those 
circumstances the Obama administration is taking action which can only 
make TSA more expensive and make dealing with our employees there more 
costly and add to the debt. I don't see any way around it.
  As States and localities are moving in one direction, here comes the 
Obama administration and, swimming upstream on this issue, proposing to 
add to the public employee union collective bargaining regime some 
40,000 to 50,000 additional Americans. I don't see how we can afford 
that. I don't see how it helps security or helps our Nation to adopt 
some more burdensome requirements, and I don't see how it helps 
national security.
  I would urge my colleagues to vote in favor of Wicker amendment No. 
14. That vote may occur as early as tomorrow morning, but I would urge 
its adoption. This is an issue that is not going to go away. It is 
going to be taken up in the other body. We are going to be following 
this issue, and it is something I think Americans feel strongly about.
  At this point I would urge the adoption of my amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, first, let me thank my colleague and 
friend from Mississippi for working with me over the past few days to 
modify the amendment he originally proposed. I very much appreciated 
his willingness to sit down and talk about the amendment, and I am 
pleased to cosponsor Senator Wicker's modified amendment, which 
provides additional workforce protections for transportation security 
officers while ensuring the management flexibility that is absolutely 
vital to the operational efficiency of the TSA and to the security of 
the American people. Our amendment would provide additional employment

[[Page S591]]

protections to TSA employees while preserving the agency's ability to 
respond quickly and effectively to security and operational challenges.
  Through our committee's work on homeland security, I have become 
convinced that the ability for TSA to respond quickly and effectively 
to changing conditions, to emerging threats, to new intelligence, to 
impending crises, even to dramatic weather such as blizzards and 
hurricanes, is essential. From the intelligence community to our first 
responders, the key to an effective response is flexibility--the 
ability to put assets and personnel where they are needed, when they 
are needed, with a minimum of bureaucracy.
  The TSA is charged with a great responsibility. In order to 
accomplish its critical national security mission, the Aviation and 
Transportation Security Act provided the TSA Administrator with certain 
workforce flexibilities. These flexibilities allowed the Administrator 
to shift resources and to implement new procedures whenever needed--
daily, even hourly, in some cases--in response to emergencies, canceled 
flights, changing circumstances, or threats to our security. This 
authority has enabled TSA to make the best and fullest use of its 
highly trained and dedicated workforce.
  I want to point out that this debate is not just theoretical. We are 
not talking about having some theoretical flexibility. We have already 
seen the benefits of this flexibility. We have seen exactly why it is 
necessary.
  Let me give a couple of examples. In the aftermath of the thwarted 
airline liquids bombing plot that emanated from Great Britain, TSA was 
able to move quickly to change the nature of its employees' work and 
even the location of that work. With the liquids bombing plot, TSA, 
overnight, had to retrain its employees, had to deploy them 
differently, and was able to do so precisely because of the flexibility 
of the current law.
  Another example is the December 2006 blizzard that hit the Denver 
area. When many local TSA employees were unable to get to the airport, 
TSA was able to act quickly, flying in volunteer TSA employees from Las 
Vegas to cover the shifts, and covering the Las Vegas shifts with 
officers who were transferred temporarily from Salt Lake City. Without 
that ability to deploy personnel where they were needed on a moment's 
notice, the Denver airport would have been critically understaffed 
while hundreds, perhaps thousands of travelers were stranded. This 
flexibility is essential to maintain, and that is what the Wicker-
Collins-Coburn amendment would do.
  TSA also redeployed hundreds of screeners to Houston and New Orleans 
in response to hurricanes in 2008. These TSOs relieved local employees 
at those airports so that they could safely evacuate themselves and 
their families, and it helped to quickly resume screening operations 
after the storms had passed.
  These were challenging times for TSA. Evacuations in these cities 
caused high volumes of airline passengers resulting in the TSOs in New 
Orleans screening more than 32,000 gulf coast residents within a 48-
hour period.
  TSA's announcement on Friday purports to preclude employees from 
bargaining over security policies and procedures. But if we look at 
precisely what it says, it does allow bargaining over the selection 
process for special assignments and on policies for transfers and shift 
trading--matters that could require very rapid resolution during an 
emergency. There will not be time for bargaining over those issues.
  In addition, the very definition of what constitutes security 
policies and procedures could be the subject of dispute and litigation. 
That is exactly the point Secretary Chertoff made in a letter he sent 
to me in 2007 when the Senate was considering this very same issue. He 
wrote:

       Although the administrator of TSA purportedly would not be 
     required to bargain over responses to emergencies or imminent 
     threats, it is inevitable that protracted litigation would 
     ensue over the meaning of these terms.

  That is exactly what would happen if we allow to stand the decision 
of the Administrator of TSA. Instead of drastically changing the TSA 
personnel system in a way that would interfere with TSA's ability to 
carry out its mission, there is an alternative. We should make some 
targeted but critical reforms in the personnel system to ensure that 
TSA's employees are treated fairly.
  My point is there is a middle ground that we can reach, and that is 
what the modified amendment does. First, we should bring TSA employees 
under the Whistleblower Protections Act, which safeguards the rights of 
whistleblowers throughout the Federal Government. There is simply no 
reason to deny TSA employees that protection. Indeed, I would argue it 
hurts us to deny that protection because if there is a whistleblower at 
this critical agency who does not feel fully protected and does not 
come forward, that could hurt our security. So our amendment would 
codify that coverage and make that protection clear.
  Second, we should make clear that TSA members do have the right to 
join a union. That is a different issue from collective bargaining. 
Some of them have chosen to be represented by a union now. Many have 
not chosen to be. But they should have that choice. That allows, for 
example, for them to get representation by a union if there is an 
adverse employment action. Our amendment specifically provides that we 
are not depriving employees of that choice.
  Third, we should give TSA employees the right to an independent 
appeal of adverse personnel actions such as removals, suspensions for 
more than 14 days, reductions in pay or grade, or certain furloughs. 
The amendment would give TSOs the right to have those appeals heard by 
the Merit Systems Protection Board. That is an independent board, 
separate from the agency, separate from the Department of Homeland 
Security, that sits in judgment of appeals filed by most other Federal 
employees. So I see no reason TSA screeners should not have that same 
right. That is an important protection because if a screener believes 
he or she is being treated unfairly by a supervisor, there is an 
independent arbitrator to whom that employee can appeal.
  Here is the bottom line. We can provide TSA employees with important 
protections enjoyed by other Federal employees, such as the right to 
appeal adverse employment actions to the Merit Systems Protection Board 
and the statutory right to whistleblower protections without disrupting 
TSA's proven personnel system that has served the agency and this 
Nation well over the past decade. Previous Secretaries of Homeland 
Security and Administrators of TSA have described that personnel system 
in great detail to the Homeland Security Committee and to other 
entities, in the Senate in both classified briefings and open hearings, 
as necessary to accomplish the critical goals of TSA. Our amendment 
would preserve these flexible personnel systems while ensuring that TSA 
employees enjoy important legal protections available to other Federal 
employees.
  I have been trying since 2007 to achieve a middle ground on this 
issue. Frankly, the previous administration was reluctant on some of 
the safeguards I have described. This administration has gone way 
overboard in the other direction, but a middle ground is exactly what 
this modified amendment strikes. It charts that middle ground, 
providing significant additional protections and rights to TSA 
employees without burdening a system that is working well now and that 
is essential to our security.
  We simply have to allow the TSA Administrator to retain exactly the 
same kinds of flexibility to deploy personnel that he enjoys now and 
that have been used in the past. That is the important point. This 
debate is not theoretical. Those personnel flexibilities have proven 
absolutely essential to meet the threat of a terrorist attack and to 
deal with blizzards and hurricanes. I urge my colleagues to take a 
strong, close look at the modified amendment. I hope they will support 
it.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                    Nomination of Marco A. Hernandez

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Commerce 
Committee dealing with an exceptionally

[[Page S592]]

important bill. I appreciate his courtesy at this time.
  Mr. President, later in the evening the Senate will confirm Judge 
Marco Hernandez, who has been nominated to serve as a U.S. district 
court judge for the District of Oregon. The vacancy that Judge 
Hernandez will fill is one that Chief Justice Roberts has designated a 
judicial emergency. Given that, I thank Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member 
Grassley, Majority Leader Reid, and Minority Leader McConnell for 
bringing this nomination to the floor today.
  I also note Oregon has another opening and another outstanding 
nominee, Mr. Michael Simon, whom I expect to be reported out of 
committee this week. I hope he, too, will be brought to the Senate 
floor quickly.
  It is no surprise that Judge Marco Hernandez was nominated to the 
Federal bench because his life could serve as a billboard for the 
American dream. At the age of 17, Marco Hernandez moved to Oregon by 
himself. Needing to support himself, he took a job as a dishwasher, 
later found a better job as a janitor, and eventually Marco became a 
teacher's aide. At that point, Judge Hernandez began taking night 
classes at a local community college with the hope of one day attending 
a 4-year college. Finally, he was able to enroll at Western Oregon 
State College, and he quickly demonstrated his ability to excel.
  Judge Hernandez earned the Delmer Dewey Award as the most outstanding 
male student in his class. Following college, Marco went on to graduate 
from the University of Washington School of Law.
  From the beginning of his legal career, Judge Hernandez demonstrated 
a strong commitment to public service. After law school, Judge 
Hernandez worked at Oregon Legal Services representing farm workers. He 
then served as a deputy district attorney and was later appointed as a 
State court judge, a position he has served in for the past 15 years.
  Judge Hernandez is so well regarded across my home State and across 
the political spectrum that he has been nominated not by one but by two 
Presidents of different parties and at the recommendations of two 
Senators of different parties. Judge Hernandez was first nominated for 
the district court by President Bush in 2008 when my friend and former 
colleague, Senator Gordon Smith, led the nomination process. At that 
time I supported the recommendation of Judge Hernandez.
  Unfortunately, the 110th Congress was unable to act upon his 
nomination before adjourning. In the 111th Congress I recommended Judge 
Hernandez's nomination to President Obama, and I am very pleased that 
Senator Merkley, who has joined me in the Senate, has been a strong 
supporter of Judge Hernandez as well. I was very pleased when President 
Obama announced that he, too, like President Bush, thought it important 
for Judge Hernandez to serve on the Federal bench.
  One of the reasons leaders from both political parties support Judge 
Hernandez is that throughout his judicial career he has demonstrated a 
special affinity for creative solutions. He implemented an innovative 
domestic violence program to aggressively pursue offenders and created 
a new program for mentally ill defendants, which Judge Hernandez 
continues to oversee.
  With a tremendous record of public service, innovation, and 
commitment to justice, no one was surprised when Judge Hernandez was 
reported out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously. He has had the 
support of both Republicans and Democrats and a broad range of legal 
organizations. He has received the strong backing of the Hispanic 
National Bar Association. In fact, Judge Hernandez would be the first 
Hispanic article III judge in my home State.
  It is good news for the people of Oregon, and it is good news for the 
Federal bench that today the Senate is taking up the confirmation of 
Judge Hernandez. I strongly urge all my colleagues to join me in 
supporting an outstanding individual, Judge Marco Hernandez, for U.S. 
district court judge.
  I thank, again, Chairman Rockefeller, who is dealing with an 
extremely important bill for his courtesy for letting me make these 
remarks about Judge Hernandez.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal.) The Senator from Arizona.


                            Amendment No. 4

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and call up amendment No. 4.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4.

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

         (Purpose: To repeal the essential air service program)

       Beginning on page 128, strike line 5 and all that follows 
     through page 141, line 9, and insert the following:

     SEC. 411. REPEAL OF ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 417 of title 49, 
     United States Code, is repealed.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Title 49, United State Code, is 
     further amended--
       (1) in section 329(b)(1), by striking ``except that'' and 
     all the follows through the semicolon;
       (2) in section 40109(f)(3)(B), by striking ``, including 
     the minimum'' and all that follows through ``this title'';
       (3) in section 40117(e)(2), by striking subparagraph (B) 
     and redesignating subparagraphs (C) through (F) as 
     subparagraphs (B) through (E), respectively;
       (4) in section 41110--
       (A) in subsection (a)(2)(B), by striking ``41712, and 
     41731-41742'' and inserting ``and 41712''; and
       (B) in subsection (c)--
       (i) in paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``carrier--'' and all that follows through ``does not 
     provide'' and inserting ``carrier does not provide''; and
       (ii) in paragraph (2), by striking ``(1)(B)'' and inserting 
     ``(1)''; and
       (5) in section 47124(b)(3)(C), by striking clause (iv) and 
     redesignating clauses (v) through (vii) as clauses (iv) 
     through (vi), respectively.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I know we celebrated President Reagan's 
100th birthday this past weekend. I quote from him on many occasions. 
He inspired many of us in many ways. President Reagan once stated:

       Government programs once launched never disappear. Actually 
     a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we 
     will ever see on this earth.

  I do not know if President Reagan ever observed the Essential Air 
Service program, but it certainly fits his description. This amendment, 
to repeal a $200 million government subsidy, may not be significant. 
And $200 million, in the light of a $1.5 trillion deficit this year, is 
probably not a lot of money. But a lot of Americans on November 2 said 
they wanted us to stop spending on things that are not absolutely 
essential. Although this program is called the Essential Air Service, 
in my view, it is far from ``essential.'' But the American people spoke 
on November 2. They said, stop the spending. Stop programs that are 
either unnecessary, have grown too much, are unwise, or even make some 
tough decisions.
  In this bill, we are not cutting the Essential Air Service, we are 
actually increasing it to some $200 million. My colleagues may be a bit 
confused by this chart right here. But it shows--by this way, this 
chart came from the FAA--that 99.95 percent of all Americans--99.95 
percent of all Americans--live within 120 miles of a public airport 
that has more than 10,000 takeoffs and landings annually.
  So, yes, there are some parts of America that represent the .05 
percent of all Americans who live outside of 120 miles from an airport 
that has 10,000 takeoffs and landings.
  All the watchdog organizations--Citizens Against Government Waste, 
the National Taxpayers Union, all of those organizations that watch 
what we do support this amendment. Earlier this month Citizens Against 
Government Waste President Tom Schatz said: The nonessential air 
service has outlived its usefulness and is another reason why the 
country has a $14 trillion national debt.
  A lot of Americans will be watching the vote on this amendment. It is 
not the first amendment to try to cut back on spending, but it 
certainly is, in my view, very symbolic of whether we are

[[Page S593]]

serious. Last week, in the President's State of the Union speech, he 
said: The only way to tackle our deficit is to cut excessive spending 
wherever we find it, in domestic spending, defense spending, health 
care spending and spending through tax breaks and loopholes.
  As House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan has told many, ``There 
are no sacred cows when it comes to spending cuts.'' To put it bluntly, 
the Essential Air Service is not ``essential.'' The program was created 
in 1978 when Congress deregulated the airline industry and allowed 
market forces to determine the price, quantity, and quality of service. 
Deregulation allowed most airline carriers to focus their resources on 
profitable, high-density markets. That is the way the market works. In 
response, Congress established the Essential Air Service to subsidize 
airline carriers that provide service to small communities at a loss, 
because, otherwise, no sane business would serve a market at a loss.
  Again, as Ronald Reagan once eloquently stated, ``Government does not 
solve problems, it subsidizes them.'' That is exactly what we did in 
1978 by creating the Essential Air Program.
  As with so many programs we have created, as Congress initially 
enacted the program, it was supposed to last 10 years. It was only 10 
years that we enacted this program while markets adjusted and 
communities adjusted. In 1996, of course, we removed the 10-year limit, 
and like so many programs the government has created, it started with a 
few airline carriers and a few communities, and now has grown to 
subsidize a dozen airline carriers and over 100 communities. You cover 
enough communities, you get enough votes, you keep the program going, 
and then you increase the spending on the program.
  In this bill, it increased costs of $200 million. Again, not much in 
comparison to a $1.5 trillion debt, $14 trillion deficit--$1.5 trillion 
deficit, $14 trillion debt. But it might be nice to start somewhere. 
Like so many other government programs, the program was initially 
funded for several million dollars, now up to $200 million.
  A July 2009 Government Accountability Office report questioned 
whether the AES program has outlived its usefulness, stating:

       Current conditions raise concerns about whether the program 
     continues to operate as it has. The growth of the air 
     service, especially by low-cost carriers, which today serve 
     most U.S. hub airports, weighed against the relatively high 
     fares and inconvenience of Essential Air Service flights can 
     lead people to bypass Essential Air Service flights and drive 
     to hub airports.

  As I mentioned, 99.95 percent of all Americans live within 120 miles 
of public airports with more than 10,000 takeoffs and landings--in 
other words, fairly large airports. Let me give you a good example of 
the kind of great expenditure of the taxpayers dollar this is.
  Last year the Wall Street Journal published an article entitled, 
``John Murtha's Airport for No One,'' which reported on an airport in 
Pennsylvania that has received more than $1.3 million over the past few 
years under the Essential Air Service program. The article states:

       The airport sees an average of fewer than 30 people per 
     day. There is never a wait for security, you can park for 
     free right outside the gate. And you are almost guaranteed a 
     row to yourself on any flight.

  The article continues:

       Tickets to fly to Johnstown are expensive, even though 
     every passenger flying out of John Murtha Airport has a $100 
     subsidy behind the ticket, courtesy of the Federal Essential 
     Air Service Program, which provides support to struggling 
     airports. So far it has gotten $150 million of payments to 
     what is called the Airport for No One. There are a total of 
     18 flights per week, all of which go to Dulles Airport in 
     Washington, D.C.

  The author goes on to say:

       I was visiting the airport from Washington but because 
     flights cost a pricy $400, I drove. The drive took less than 
     three and a half hours and cost about $35 in gas--not to 
     mention that it was arguably faster than flying. And this 
     isn't a remote area of the state. Murtha airport is less than 
     two hours from the Pittsburgh airport. The airport has an 
     $8.5 million taxpayer-funded radar system that has never been 
     used. The runway was paved with reinforced concrete at a cost 
     of more than $17 million. The latest investment was $800,000 
     from the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 
     to repave half of the secondary runway. (Never mind that the 
     first one is hardly ever in use.)

  Well, the list goes on and on. That is just an example.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the article 
from the Wall Street Journal entitled ``John Murtha's Airport for No 
One,'' and the Los Angeles Times article entitled, ``Planes to nowhere? 
Congress plans to increase small-town airline subsidies,'' and the 
Seattle Times article entitled, ``Rural air subsidies test resolve to 
cut spending.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Sept. 3, 2009]

                    John Murtha's Airport for No One


                A monument to earmarks in Johnstown, Pa.

                            (By Tyler Grimm)

       If you hate the hubbub of crowded airports, you might want 
     to consider flying out of Johnstown, Pa. The airport sees an 
     average of fewer than 30 people per day, there is never a 
     wait for security, you can park for free right outside the 
     gate, and you are almost guaranteed a row to yourself on any 
     flight.
       You might wonder how the region ever had the air traffic 
     demand to justify such a facility. It didn't. But it is 
     located in the district of one of Congress's most 
     unapologetic earmarkers: Democrat John Murtha.
       In 20 years, Mr. Murtha has successfully doled out more 
     than $150 million of federal payments to what is now being 
     called the airport for no one. I took a trip to southwestern 
     Pennsylvania to explore how this small town received so much 
     money and whether the John Murtha Airport is a legitimate 
     federal investment.
       There are many in Johnstown who see the airport as crucial. 
     Johnstown Chamber of Commerce President Bob Layo tells me: 
     ``If the airport isn't paying dividends now, it will in the 
     future.'' But those dividends appear to be a mirage.
       There are a total of 18 flights per week, all of which go 
     to Dulles Airport in Washington, D.C. I was visiting the 
     airport from Washington, but because flights cost a pricey 
     $400, I drove. The drive took less than three and a half 
     hours and cost about $35 in gas--not to mention that it was 
     arguably faster than flying. And this isn't a remote area of 
     the state: Murtha airport is less than two hours from the 
     Pittsburgh airport.
       The airport has an $8.5 million, taxpayer-funded radar 
     system that has never been used. The runway was paved with 
     reinforced concrete at a cost of more than $17 million. The 
     latest investment was $800,000 from the $787 billion American 
     Recovery and Reinvestment Act to repave half of the secondary 
     runway. (Never mind that the first one is hardly ever in 
     use.)
       Airport Director Scott Voelker admitted in an interview 
     that having a never-used unmanned radar system is ``dumber 
     than dirt.'' But he says the airport is necessary and blames 
     its current shortcomings on the economy. ``To get more 
     passengers, we need more flights. To get more flights, we 
     need more passengers,'' he says. Mr. Voelker believes the 
     ``economy has dictated to the airlines to cut back on 
     flights.'' In other words: The airport was not built in 
     response to passenger or airline needs.
       The usually barren airport--there were several times during 
     the day I paced the building for 15 minutes and did not see 
     another human being--has a lot of unused advertising space. 
     But you can't miss the large picture of John Murtha among a 
     collage of Lockheed Martin workers at the airport's center. 
     It's a monument to earmarks: ``Partnerships Make a World of 
     Difference,'' the ad reads.
       Tickets to fly to Johnstown are expensive, even though 
     every passenger flying out of John Murth Airport has a $100 
     subsidy behind the ticket courtesy of the federal Essential 
     Air Service program, which provides support to struggling 
     rural airports. A woman who had just gotten off a flight told 
     me that there were only four people on her plane. ``The plane 
     could have held at least 30 passengers,'' she said.
       In addition to the airport, Mr. Murtha's ability to corral 
     federal funds is apparent in the local medical research 
     center (named after his wife), the John P. Murtha Technology 
     Center, the area's thriving defense contracting industry, and 
     numerous other local landmarks. The unemployment rate in 
     Johnstown is currently below the national average of 9.4% 
     thanks to federal largess and the fact that so many have 
     moved away from the area.
       Bill Polacek, a local businessman and a member of the 
     airport's board of directors, told me that the citizens of 
     Johnstown need Mr. Murtha's earmarks. ``Quite frankly, if he 
     didn't do that, we wouldn't elect him,'' he said.
       I asked Mr. Layo of the Chamber of Commerce if he thinks 
     Mr. Murtha's earmarks should stop now that Johnstown has 
     emerged from the economic crisis it faced two decades ago. 
     ``I don't think you're ever finished,'' he replied. As long 
     as Mr. Murtha is in Congress, they never will be.
                                  ____


              [From the Los Angeles Times, Sept. 19, 2009]

   Planes to Nowhere? Congress Plans to Increase Small-Town Airline 
                               Subsidies

                         (By Alexander C. Hart)

       Washington.--Ely is a Nevada mining town with a population 
     of 4,000. Located about a four-hour drive north of Las Vegas, 
     it is perhaps most famous as the birthplace of former First 
     Lady Pat Nixon.

[[Page S594]]

       Ely also is a beneficiary of Essential Air Service, a 
     federal program established in the 1970s after airline 
     deregulation to prevent small communities from losing access 
     to air travel. But opponents call the program wasteful 
     spending, noting that much of the money provides service to 
     areas with fewer than 30 passengers a day.
       This week, the Senate passed a transportation bill that 
     includes a $38-million funding increase for the program, 
     which now stands to receive $175 million.
       In 2008, according to Senate Appropriations Committee data, 
     Great Lakes Airlines received a subsidy of about $1.8 million 
     for the 414 passengers it flew to and from Ely--about $4,500 
     per person.
       Since the program requires companies to offer at least two 
     round trips most days, some subsidized flights were almost 
     certainly empty. Service contracts usually last two years.
       Ely is just one of many communities receiving heavily 
     subsidized flights; in June 2009, 152 towns and cities 
     participated, according to the Department of Transportation.
       Costs vary widely in part because of differences in 
     ridership. Glendive, Mont., saw a per-passenger subsidy of 
     more than $2,500 for each of the 418 people who flew last 
     year. The 23,581 passengers using the airport in Manhattan, 
     Kan., only cost the government $50.82 each.
       Steve Ellis, vice president of the watchdog group Taxpayers 
     for Common Sense, said that the program ``was supposed to go 
     away over a period of time as we made the transition [from 
     deregulation]. . . . Congress made sure it hasn't.''
       But residents of small towns defend the program.
       ``We are very isolated,'' said Karen Rajala, coordinator 
     for the White Pine County Economic Diversification Council, 
     which covers Ely. ``The subsidy provides us a link to the 
     urban areas of our state and the West.''
       But in a time of soaring deficits, Congress must be careful 
     with how it spends money, Ellis said. ``I'm not saying there 
     aren't people who benefit from this program,'' he said. ``But 
     the real question is, are the taxpayers as a whole getting 
     their money's worth?''
       Attempting to scale back the program, however, is 
     difficult, as President George W. Bush learned when he 
     proposed cutting funding to $50 million in his 2006 budget. 
     His push, which also included a cost-sharing requirement for 
     cities receiving service, collapsed in the face of 
     congressional opposition.
       The House's transportation bill also contains $175 million 
     for the program. The two bills will be sent to a conference 
     committee before President Obama signs a final version into 
     law.
                                  ____


                 [From the Seattle Times, Feb. 3, 2011]

            Rural Air Subsidies Test Resolve To Cut Spending

                             (By Joan Lowy)

       Washington.--A program that subsidizes air service to small 
     airports, often in remote communities, is shaping up as an 
     early test in the new Congress of conservatives' zeal for 
     shrinking the federal government.
       Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has proposed an amendment to an 
     aviation bill pending before the Senate in order to eliminate 
     the $200 million annual essential air service program. The 
     program pays airlines to provide scheduled service to about 
     150 communities, from Muscle Shoals, Ala., to Pelican, 
     Alaska.
       In the House, the Republican Study Committee--a group of 
     conservative lawmakers--has also proposed killing the 
     program.
       Subsidies per airline passenger as of June 1, 2010, ranged 
     as high as $5,223 in Ely, Nev., to as low as $9.21 in Thief 
     River Falls, Minn., according to Transportation Department 
     data for the lower 48 states.
       The program was created to ensure that less-profitable 
     routes to small airports wouldn't be eliminated when airline 
     service was deregulated in 1978. But critics say the airports 
     often serve too few people to merit the amount of money spent 
     in subsidies. Urban growth over the past three decades has 
     also placed transportation alternatives--other airports, 
     trains and bus service--within a reasonable distance of some 
     communities receiving subsidies.
       Studies show that in a lot of those communities people 
     drive to larger airports to get better service at a lower 
     cost than they can get at the smaller airport, even with 
     subsidized air service, said Severin Borenstein, a University 
     of California-Berkeley business professor who is an expert on 
     airline competition.
       ``Some communities can make a credible claim they need the 
     service, particularly in Alaska, but I think those are a 
     relatively small part of the program,'' he said.
       The program has been remarkably resilient, partly due to 
     the protection it receives from lawmakers from rural states 
     and districts. It has been proposed for cuts or elimination 
     many times over the years, but continues to grow.
       ``It's exactly in the political sweet spot,'' Borenstein 
     said. Lawmakers don't feel it's worth upsetting the few 
     people the program serves to achieve what amounts to a modest 
     savings in federal budget terms, he said.
       Supporters say the small airports and their air service are 
     important to the communities' ability to attract investment 
     and jobs.
       Four Democratic senators--Mark Begich of Alaska, Ben Nelson 
     of Nebraska, Robert Casey of Pennsylvania and Joe Manchin of 
     West Virginia--are circulating a letter among their 
     colleagues for signature. It urges McCain to give up his 
     attempt to kill the program, citing potential economic 
     consequences.
       ``Eliminating the program will have a devastating impact on 
     the economies of rural communities,'' their letter says.
       ``At a moment when the nation's economic recovery is 
     starting to gain momentum, it makes little sense to reduce 
     personal and business travel volume by cutting off residents 
     of rural areas,'' the letter says. ``And at a time when jobs 
     are already so hard to come by in our rural communities, it 
     makes even less sense to enact cuts that will only make the 
     problem worse.''
       One of the program's biggest supporters is Sen. Jay 
     Rockefeller, D-W.Va., chairman of the Senate Commerce, 
     Science and Transportation Committee and the main sponsor of 
     the pending aviation bill. It would increase rather than 
     decrease funding for the program and give the Transportation 
     Department more flexibility in structuring contracts with 
     airlines to improve it. Rockefeller would also let the 
     department adjust contracts to take into account rising fuel 
     costs. There are five communities in West Virginia with 
     subsidized service.
       Several conservative senators from rural states declined to 
     discuss McCain's amendment when approached by The Associated 
     Press.
       ``I'll have to see it first. I haven't seen the 
     amendment,'' said Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo. Two communities 
     in Wyoming--Laramie and Worland--receive subsidized service, 
     according to the Transportation Department.
       ``I just don't know about that,'' echoed Sen. Orrin Hatch, 
     R-Utah. Three communities in Utah--Moab, Vernal and Cedar 
     City--receive subsidized service.

  Mr. McCAIN. The Los Angeles Times article entitled ``planes to 
nowhere,'' stated:

       In 2008, according to Senate Appropriations Committee data, 
     Great Lakes Airlines received a subsidy of about $1.8 million 
     for the 414 passengers it flew to and from Ely Nevada, which 
     is about a 4-hour drive to Las Vegas. This amounts to a 
     $4,500 per-person subsidy. Since the program requires 
     companies to offer at least two round trips most days, some 
     subsidized flights were almost certainly empty.

  The article says: Ely is a beneficiary of the Essential Air Service 
program established in the 1970s after airline deregulation, et cetera. 
Costs vary widely in part because of differences in ridership. 
Glendive, MT saw a per-passenger subsidy of more than $2,000 for each 
of the 418 who flew last year. The 23,581 passengers using the airport 
in Manhattan, KS, only cost the government $50.82 each.
  Steve Ellis, vice president of the watchdog group Taxpayers for 
Common Sense, said: The program ``was supposed to go away over a period 
of time as we made the transition [from deregulation]. . . . Congress 
made sure it hasn't.''
  Then, of course, I mentioned the Seattle Times article entitled, 
``Rural air subsidies test resolve to cut spending.''

       A program that subsidizes air service to small airports, 
     often in remote communities, is shaping up as an early test 
     in the new Congress of conservative zeal for shrinking the 
     federal government.

  It goes on to say:

       A program that subsidizes air services to small airports, 
     often in remote communities, is shaping up as an early test 
     in the new Congress of conservative zeal for shrinking the 
     Federal Government.
       Subsidies per airline passenger as of June 1, 2010, ranged 
     as high as $5,223 in Ely, NV, to as low as $9.21 in Thief 
     River Falls, MN, according to Transportation Department data 
     for the lower 48 States.
       But critics say the airports often serve too few people to 
     merit the amount of money spent in subsidies. Urban growth 
     over the past three decades has also placed transportation 
     alternatives--other airports, trains and bus service--within 
     a reasonable distance of some communities receiving 
     subsidies.
       Studies show that in a lot of those communities people 
     drive to larger airports to get better service at a lower 
     cost than they can get at the smaller airport, even with 
     subsidized air service, said Severin Borenstein, a 
     University of California-Berkeley business professor who 
     is an expert on airline competition.
       ``Some communities can make a credible claim they need the 
     service, particularly in Alaska, but I think these are a 
     relatively small part of the program,'' he said.
       The program has been remarkably resilient, partly due to 
     the protection it receives from lawmakers from rural states 
     and districts. It has been proposed for cuts or elimination 
     many times over the years, but continues to grow.
       ``It's exactly in the political sweet spot,'' Borenstein 
     said. Lawmakers don't feel it's worth upsetting the few 
     people the program serves to achieve what amounts to a modest 
     savings in federal budget terms, he said.

  I received a letter from four Senators that stated:


[[Page S595]]


       Eliminating the program will have a devastating impact on 
     the economies of rural communities.

  I believe the real devastation to rural communities--big communities, 
small communities, and medium-size communities--is if we don't stop 
mortgaging our children and grandchildren's futures, if we don't stop 
doing things that are unnecessary. This program was put into being in 
1978. It was supposed to be there for 10 years. It was a few million 
dollars. Now, according to this bill, it will be $200 million.
  It is about time we match our rhetoric with our votes. I believe this 
will be a very interesting vote we will be taking on this amendment.
  All of these red dots represent people served by large and major 
airports. There are some areas of the country that are not. Most of 
these are very sparsely populated areas.
  I hope my colleagues will vote in favor of eliminating this program 
that was designed for 10 years of life and now has continued on for 
some 30 years. And, as Ronald Reagan said, they are the hardest thing 
in the world to either reduce or eliminate.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be. There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.


                            Amendment No. 50

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside 
the pending amendment so I may call up, on behalf of Senator Leahy, 
amendment No. 50, which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller], for Mr. 
     Leahy, proposes an amendment numbered 50.

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

   (Purpose: To amend title 1 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
 Streets Act of 1968 to include nonprofit and volunteer ground and air 
 ambulance crew members and first responders for certain benefits, and 
 to clarify the liability protection for volunteer pilots that fly for 
                            public benefit)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

TITLE __--EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE PROVIDERS PROTECTION AND LIABILITY 
                PROTECTION FOR CERTAIN VOLUNTEER PILOTS

       Subtitle A--Emergency Medical Service Providers Protection

     SEC. _01. DALE LONG EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE PROVIDERS 
                   PROTECTION ACT.

       (a) Short Title.--This subtitle may be cited as the ``Dale 
     Long Emergency Medical Service Providers Protection Act''.
       (b) Eligibility.--Section 1204 of title I of the Omnibus 
     Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796b) 
     is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (7), by striking ``public employee member 
     of a rescue squad or ambulance crew;'' and inserting 
     ``employee or volunteer member of a rescue squad or ambulance 
     crew (including a ground or air ambulance service) that--
       ``(A) is a public agency; or
       ``(B) is (or is a part of) a nonprofit entity serving the 
     public that--
       ``(i) is officially authorized or licensed to engage in 
     rescue activity or to provide emergency medical services; and
       ``(ii) is officially designated as a pre-hospital emergency 
     medical response agency;''; and
       (2) in paragraph (9)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``as a chaplain'' and 
     all that follows through the semicolon, and inserting ``or as 
     a chaplain;'';
       (B) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking ``or'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (C) in subparagraph (C)(ii), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) a member of a rescue squad or ambulance crew who, as 
     authorized or licensed by law and by the applicable agency or 
     entity (and as designated by such agency or entity), is 
     engaging in rescue activity or in the provision of emergency 
     medical services.''.
       (c) Offset.--Of the unobligated balances available under 
     the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund, $13,000,000 
     are permanently cancelled.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (b) 
     shall apply only to injuries sustained on or after June 1, 
     2009.

                    Subtitle B--Liability Protection

     SEC. _11. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Volunteer Pilot 
     Protection Act of 2011''.

     SEC. _12. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Many volunteer pilots fly for public benefit and 
     provide valuable services to communities and individuals.
       (2) In calendar year 2006, volunteer pilots provided long-
     distance, no-cost transportation for more than 58,000 people 
     during times of special need.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to promote the 
     activities of volunteer pilots that fly for public benefit 
     and to sustain the availability of the services that such 
     volunteers provide, including the following:
       (1) Transportation at no cost to financially needy medical 
     patients for medical treatment, evaluation, and diagnosis.
       (2) Flights for humanitarian and charitable purposes.
       (3) Other flights of compassion.

     SEC. _13. LIABILITY PROTECTION FOR VOLUNTEER PILOTS THAT FLY 
                   FOR PUBLIC BENEFIT.

       Section 4 of the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997 (42 
     U.S.C. 14503) is amended in subsection (a)(4)--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses 
     (i) and (ii), respectively;
       (2) by striking ``the harm'' and inserting ``(A) except in 
     the case of subparagraph (B), the harm'';
       (3) in subparagraph (A)(ii), as redesignated by this 
     paragraph, by striking the period at the end and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) the volunteer--
       ``(i) was operating an aircraft to promote the activities 
     of volunteer pilots that fly for public benefit and to 
     sustain the availability of the services that such volunteers 
     provide, including transportation at no cost to financially 
     needy medical patients for medical treatment, evaluation, and 
     diagnosis, and for humanitarian and charitable purposes; and
       ``(ii) was properly licensed and insured for the operation 
     of such aircraft.''.

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I wish to respond to the most 
interesting facts pointed out by the Senator from Arizona and also the 
collective bargaining matter. Senator Nelson is here with a 
particularly good amendment. Before we get to the 4:30 hour, at which 
time we will be debating judges, I wish to give him a chance to talk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the 
chairman, for this opportunity to discuss an amendment to the FAA 
reauthorization bill which I will be offering shortly. We are currently 
working with the minority on some language changes. This amendment will 
be proposed before long. When it is, I will be seeking a rollcall vote.
  The amendment, which I propose along with Senators Schumer, Akaka, 
Menendez, Whitehouse, Tester, and Shaheen, would make it a crime to 
photograph, record, or distribute a body scan image taken by a body 
scan imaging machine at either an airport or any Federal building 
without express authorization to do so either by law or regulation. I 
have heard from many Nebraskans who are concerned that the use of body 
scan imaging machines is overly invasive and their privacy is being 
ignored. I, too, share these concerns. This isn't an abstract concern. 
According to news reports, the U.S. Marshals Service acknowledged last 
year that some 35,000 images from a body scanner at a security 
checkpoint at a Florida courthouse had been saved. That is despite 
promises from Federal agencies that these images would not be stored. 
One hundred of the saved images were leaked, and some are now online 
for anyone to view. So an invasion of privacy has already occurred.
  Nebraskans and the American people understand that every step needs 
to be taken and every resource needs to be used to ensure the safety of 
our citizenry. Using technology to scan individuals for hidden weapons 
is a necessary, albeit sometimes unpleasant, aspect of making sure our 
airways and public buildings are safe. However, in the scope of doing 
such things, safeguards can and must be put in place to help deter 
individuals from collecting and using those images inappropriately. 
This is the goal of the amendment I and my colleagues are offering.
  I am well aware Transportation Security Agency officials have said 
the agency will not keep, store, or transmit images, but that has not 
and doesn't ensure compliance. If passing laws or directives ensured 
compliance, there would be no speeders in America. What is needed is 
additional consequences to make anyone considering keeping, storing, or 
transmitting these scanned images think twice about the

[[Page S596]]

fact that they will be committing a felony. If the consequence is 
enough of a deterrent, we will have better compliance and the privacy 
of every American will be better protected.
  Let me explain specifically what the amendment does. One, it makes it 
illegal to photograph, record, and subsequently distribute the images 
taken by body scan machines in an airport or any Federal building.
  Two, it imposes a penalty of up to 1 year in prison and up to a 
$100,000 fine for those who inappropriately collect and distribute 
these images.
  Three, it says that any individual who is acting within the course 
and scope of their employment is not breaking the law by saving these 
images or sending them if the purpose for doing so is to use these 
images in a criminal investigation or prosecution.
  By adopting this amendment, we will be telling the American people 
and my constituents that we are not going to ignore or compromise their 
privacy in the process of making sure we have safe airports and Federal 
buildings. Our amendment takes a commonsense approach to addressing 
this issue and why I am seeking its inclusion in the FAA authorization.
  I thank the chairman and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, in that we have a short reception at 
4:30 and then we are going to judges, I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________