Congressional Record, Volume 157 Issue 24 (Tuesday, February 15, 2011)

[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 15, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S731-S739]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

FAA AIR TRANSPORTATION MODERNIZATION AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT

Amendments Nos. 49 and 51, as Modified

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
my pending amendments, Nos. 49 and 51, be modified with the changes
that I have at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are so modified.
The amendments, as modified, are as follows:

AMENDMENT NO. 49, as modified

On page 48, between lines 22 and 23, insert the following:
(c) Additional Release from Restrictions.--
(1) In General.--In addition to any release granted under
subsection (a), the Secretary of Transportation may, subject
to paragraph (2), grant releases from any of the terms,
conditions, reservations, and restrictions contained in the
deed of conveyance numbered 30-82-0048 and dated August 4,
1982, under which the United States conveyed certain land to
Dona Ana County, New Mexico, for airport purposes.
(2) Conditions.--Any release granted by the Secretary under
paragraph (1) shall be subject to the following conditions:
(A) The County shall agree that in conveying any interest
in the land that the United States conveyed to the County by
the deed described in paragraph (1), the County shall receive
an amount for the interest that is equal to the fair market
value.
(B) Any amount received by the County for the conveyance
shall be used by the County for the development, improvement,
operation, or maintenance of the airport.

[[Page S732]]

amendment no. 51, as modified

On page 311, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:

SEC. 733. PRIVACY PROTECTIONS FOR AIRCRAFT PASSENGER
SCREENING WITH ADVANCED IMAGING TECHNOLOGY.

Section 44901 is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(l) Limitations on Use of Advanced Imaging Technology for
Screening Passengers.--
``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) Advanced imaging technology.--The term `advanced
imaging technology'--
``(i) means a device that creates a visual image of an
individual's body and reveals other objects on the body as
applicable, including narcotics, explosives, and other
weapons components; and
``(ii) includes devices using backscatter x-rays or
millimeter waves and devices referred to as `whole-body
imaging technology' or `body scanning'.
``(B) Appropriate congressional committees defined.--The
term `appropriate congressional committees' means--
``(i) the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation and Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs of the Senate; and
``(ii) the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of
Representatives.
``(C) Automatic target recognition software.--The term
`automatic target recognition software' means software
installed on an advanced imaging technology machine that
produces a generic image of the individual being screened
that is the same as the images produced for all other
screened individuals.
``(2) Use of advanced imaging technology.--The Assistant
Secretary of Homeland Security (Transportation Security
Administration) shall ensure that advanced imaging technology
is used for the screening of passengers under this section
only in accordance with this subsection.
``(3) Implementation of automated target recognition
software.--Except as provided in paragraph (4), beginning
January 1, 2012, all advanced imaging technology used as a
screening method for passengers shall be equipped with
automatic target recognition software.
``(4) Extension.--The Assistant Secretary may extend the
date described in paragraph (3) by 1 or more periods as the
Assistant Secretary considers appropriate but each period may
not be for a duration of more than by 1 year, if the
Assistant Secretary determines that--
``(A) advanced imaging technology equipped with automatic
target recognition software is not substantially as effective
at screening passengers as advanced imaging technology
without such software; or
``(B) additional testing of such software is necessary.
``(5) Reports.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date
described in paragraph (3) and, if the Assistant Secretary
extends the date pursuant to paragraph (4) by 1 or more
periods, not later than 60 days after each period, the
Assistant Secretary shall submit to the appropriate
congressional committees a report on the implementation of
this subsection.
``(B) Elements.--Each report required by subparagraph (A)
shall include the following:
``(i) A description of all matters the Assistant Secretary
considers relevant to the implementation of this subsection.
``(ii) The status of the compliance of the Transportation
Security Administration with the provisions of this
subsection.
``(iii) If the Administration is not in full compliance
with such provisions--

``(I) the reasons for such non-compliance; and
``(II) a timeline depicting when the Assistant Secretary
expects the Administration to achieve full compliance.

``(C) Security classification.--The report required by
subparagraph (A) shall be submitted, to the greatest extent
practicable, in an unclassified format, with a classified
annex, if necessary.''.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.

Amendment No. 7, as Modified

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have the same request. I call for
regular order with respect to my amendment No. 7, and I send a
modification to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

At the end of the bill insert the following:

SEC. __. RONALD REAGAN WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT SLOTS.

(a) Increase in Number of Slot Exemptions.--Section 41718
is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
``(g) Additional Slots.--
``(1) Initial increase in exemptions.--Within 90 days after
the date of enactment of the FAA Air Transportation
Modernization and Safety Improvement Act, the Secretary shall
grant, by order, 24 slot exemptions from the application of
sections 49104(a)(5), 49109, 49111(e), and 41714 of this
title to air carriers to operate limited frequencies and
aircraft on routes between Ronald Reagan Washington National
Airport and airports located beyond the perimeter described
in section 49109 or, as provided in paragraph (2)(C),
airports located within that perimeter, and exemptions from
the requirements of subparts K and S of part 93, Code of
Federal Regulations, if the Secretary finds that the
exemptions will--
``(A) provide air transportation with domestic network
benefits in areas beyond the perimeter described in section
49109;
``(B) increase competition in multiple markets;
``(C) not reduce travel options for communities served by
small hub airports and medium hub airports within the
perimeter described in section 49109;
``(D) not result in meaningfully increased travel delays;
``(E) enhance options for nonstop travel to and from the
beyond-perimeter airports that will be served as a result of
those exemptions;
``(F) have a positive impact on the overall level of
competition in the markets that will be served as a result of
those exemptions; and
``(G) produce public benefits, including the likelihood
that the service to airports located beyond the perimeter
described in section 49109 will result in lower fares, higher
capacity, and a variety of service options.
``(2) New entrants and limited incumbents.--
``(A) Distribution.--Of the exemptions made available under
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall make 10 available to
limited incumbent air carriers or new entrant air carriers
and 14 available to other incumbent air carriers.
``(B) Network connectivity.--In allocating exemptions to
incumbent air carriers under this paragraph, the Secretary
shall afford a preference to carriers offering significant
domestic network benefits within the perimeter described in
section 49109.
``(C) Use.--Only a limited incumbent air carrier or new
entrant air carrier may use an additional exemption granted
under this subsection to provide service between Ronald
Reagan Washington National Airport and an airport located
within the perimeter described in section 49109.
``(3) Improved network slots.--If an incumbent air carrier
(other than a limited incumbent air carrier) that uses a slot
for service between Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport
and a large hub airport located within the perimeter
described in section 49109 is granted an additional exemption
under this subsection, it shall, upon receiving the
additional exemption, discontinue the use of that slot for
such within-perimeter service and operate, in place of such
service, service between Ronald Reagan Washington National
Airport and an airport located beyond the perimeter described
in section 49109.
``(4) Conditions.--Beyond-perimeter flight operations
carried out by an air carrier using an exemption granted
under this subsection shall be subject to the following
conditions:
``(A) An air carrier may not operate a multi-aisle or
widebody aircraft in conducting such operations.
``(B) An air carrier granted an exemption under this
subsection is prohibited from selling, trading, leasing, or
otherwise transferring the rights to its beyond-perimeter
exemptions, except through an air carrier merger or
acquisition.
``(5) Operations deadline.--An air carrier granted a slot
exemption under this subsection shall commence operations
using that slot within 60 days after the date on which the
exemption was granted.
``(6) Impact study.--Within 17 months after granting the
additional exemptions authorized by paragraph (1) the
Secretary shall complete a study of the direct effects of the
additional exemptions, including the extent to which the
additional exemptions have--
``(A) caused congestion problems at the airport;
``(B) had a negative effect on the financial condition of
the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority;
``(C) affected the environment in the area surrounding the
airport; and
``(D) resulted in meaningful loss of service to small and
medium markets within the perimeter described in section
49109.
``(7) Additional exemptions.--
``(A) Determination.--The Secretary shall determine, on the
basis of the study required by paragraph (6), whether--
``(i) the additional exemptions authorized by paragraph (1)
have had a substantial negative effect on Ronald Reagan
Washington National Airport, Washington Dulles International
Airport, or Baltimore/Washington Thurgood Marshall
International Airport; and
``(ii) the granting of additional exemptions under this
paragraph may, or may not, reasonably be expected to have a
substantial negative effect on any of those airports.
``(B) Authority to grant additional exemptions.--Beginning
6 months after the date on which the impact study is
concluded, the Secretary may grant up to 8 slot exemptions to
incumbent air carriers, in addition to those granted under
paragraph (1) of this subsection, if the Secretary determines
that--
``(i) the additional exemptions authorized by paragraph (1)
have not had a substantial negative effect on any of those
airports; and
``(ii) the granting of additional exemptions under this
subparagraph may not reasonably be expected to have a
negative effect on any of those airports.
``(C) Network connectivity.--In allocating exemptions to
incumbent air carriers under

[[Page S733]]

subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall afford a preference to
carriers offering significant domestic network benefits
within the perimeter described in section 49109.
``(D) Improved network slots.--If an incumbent air carrier
(other than a limited incumbent air carrier) that uses a slot
for service between Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport
and a large hub airport located within the perimeter
described in section 49109 is granted an additional exemption
under subparagraph (B), it shall, upon receiving the
additional exemption, discontinue the use of that slot for
such within-perimeter service and operate, in place of such
service, service between Ronald Reagan Washington National
Airport and an airport located beyond the perimeter described
in section 49109.
``(E) Conditions.--Beyond-perimeter flight operations
carried out by an air carrier using an exemption granted
under subparagraph (B) shall be subject to the following
conditions:
``(i) An air carrier may not operate a multi-aisle or
widebody aircraft in conducting such operations.
``(ii) An air carrier granted an exemption under this
subsection is prohibited from selling, trading, leasing, or
otherwise transferring the rights to its beyond-perimeter
exemptions, except through an air carrier merger or
acquisition.
``(F) Additional exemptions not permitted.--The Secretary
may not grant exemptions in addition to those authorized by
paragraph (1) if the Secretary determines that--
``(i) the additional exemptions authorized by paragraph (1)
have had a substantial negative effect on any of those
airports; or
``(ii) the granting of additional exemptions under
subparagraph (B) of this paragraph may reasonably be expected
to have a substantial negative effect on 1 or more of those
airports.
``(h) Scheduling Priority.--In administering this section,
the Secretary shall afford a scheduling priority to
operations conducted by new entrant air carriers and limited
incumbent air carriers over operations conducted by other air
carriers granted additional slot exemptions under subsection
(g) for service to airports located beyond the perimeter
described in section 49109.''.
(b) Hourly Limitation.--Section 41718(c)(2) is amended--
(1) by striking ``3 operations'' and inserting ``4
operations''; and
(2) by striking ``subsections (a) and (b)'' and inserting
``under this section''.
(c) Limited Incumbent Definition.--Section 41714(h)(5) is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``not'' after ``shall'' in subparagraph
(B);
(2) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon in subparagraph
(B);
(3) by striking ``Administration.'' in subparagraph (C) and
inserting ``Administration; and''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) for purposes of section 41718, an air carrier that
holds only slot exemptions''.
(d) Revenues and Fees at the Metropolitan Washington
Airports.--Section 49104(a) is amended by striking paragraph
(9) and inserting the following:
``(9) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, revenues
derived at either of the Metropolitan Washington Airports,
regardless of source, may be used for operating and capital
expenses (including debt service, depreciation and
amortization) at the other airport.''.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.

Amendment No. 93 to Amendment No. 7, as Modified

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment to
the Inhofe amendment at the desk, and I ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] proposes an
amendment numbered 93 to Inhofe amendment No. 7, as modified.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. 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 provide for an increase in the number of slots available
at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, and for other purposes)

Strike all after the word ``SEC'' and add the following:

__. RONALD REAGAN WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT SLOTS.

(a) Increase in Number of Slot Exemptions.--Section 41718
is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
``(g) Additional Slots.--
``(1) Initial increase in exemptions.--Within 5 days after
the date of enactment of the FAA Air Transportation
Modernization and Safety Improvement Act, the Secretary shall
grant, by order, 24 slot exemptions from the application of
sections 49104(a)(5), 49109, 49111(e), and 41714 of this
title to air carriers to operate limited frequencies and
aircraft on routes between Ronald Reagan Washington National
Airport and airports located beyond the perimeter described
in section 49109 or, as provided in paragraph (2)(C),
airports located within that perimeter, and exemptions from
the requirements of subparts K and S of part 93, Code of
Federal Regulations, if the Secretary finds that the
exemptions will--
``(A) provide air transportation with domestic network
benefits in areas beyond the perimeter described in section
49109;
``(B) increase competition in multiple markets;
``(C) not reduce travel options for communities served by
small hub airports and medium hub airports within the
perimeter described in section 49109;
``(D) not result in meaningfully increased travel delays;
``(E) enhance options for nonstop travel to and from the
beyond-perimeter airports that will be served as a result of
those exemptions;
``(F) have a positive impact on the overall level of
competition in the markets that will be served as a result of
those exemptions; and
``(G) produce public benefits, including the likelihood
that the service to airports located beyond the perimeter
described in section 49109 will result in lower fares, higher
capacity, and a variety of service options.
``(2) New entrants and limited incumbents.--
``(A) Distribution.--Of the exemptions made available under
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall make 10 available to
limited incumbent air carriers or new entrant air carriers
and 14 available to other incumbent air carriers.
``(B) Network connectivity.--In allocating exemptions to
incumbent air carriers under this paragraph, the Secretary
shall afford a preference to carriers offering significant
domestic network benefits within the perimeter described in
section 49109.
``(C) Use.--Only a limited incumbent air carrier or new
entrant air carrier may use an additional exemption granted
under this subsection to provide service between Ronald
Reagan Washington National Airport and an airport located
within the perimeter described in section 49109.
``(3) Improved network slots.--If an incumbent air carrier
(other than a limited incumbent air carrier) that uses a slot
for service between Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport
and a large hub airport located within the perimeter
described in section 49109 is granted an additional exemption
under this subsection, it shall, upon receiving the
additional exemption, discontinue the use of that slot for
such within-perimeter service and operate, in place of such
service, service between Ronald Reagan Washington National
Airport and an airport located beyond the perimeter described
in section 49109.
``(4) Conditions.--Beyond-perimeter flight operations
carried out by an air carrier using an exemption granted
under this subsection shall be subject to the following
conditions:
``(A) An air carrier may not operate a multi-aisle or
widebody aircraft in conducting such operations.
``(B) An air carrier granted an exemption under this
subsection is prohibited from selling, trading, leasing, or
otherwise transferring the rights to its beyond-perimeter
exemptions, except through an air carrier merger or
acquisition.
``(5) Operations deadline.--An air carrier granted a slot
exemption under this subsection shall commence operations
using that slot within 60 days after the date on which the
exemption was granted.
``(6) Impact study.--Within 17 months after granting the
additional exemptions authorized by paragraph (1) the
Secretary shall complete a study of the direct effects of the
additional exemptions, including the extent to which the
additional exemptions have--
``(A) caused congestion problems at the airport;
``(B) had a negative effect on the financial condition of
the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority;
``(C) affected the environment in the area surrounding the
airport; and
``(D) resulted in meaningful loss of service to small and
medium markets within the perimeter described in section
49109.
``(7) Additional exemptions.--
``(A) Determination.--The Secretary shall determine, on the
basis of the study required by paragraph (6), whether--
``(i) the additional exemptions authorized by paragraph (1)
have had a substantial negative effect on Ronald Reagan
Washington National Airport, Washington Dulles International
Airport, or Baltimore/Washington Thurgood Marshall
International Airport; and
``(ii) the granting of additional exemptions under this
paragraph may, or may not, reasonably be expected to have a
substantial negative effect on any of those airports.
``(B) Authority to grant additional exemptions.--Beginning
6 months after the date on which the impact study is
concluded, the Secretary may grant up to 8 slot exemptions to
incumbent air carriers, in addition to those granted under
paragraph (1) of this subsection, if the Secretary determines
that--
``(i) the additional exemptions authorized by paragraph (1)
have not had a substantial negative effect on any of those
airports; and
``(ii) the granting of additional exemptions under this
subparagraph may not reasonably be expected to have a
negative effect on any of those airports.
``(C) Network connectivity.--In allocating exemptions to
incumbent air carriers under

[[Page S734]]

Cloture Motion

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the pending
amendment No. 7, as modified, to S. 223, the FAA
authorization bill.
Kay Bailey Hutchison, Jon Kyl, John Ensign, John Cornyn,
Kelly Ayotte, John Thune, Saxby Chambliss, Richard
Burr, Johnny Isakson, Jerry Moran, James E. Risch,
Richard C. Shelby, Rand Paul, John Hoeven, John McCain,
Lindsey Graham, Mike Lee.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.

Amendment No. 93, as modified, to Amendment No. 7, As Modified

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send a modification to my second-
degree amendment to the desk and ask that the amendment be so modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

Strike all after the word ``SEC'' and add the following:

__. RONALD REAGAN WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT SLOTS.

(a) Increase in Number of Slot Exemptions.--Section 41718
is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
``(g) Additional Slots.--
``(1) Initial increase in exemptions.--Within 95 days after
the date of enactment of the FAA Air Transportation
Modernization and Safety Improvement Act, the Secretary shall
grant, by order, 24 slot exemptions from the application of
sections 49104(a)(5), 49109, 49111(e), and 41714 of this
title to air carriers to operate limited frequencies and
aircraft on routes between Ronald Reagan Washington National
Airport and airports located beyond the perimeter described
in section 49109 or, as provided in paragraph (2)(C),
airports located within that perimeter, and exemptions from
the requirements of subparts K and S of part 93, Code of
Federal Regulations, if the Secretary finds that the
exemptions will--
``(A) provide air transportation with domestic network
benefits in areas beyond the perimeter described in section
49109;
``(B) increase competition in multiple markets;
``(C) not reduce travel options for communities served by
small hub airports and medium hub airports within the
perimeter described in section 49109;
``(D) not result in meaningfully increased travel delays;
``(E) enhance options for nonstop travel to and from the
beyond-perimeter airports that will be served as a result of
those exemptions;
``(F) have a positive impact on the overall level of
competition in the markets that will be served as a result of
those exemptions; and
``(G) produce public benefits, including the likelihood
that the service to airports located beyond the perimeter
described in section 49109 will result in lower fares, higher
capacity, and a variety of service options.
``(2) New entrants and limited incumbents.--
``(A) Distribution.--Of the exemptions made available under
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall make 10 available to
limited incumbent air carriers or new entrant air carriers
and 14 available to other incumbent air carriers.
``(B) Network connectivity.--In allocating exemptions to
incumbent air carriers under this paragraph, the Secretary
shall afford a preference to carriers offering significant
domestic network benefits within the perimeter described in
section 49109.
``(C) Use.--Only a limited incumbent air carrier or new
entrant air carrier may use an additional exemption granted
under this subsection to provide service between Ronald
Reagan Washington National Airport and an airport located
within the perimeter described in section 49109.
``(3) Improved network slots.--If an incumbent air carrier
(other than a limited incumbent air carrier) that uses a slot
for service between Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport
and a large hub airport located within the perimeter
described in section 49109 is granted an additional exemption
under this subsection, it shall, upon receiving the
additional exemption, discontinue the use of that slot for
such within-perimeter service and operate, in place of such
service, service between Ronald Reagan Washington National
Airport and an airport located beyond the perimeter described
in section 49109.
``(4) Conditions.--Beyond-perimeter flight operations
carried out by an air carrier using an exemption granted
under this subsection shall be subject to the following
conditions:
``(A) An air carrier may not operate a multi-aisle or
widebody aircraft in conducting such operations.
``(B) An air carrier granted an exemption under this
subsection is prohibited from selling, trading, leasing, or
otherwise transferring the rights to its beyond-perimeter
exemptions, except through an air carrier merger or
acquisition.
``(5) Operations deadline.--An air carrier granted a slot
exemption under this subsection shall commence operations
using that slot within 60 days after the date on which the
exemption was granted.
``(6) Impact study.--Within 17 months after granting the
additional exemptions authorized by paragraph (1) the
Secretary shall complete a study of the direct effects of the
additional exemptions, including the extent to which the
additional exemptions have--
``(A) caused congestion problems at the airport;
``(B) had a negative effect on the financial condition of
the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority;
``(C) affected the environment in the area surrounding the
airport; and
``(D) resulted in meaningful loss of service to small and
medium markets within the perimeter described in section
49109.
``(7) Additional exemptions.--
``(A) Determination.--The Secretary shall determine, on the
basis of the study required by paragraph (6), whether--
``(i) the additional exemptions authorized by paragraph (1)
have had a substantial negative effect on Ronald Reagan
Washington National Airport, Washington Dulles International
Airport, or Baltimore/Washington Thurgood Marshall
International Airport; and
``(ii) the granting of additional exemptions under this
paragraph may, or may not, reasonably be expected to have a
substantial negative effect on any of those airports.
``(B) Authority to grant additional exemptions.--Beginning
6 months after the date on which the impact study is
concluded, the Secretary may grant up to 8 slot exemptions to
incumbent air carriers, in addition

[[Page S735]]

to those granted under paragraph (1) of this subsection, if
the Secretary determines that--
``(i) the additional exemptions authorized by paragraph (1)
have not had a substantial negative effect on any of those
airports; and
``(ii) the granting of additional exemptions under this
subparagraph may not reasonably be expected to have a
negative effect on any of those airports.
``(C) Network connectivity.--In allocating exemptions to
incumbent air carriers under subparagraph (B), the Secretary
shall afford a preference to carriers offering significant
domestic network benefits within the perimeter described in
section 49109.
``(D) Improved network slots.--If an incumbent air carrier
(other than a limited incumbent air carrier) that uses a slot
for service between Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport
and a large hub airport located within the perimeter
described in section 49109 is granted an additional exemption
under subparagraph (B), it shall, upon receiving the
additional exemption, discontinue the use of that slot for
such within-perimeter service and operate, in place of such
service, service between Ronald Reagan Washington National
Airport and an airport located beyond the perimeter described
in section 49109.
``(E) Conditions.--Beyond-perimeter flight operations
carried out by an air carrier using an exemption granted
under subparagraph (B) shall be subject to the following
conditions:
``(i) An air carrier may not operate a multi-aisle or
widebody aircraft in conducting such operations.
``(ii) An air carrier granted an exemption under this
subsection is prohibited from selling, trading, leasing, or
otherwise transferring the rights to its beyond-perimeter
exemptions, except through an air carrier merger or
acquisition.
``(F) Additional exemptions not permitted.--The Secretary
may not grant exemptions in addition to those authorized by
paragraph (1) if the Secretary determines that--
``(i) the additional exemptions authorized by paragraph (1)
have had a substantial negative effect on any of those
airports; or
``(ii) the granting of additional exemptions under
subparagraph (B) of this paragraph may reasonably be expected
to have a substantial negative effect on 1 or more of those
airports.
``(h) Scheduling Priority.--In administering this section,
the Secretary shall afford a scheduling priority to
operations conducted by new entrant air carriers and limited
incumbent air carriers over operations conducted by other air
carriers granted additional slot exemptions under subsection
(g) for service to airports located beyond the perimeter
described in section 49109.''.
(b) Hourly Limitation.--Section 41718(c)(2) is amended--
(1) by striking ``3 operations'' and inserting ``4
operations''; and
(2) by striking ``subsections (a) and (b)'' and inserting
``under this section''.
(c) Limited Incumbent Definition.--Section 41714(h)(5) is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``not'' after ``shall'' in subparagraph
(B);
(2) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon in subparagraph
(B);
(3) by striking ``Administration.'' in subparagraph (C) and
inserting ``Administration; and''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) for purposes of section 41718, an air carrier that
holds only slot exemptions''.
(d) Revenues and Fees at the Metropolitan Washington
Airports.--Section 49104(a) is amended by striking paragraph
(9) and inserting the following:
``(9) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, revenues
and debt service costs at either of the Metropolitan
Washington Airports, regardless of source, may be shared at
the other airport.''

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the amendment that is now pending, for
which we have a cloture motion, is what we are going to try to continue
to work on and hope that we can come to a consensus on the issue of the
perimeter rule that has caused so much of this bill to be held up. This
is a good bill. This is a bill that is going to give America the
opportunity to start the next generation of air traffic control
systems. It is a bill that we must begin now if we are going to go to a
satellite-based system which will free airspace and make our air system
work more efficiently for aircraft in the air.
It has safety provisions. It has consumer protection provisions. It
is so important that we also accommodate the needs of all of our
country, the constituents we have, to have an airport system that
works--especially in the Washington area.
We will be able to debate this amendment as we go through the next
few days. We are waiting for other amendments to also be debated on the
floor. But I have stood very firm in saying we need a bipartisan
solution to access to the Nation's airport in Washington, DC. It is
located in Virginia, but it is the Washington, DC-near airport, and all
of the airports in this area now have a robust business. It is time for
us to deal with this in a rational, bipartisan, and responsible way.
That is what Senator Rockefeller and I have attempted to do, and we
will continue to do so.
I yield the floor.
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. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Health Reform

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about health reform.
I would like to start by telling you the story of a little boy named
Isaac. From the day his parents brought him home as a newborn to
Isanti, MN, he was sick all the time. He had everything from the flu to
bronchitis to ear infections. But unlike most little boys, Isaac never
seemed to get better. His parents, as any parents would, did everything
they could to help him. They brought him to every medical specialist
they could think of but no one could figure out what was wrong.
Finally, Isaac was diagnosed with a rare disease called common
variable immunodeficiency. This means every 2 weeks a nurse has to
visit his home to give him the medicine that lets his body fight off
germs. Without this medicine, Isaac's body cannot fight off even a
common cold. The home visits and IV medications Isaac needs are
expensive. But Isaac's parents had health insurance, so Isaac was able
to have a normal childhood.
Today, Isaac is a 19-year-old college student in Minnesota with
dreams of becoming an English teacher. Here is a picture of him. He is
the one on the right. That is Isaac.
Because of the toll his illness takes, his family decided that Isaac
should go to school part-time. Unfortunately, before the health reform
law was passed, young adults over 18 years of age generally had to be
in school full time to stay on their parents' health insurance. If
Isaac had not been able to stay on his parents' health plan, he would
have been in a tremendous bind. His disease is the definition of a
preexisting condition, and it would have been nearly impossible for him
to find affordable individual coverage. But because of the health
reform law that we passed last year, Isaac can now stay on his parents'
health insurance, regardless of his school status, through his 26th
birthday. He and his family were able to make the choices that made
sense for their family without having to worry about Isaac's health
insurance. In fact, in a few years, when he turns 26, a key provision
of health reform will have kicked in and insurers will no longer be
able to discriminate against him or any American because of a
preexisting condition.
Isaac's parents may not be doctors, but they are experts when it
comes to the needs of their family. They know the truth about what the
health reform law has already done for their family. Just like Isaac's
family, Minnesotans may not know every word of the health reform law,
but they are experts on what they need for their own families.
Let me tell you about another Minnesota family who learned about the
benefits of the new law. Maya, whom you can see right here, is one of 3
million Americans with epilepsy. She had her first seizure when she was
just 3 years old. Modern medicine has not yet been able to find a way
to stop her seizures, but by taking five medications per day she can
control them.
Recently, Maya's father was laid off and the family lost his health
insurance. Maya's family suddenly had to confront the possibility that
they would no longer be able to give Maya the medication she needs to
fight her daily seizures. Without insurance, Maya's medications cost
more than $1,500 a month, which would quickly bankrupt her family.
Losing a job is stressful enough, but before the health reform law
Maya's parents would have

[[Page S736]]

had to worry about buying health insurance on the individual market.
Because of Maya's preexisting condition that would have been almost
impossible.
Fortunately, the health reform law has banned insurance companies
from discriminating against children with preexisting conditions. So
her family was able to get on to another insurance plan without being
denied.
The diagnosis of a chronic illness can happen to anyone at any time.
Often, like Maya, it doesn't happen because of a lifestyle choice or
genetic predisposition. It just happens. Maya was 3 years old when she
was diagnosed. Paying for essential medications and health care
services that can help control chronic conditions like Maya's can
easily put a hard-working family into bankruptcy.
Medical costs are the cause, wholly or in part, of 62 percent of all
bankruptcies in this country. That will change dramatically because of
this law. Americans will no longer be discriminated against because of
preexisting conditions, and insurance companies can no longer impose
lifetime limits on the dollar amount of care they will provide. This is
an enormous, almost incalculable, benefit to Americans and their peace
of mind.
The truth is, Congress listened to people across this country, people
such as Isaac and Maya and their families. By allowing kids to stay on
their parents' insurance longer, we listened by ending insurance
companies' discrimination against women and people with preexisting
conditions, and we listened when the American people said lifetime caps
on insurance benefits were forcing millions of chronically ill
Americans into bankruptcy.
The people of Minnesota believe, as I do, that a family who works
hard should not be financially ruined if their kid gets sick. When I
was campaigning I heard this again and again from families across
Minnesota--and I was listening. The people asked this Congress to find
a way to make health care affordable for everyone, and we did.
Now the insurance companies and their political allies want you to
believe the only way to keep your premiums low is to cap the amount of
benefits you can receive in your lifetime. But this is just not true.
In the health reform law, we worked hard to slow the growth of health
care costs without abandoning the over one-third of American adults who
struggle with chronic disease.
The truth is, last year we passed a bill that will save the lives of
countless Americans and will save billions of taxpayer dollars. That is
right. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the referee that
everyone here in Congress agrees to abide by whether we like their
decisions or not--according to CBO the law saves us money, lots of
money; in fact, hundreds of billions of dollars.
Now, let me say a word about CBO to my colleagues. You cannot use
CBO's numbers when you like them and then totally dismiss them when you
do not. CBO is directed to provide unbiased and independent analysis
and estimates. Their analysts use the best research available for their
scores and projections. In fact, they established an independent review
panel of expert health care economists to advise them in their analysis
of the health reform bill. Not only are the experts' names published on
CBO's Web site, but their analysis of the law is public as well. CBO is
nothing if not transparent and independent.
Of late, we have heard Members of this body frankly mischaracterize
the process by which CBO does its job. They have said that CBO must
rely solely on information and data fed to them by the majority--
``garbage in, garbage out.'' ``Garbage in, garbage out'' is how they
describe it here on the floor. This could not be further from the
truth. Frankly, I find some of my colleagues' new refrain about CBO
disturbing and not a little disingenuous.
One of the things we tried to do in health reform was to take steps
that would lower the costs of health care in this country. Take for
example our efforts to reduce administrative costs by streamlining the
way health care providers bill for their services. This is something I
pushed for because we recently did it in Minnesota, and it saved $56
million in the first year alone. Nationwide, that should translate to
around $25 to $30 billion over 10 years. Actually, the health reform
law went well beyond what Minnesota did. So it is not surprising that
outside experts such as those at the Commonwealth Fund, Rand, and
others estimate much greater savings from administrative
simplification, in the range of $162 to $187 billion over 10 years. So
when CBO made their analysis and estimated savings of less than $20
billion in the same period, I admit I was a little miffed. But I did
not attack CBO. I accepted their results. And we are all duty bound to
do the same, even when CBO projects that the law as a whole will save
over $100 billion in the first 10 years and over $1 trillion in the
following decade.
We accomplished the savings with a number of commonsense solutions,
such as stopping insurance companies from padding their bank accounts
with profits from sky-high premiums. As part of health reform, we
require insurance companies to spend at least 80 to 85 percent of the
money they receive in premiums on actual health care, actual health
care services--85 percent for large group plans, 80 percent for small
group or individual plans. This is a provision I championed. The other
15 or 20 percent can be spent on administrative costs or marketing, on
CEO bonuses, and on profits. This provision kicked in this year, and it
will hold insurance companies accountable for costs and help contain
health care costs in this country.
We also changed the way health care is paid for in this country by
starting to reward quality of care, not quantity--value not volume in
Medicare. I was proud to fight alongside Senator Cantwell and Senator
Klobuchar for the inclusion of the value-based payment modifier in the
Medicare reimbursement formulas.
Perhaps the most commonsense thing we did to control costs was making
sure everyone has access to preventive care. In Minnesota alone, the
law will give millions of people access to free preventive care. Women
will be able to get mammograms without any out-of-pocket costs.
Starting this year, seniors now have access to free preventive checkups
each year without cost. This is completely contrary to claims I have
heard on this floor.
A large part of the cuts in Medicare spending--not cuts in benefits,
a large part of the cuts in Medicare spending--is cuts to wasteful
subsidies for insurance companies.
One of my colleagues has taken to the floor and said this law will
``cut the funding, so people on Medicare Advantage who like it, who
like the preventive medicine activities of it, are going to lose those
opportunities.'' He goes on to say about the seniors in his State that
``once they lose this, they are going to lose preventive services.''
This is simply not the case. Thanks to this law, everyone on Medicare
will enjoy preventive services, so their doctors will catch problems
early. Seniors know that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of
cure. That is why preventive services under this law will be covered
for everyone without copays, contrary to what my friend on the other
side says.
This is what has bothered me about this debate--the constant stream
of misinformation.
This same colleague said this on the floor about the law: ``It
doesn't solve America's doctor shortage. It does not even address it.''
It does not even address it. Now, no one is claiming this bill solves
the doctor shortages we have in this country, but does not even address
it? There is a whole title in the law that lays out a number of
programs--over 96 pages--that make significant investments in the
health care workforce, especially in primary care physicians. Most
notably, it created a public health workforce loan repayment program
that helps recruit and place more doctors, nurses, and other health
care providers in medically underserved areas. That is important for
States such as Minnesota. And this was an integral and vital part of
health reform. Anyone who states that this law did nothing to address
the shortfall of health care providers just has not read the law.
We have seen misrepresentations from opponents right from the
beginning with the so-called death panels, and it continues to this
day: Medicare recipients are going to be denied preventive care; the
law doesn't even address the doctor shortage; CBO is just

[[Page S737]]

fed garbage by the majority and is not allowed to look at anything
else.
In November, one of my colleagues cited an oft-discredited assertion
originally made by some Republicans on the House Ways and Means
Committee. According to one analysis, my colleague said here on the
floor, the Internal Revenue Service will need to hire 16,000 new IRS
employees to enforce the individual mandate. Well, that is just not
true. Some new IRS employees will be needed but nowhere near that
number, and overwhelmingly they will be there to administer the tax
breaks to small businesses for insuring their employees.
What my colleagues said on the floor is simply not true. No matter
how many times it is repeated, it will not become true.
There was a colloquy from June of last year between two of my
colleagues. The first Senator said that doctors are leaving Medicare.
And that is true. Some are.
He said: The president of the State of New York Medical Society is
not taking new Medicare patients.
Then the second Senator said: As well as the Mayo Clinic.
The first Senator answered by responding: Mayo Clinic said, we cannot
afford to keep our doors open if we are taking Medicare patients.
Then he moved on.
So is it true that the Mayo Clinic really is not taking new Medicare
patients? Well, I called up Mayo, which happens to be in my State, to
find out, and they gave me the facts. Do you know what. Of course it is
not true. The Mayo Clinic has 3,700 staff physicians and scientists and
treats 526,000 patients a year. There is one Mayo Clinic, Arizona
Family Practice--one--that isn't accepting Medicare payment for primary
care services. Yet this is just part of a time-limited trial for this
one clinic with just five physicians on staff. That is it. But this
becomes, to quote my colleague: Mayo Clinic said, we cannot afford to
keep our doors open if we are taking Medicare patients. Well, the Mayo
Clinic is the largest private employer in Minnesota and, believe me,
their doors are still open to new Medicare patients.
Medicare reimbursements are low, and Mayo has actually lost hundreds
of millions of dollars in the last year alone because of this. Mayo,
like the rest of Minnesota, delivers higher value care at a lower cost
than clinics and hospitals in other States. That is because Mayo
provides coordinated integrated care. Mayo's outstanding doctors are on
salaries, so they are not incentivized to order and perform unnecessary
and expensive tests and procedures. And Mayo's outcomes are second to
none. Yet Mayo is punished for all of this by receiving lower
reimbursements for Medicare. That is why I pushed, with other
colleagues, for the value index. That is why we need to pass the so-
called doc fix that cancels scheduled cuts to reimbursement rates every
year.
By the way, the doc fix is something we would have to do whether or
not we pass health reform.
Yet, despite all of this, the Mayo Clinic is keeping its doors open
to new Medicare patients and should be commended for that. It should
not be accused of closing its doors to Medicare patients when it is
not. Mayo should not be used as a political football.
Look, I could go on and on with these, but the fact is, if we want to
have a debate about the health care law, we really should make an
effort to present a case based on what is really in the law and what is
really happening on the ground. This is what the American people want
from us. Health care is far too important to the lives of our
constituents for us to indulge in gross distortion, obvious omission,
and absurd extrapolations. The American people do not want that, not
for something this important, not for something that affects their
lives and the lives of people they love. The American people have given
us all tremendous responsibilities.
Minnesotans worry that the floor could drop from under them at any
time and that no one will be there to catch them when it does. They
worry about their families. They worry about their friends and their
community. We owe it to them to be honest with them and with each
other, to be responsible, to be real. So let's get real.
As I mentioned in my story about Maya, the little girl with epilepsy,
thanks to the new law, she can get health care because insurance
companies now cannot discriminate against children with preexisting
conditions. In 2014, insurance companies will not be able to
discriminate against any American child or adult with a preexisting
condition. And in 2014, that is when the mandate kicks in.
Here is what one of my colleagues says about the provision in the law
that now allows little 3-year-old Maya to be treated for her epilepsy:

The health care law allows parents to wait until their
child is sick before buying a policy. When only sick people
buy health insurance, premiums have to go up. As the rate
increases, more people drop their coverage.

That is why we have the mandate. The mandate is crucial if you want
to do things such as getting rid of denials for preexisting conditions.
And, by the way, the mandate has been a Republican idea. The mandate
was a Republican idea in their 1993 health reform bill. Let me tell you
why. The health care law is like a three-legged stool. The first leg is
accessibility. Everyone needs to be able to buy insurance so that when
they get sick or hurt, they can access the care they need.
So we banned insurance companies from discriminating against people
with preexisting conditions. Banning discrimination against people with
preexisting conditions is something that both parties say they like. In
fact, in its Pledge to America, the document that Republicans ran on in
2010, in the health care section there is the heading ``Ensure Access
for Patients with Preexisting Conditions.''
It goes on to say that they will ban insurance companies from
discriminating against patients with preexisting conditions. That is
their pledge.
That makes sense. Over one-third of all Americans have a preexisting
condition. Actually, at the Minnesota State fair, a woman in her early
70s came up to me and said: You know, at my age, everything is
preexisting. She was enrolled in Medicare, but Maya was not. And Maya's
family should not have to choose between going without the care they
need and going into bankruptcy.
But as my colleague indicated, there is a risk that this provision
would incentivize people to buy health insurance only after they get
sick or hurt which would drive everyone's costs up. So because of this,
this second leg of the stool is personal responsibility. We have an
individual mandate to make sure that people don't wait until they get
sick to go get insurance and to create a pool of insured people that is
large enough to support all the folks who had previously been unable to
get insurance. If everyone has health insurance, everyone will be able
to access care when they need it.
By the way, the rest of us who have insurance will benefit because
today we are paying almost $1,000 a year per family in premiums to
cover the emergency room visits of people who don't have insurance.
But for some people, buying health insurance is too expensive. So the
third leg of the stool is affordability. We provide assistance to those
families who need to buy health coverage on a sliding scale, all the
way up to 400 percent of the Federal poverty level.
So that is our three-legged stool: accessibility, accountability, and
affordability. We don't discriminate against people with preexisting
conditions, and so we have a mandate so people don't wait until they
get sick or hurt to get insurance. Because you are mandated to get
health insurance, we make sure everyone can afford it. A three-legged
stool. If you take any leg out, the stool collapses.
When I have explained it this way to Minnesotans, I find they are no
longer confused about the law. They know how important it is to have
access to health insurance regardless of preexisting conditions, to
take responsibility for themselves and their families, and to have
health care they can afford. But some of my colleagues have been
advocating that we cut off a leg or even two legs of the stool. But a
two-legged stool collapses. And a one-legged stool? Maybe at best it is
a spinning plate.
The arguments for repealing this law remind me of an old Shalom
Aleichem story I heard from my dad when I was growing up. You don't
hear much about Shalom Aleichem on the Senate floor. I will tell you a
little bit about it.

[[Page S738]]

Shalom Aleichem was a beloved 20th century writer who wrote stories,
novels, and plays in Yiddish. The Broadway hit ``Fiddler on the Roof''
was based on his writings. In the story my dad told me, a man borrows a
plate from his neighbor. The man takes the plate home and drops it
accidentally and breaks it. He sneaks back into his neighbor's house
and replaces the broken plate. The neighbor comes home, finds the
broken plate, and goes over to the guy's house. He basically says: What
is the deal with the broken plate?
The guy says: Well, in the first place, I didn't borrow it. In the
second place, when I borrowed it, it was already broken. And in the
third place, when I returned it, it was in one piece.
That is what I am hearing from the opponents of this bill who want to
repeal it. In the first place, we are for banning discrimination
against people with preexisting conditions. In the second place, we are
against banning discrimination against people with preexisting
conditions because then no one would buy health insurance until they
get sick or hurt. That would drive up the cost of health insurance. And
in the third place, we want to repeal the law because it makes healthy
people buy health insurance or pay a fine in order to keep the cost of
health insurance down. This is what I hear every day from the opponents
of the health care bill.
Opponents of the bill, my colleagues on the other side, pledge that
they won't discriminate against people with preexisting conditions but
then they say they don't want to ban discrimination because they don't
want to encourage people to wait until they are sick to buy insurance.
But they don't want to mandate that people take personal responsibility
by buying health insurance. Then they stand up and say the American
people are, to quote a colleague, ``sick of spin.''
I would like my colleagues to stand and admit that they broke the
plate. We owe it to the people who elected us to this body to tell the
truth about the health reform law. We owe it to the millions of
Americans whose lives will be changed by the provisions in this law,
such as Isaac, such as Maya.
Already we have seen the positive changes that such reform can bring.
Look no further than the State of Massachusetts which, in 2006, passed
its own set of health reforms. Its reforms were similar to what the
Affordable Care Act is doing at the national level, including an
individual mandate, subsidies, and even an exchange. The result has
been a huge increase in the number of people with health insurance,
including an increase in the number of people who get insurance through
their jobs. Let me put that another way: Because of the State's health
care reform, more people have health insurance from their employer.
At the same time Massachusetts has seen a decrease in the rate at
which premiums are going up when compared to the rest of the country.
As the rest of the country saw insurance premiums go up by 6.1 percent
from 2007 to 2008, premiums in Massachusetts only went up by 5.0
percent. That is more than 20 percent less than the rest of the country
just a year after its health care reform was passed. That is not a
silver bullet, but it is certainly a step in the right direction for
small business owners and for families. More than 98 percent of
Massachusetts residents have health insurance, as compared to less than
84 percent nationally.
The effects of health reform in that State are pretty clear. More
people are insured. Premiums are not going up as quickly as around the
country. More people are getting their insurance through their
employer.
The health reform law is not a silver bullet but hopefully a series
of steps in the right direction. You have to question the claims of my
colleagues who say that health reform will cause the sky to fall,
because there is good evidence to believe they are crying wolf. Yes,
you heard me right, Chicken Little is crying wolf.
Ask the people of Massachusetts. In a recent poll, nearly 80 percent
of Massachusetts residents said they wanted to keep the health reform
law they passed in 2006; nearly 80 percent.
Here is another one. I have heard a colleague urging repeal of this
law say:

We need to allow small businesses to join together, to pool
together, in order to offer affordable health insurance to
their workers, get better deals with insurance costs.

He said this as if it weren't in the law. In fact, he has said these
exact words repeatedly here on the floor, each time creating the clear
implication that the health reform law does not allow small businesses
to pool together to get better deals on health insurance. But in fact
this is exactly why we passed a health reform law that includes health
insurance exchanges.
We owe it to the American people to tell the truth about this. The
truth is that health reform created State insurance exchanges so that
health care will be available to the 43 million workers employed by the
5.9 million small businesses around the country. The exchanges will
also make affordable health insurance available to 22 million self-
employed Americans. Within these exchanges, insurance companies will
compete and offer multiple plans so that everyone can choose a plan
that works best for their family. And in all cases, they will be
negotiated on behalf of the combined pools of all participating
businesses with fewer than 100 employees in the State. This will give
unprecedented negotiating power and competition that will directly
benefit workers at small businesses. And not just the workers but
especially the owners of those businesses who, by the way, are already
receiving tax credits to help them pay for their employees' insurance.
The fact is, the majority of Americans are supportive of what this
law is trying to do, and they don't want to go back to the broken
system we had before it passed. They know it is crucial that American
families have health care when they need it. They know this law will
give millions more American families access to this care while creating
jobs and saving money.

The truth is, the people have spoken on health care. Unfortunately,
some of my colleagues have not been listening.
When you are talking about legislation, it is easy to fall into the
trap of either promising the world or warning that it will cause the
sky to fall. Neither is right, and the reality is far more complex. The
truth is, the Affordable Care Act will change millions of lives but
will not fix a very broken health care system overnight. It was the
result of a lot of negotiation and compromise.
The truth is, the American people want us to move forward and
implement this law. They know some parts of it will work better than
other parts. They want us to change what does not work and build on
what does. They know provisions like the ban on discrimination against
children with preexisting conditions are already helping families
across this country, including Isaac, including Maya.
I challenge my colleagues to talk to families with children like
Isaac and Maya. Americans are experts on the health care needs of their
own families. I have talked to families all over Minnesota, and they
tell me they need accessible health care, they need affordable health
care, and they want to take personal responsibility to insure their
families. But the truth is, they need our help. They need us to make
sure the stool keeps standing.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and suggest the absence
of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Cloture Motion

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a cloture motion at the desk, and I
ask it be reported.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No. 5,
S. 223, FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety
Improvement Act:
Harry Reid, Jay D. Rockefeller IV, Kent Conrad, Bernard
Sanders, Benjamin L. Cardin, Sheldon Whitehouse,
Patrick J. Leahy, John F. Kerry, Amy Klobuchar, Jeff
Bingaman, Jack Reed, Tom Harkin, Carl Levin, Kirsten E.
Gillibrand,

[[Page S739]]

Christopher A. Coons, Claire McCaskill, Richard J.
Durbin.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory
quorums with respect to the cloture motions be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am told the managers of this bill have
some business they still need to transact on this matter tonight.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. 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. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendments Nos. 5, as Modified, and 55, En Bloc

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Blunt amendment No. 5 be modified with the changes that are at the
desk; further, that the Blunt amendment No. 5, as modified, and the
Reid amendment No. 55 be considered and agreed to en bloc and the
motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening
action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 5), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:
On page 311, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:

SEC. 733. APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR THE SECURITY SCREENING
OPT-OUT PROGRAM.

Section 44920(b) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
``(b) Approval of Applications.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after receiving
an application submitted under subsection (a), the Under
Secretary may approve the application.
``(2) Reconsideration of rejected applications.--Not later
than 30 days after the date of the enactment of the FAA Air
Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act, the
Under Secretary shall reconsider and approve any application
to have the screening of passengers and property at an
airport carried out by the screening personnel of a qualified
private screening company that was submitted under subsection
(a) and was pending on any day between January 1, 2011, and
February 3, 2011, if Under Secretary determines that the
application demonstrates that having the screening of
passengers and property carried out by such screening
personnel will provide security that is equal to or greater
than the level that would be provided by Federal Government
personnel.
``(3) Report.--If the Under Secretary denies an application
submitted under subsection (a), the Under Secretary shall
submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives a report that describes the reason for the
denial of the application.''.

The amendment (No. 55) was agreed to.

____________________