[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 16, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S768-S783]
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 
     modernization of the air traffic control system, reauthorize 
     the Federal Aviation Administration, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       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 modified amendment No. 7, to provide for an increase 
     in the number of slots available at Ronald Reagan Washington 
     National Airport.
       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.
       McCain amendment No. 4, to repeal the essential air service 
     program.
       Rockefeller (for Leahy) amendment No. 50, 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.
       Reid amendment No. 54, to allow airports that receive 
     airport improvement grants for the purchase of land to lease 
     the land and develop the land in a manner compatible with 
     noise buffering purposes.
       Udall (NM) modified amendment No. 49, to authorize Dona Ana 
     County, New Mexico, to exchange certain land conveyed to the 
     County for airport purposes.
       Udall (NM) modified amendment No. 51, to require that all 
     advanced imaging technology used as a primary screening 
     method for passengers be equipped with automatic target 
     recognition software.
       Paul amendment No. 18, to strike the provisions relating to 
     clarifying a memorandum of understanding between the Federal 
     Aviation Administration and the Occupational Safety and 
     Health Administration.
       Rockefeller (for Baucus) further modified amendment No. 75, 
     of a perfecting nature.
       Hutchison modified amendment No. 93 (to modified amendment 
     No. 7), to provide for an increase in the number of slots 
     available at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I wish to catch up the membership 
on the floor and off the floor a little bit about where we are. We are 
at midweek for a third week of consideration of the FAA reauthorization 
bill. Last night, Senator Reid filed cloture on this bill. In a perfect 
world we would have finished this bill already without filing cloture, 
but we need to finish and that is what cloture motions are for. I will 
support cloture, needless to say.
  Senator Hutchison also filed cloture on an amendment that will bring 
conclusion to a debate on slots at National Airport. I will talk about 
that issue in more detail later. But I am saying right now slots are 
very important but they do not need to consume all of the arguments and 
all of the discussion on the floor about this bill. They are a very 
small part of the bill--an important part of the bill, recognizing the 
West has to be served much better than it is being--but it is not the 
entire bill. It is a very small part of the bill.
  Last night we disposed of two pending amendments by voice vote. I 
believe we have made progress to resolve some of the pending 
amendments, but votes will be required on several of them and I expect 
we will have those votes today. Senator Hutchison and I are trying to 
clear a number of other filed amendments. There were at one point 100 
of them. I hope we can accept a number of them. I have heard from any 
number of my colleagues on their amendments and I am trying to be 
helpful in getting them adopted where they contribute to the bill.
  I know Senator Hutchison is committed to supporting the bill. We need 
to resolve the issue of slots. She has been working--we have all been 
working diligently and almost exclusively on that matter, and we will 
do this with a vote. We will resolve that issue.
  After that vote we will vote on cloture, which I believe will pass 
and I am extremely hopeful we will reach agreement to get this bill 
done this week. The farthest possible day and most unhappy thought 
would be if we had to go through the recess and do it on the day we 
came back. I think it is far better that we get it done this week. 
There is no excuse for not doing it.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, we now have, I think, a glidepath to 
passing this important legislation. We worked late into the night, 
Senator Rockefeller and I did, to try to accommodate needs, concerns, 
amendments of Members. Now we have the cloture motion in play and hope 
we can come to a real agreement on the Reagan Airport perimeter issue 
so we could even do it before cloture is invoked--but hopefully, if we 
are not

[[Page S769]]

able to come to a complete agreement, we would at least be able to get 
cloture and move on.
  I hope our Members know we are going to continue to work to address 
everyone's concerns. We have concerns of western Senators and concerns 
of Senators within the Washington, DC metropolitan area. We have small 
community concerns and we have eastern seaboard community concerns. We 
have been working for years, actually--but months and then weeks to 
address concerns. We are open to do that. But it is time to wind this 
bill up so we can go to conference with the House with a strong Senate 
position and do the big picture policy issues that need to be 
addressed.
  We must have the next generation of air traffic control started. We 
must have a satellite-based system that is for the whole world--for the 
people coming into our country and the people using our airspace. We 
need to have the safety and the consumer protections that are in this 
bill. We need to have a responsible way for people from all over our 
country to come into Reagan Washington National Airport while also 
protecting the people around the area from congestion.
  We have a lot of concerns. I think this is a good bill and it is 
getting better every day. I do think we can come up with the right mix 
that will put our aviation system in the forefront of the world because 
half of the air traffic of the world comes into and out of the United 
States. We certainly need to be the best and that is what this bill 
will put us on the glidepath to do.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                         supplemental carriers

  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, the supplemental carriers provide a 
valuable and unique service to our economy as well as our military's 
ability to move troops and materiel around the world in a safe and 
timely manner. Current flight and duty rules for carriers recognize 
differences in operations and provide the necessary flexibility for 
supplemental carriers, given the challenging worldwide environments 
they operate in such as Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Iraq, and other Middle 
East destinations.
  Supplemental carriers have a long track record of safe operations. In 
more than 15 years, the National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB, has 
not cited fatigue as a primary cause in any nonscheduled/supplemental 
airline accident while flying under supplemental rules, 14 CFR Part 
121, subpart S. There have been no fatalities attributed to any 
accident where fatigue was even remotely considered a contributing 
factor.
  In the months preceding FAA's notice of proposed rulemaking, the 
agency's lack of interest in the operations of nonscheduled carriers 
led many to believe their unique operating procedures and status as 
small business entities would be addressed in a separate rulemaking. 
FAA issued its notice of proposed rulemaking, NPRM, to the public on 
September 14, 2010, and it was clear supplemental carriers were, 
indeed, covered by the NPRM, but the impacts of this proposal on 
supplemental carriers were not taken into consideration. This oversight 
is unprecedented. The FAA collected data from scheduled carriers to 
analyze their operations but acknowledged in the Regulatory Impact 
Analysis that it collected no data from NACA's nonscheduled airlines. 
FAA has a legal obligation to examine the impacts of this proposed rule 
on all segments of industry, which they failed to do. In the coming 
weeks and months I hope you will join me in encouraging the FAA to 
consider supplemental carriers flying under subpart S separately in the 
rulemaking proceeding.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I appreciate my colleague's concerns about how 
supplemental carriers have been treated in the FAA's rulemaking process 
dealing with pilot flight and duty time. As you are aware, modernizing 
the pilot flight and duty regulations has been one of the highest 
priorities of the FAA as well as many in Congress. In fact, when H.R. 
5900 was signed into law last year by the President, Congress mandated 
the FAA complete the final rule overhauling these regulations by August 
1 of this year.
  I agree that all the regulated parties affected by this and other 
rulemakings should be treated fairly. I am willing to work with Senator 
Inhofe, Senator Murkowski, and other interested parties to ensure 
supplemental carriers receive fair and thorough consideration, and that 
their industry data be considered, before any new rules for those 
carriers are promulgated.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator for his gracious commitment to insure 
that these carriers are treated fairly and in accordance with well 
established precedent.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Let me catch up a bit on where we are. The Senate 
has been working on this national slots issue for close to 1 year or it 
may be 10 years. I don't know. It has been an awfully long time. But we 
have been unable to achieve a resolution so far on the matter. That is 
a problem.
  When we began consideration of the FAA reauthorization bill, Senator 
Hutchison and I decided we should focus on helping consumers. Everybody 
was talking about helping airliners. We were talking about people. 
Airliners fly around. People have to be able to do it. So we decided to 
focus on them.
  So we both believed the growth of Western States must be recognized. 
I come from an Eastern State, sort of. The Presiding Officer comes from 
an Eastern State, totally. But the growth is in the West. They are 
underserved. That cannot be debated. It is embarrassing how few flights 
there are back and forth between National and them. The National 
Capital is a fairly important place. People need to go there, either 
for tourism or for business or whatever, and we need more access to the 
National Capital to be provided to the citizens from there on a ``both-
way'' basis.
  So time is running short for the consideration of the FAA package. 
This bill is too important to the country to let it languish over this 
issue. It is virtually all we have talked about, and I regret that 
because it does not reflect the nature and the priorities of the bill.
  Unlike the national slot issue, the FAA bill has direct impacts on 
the whole Nation all the time. It will help our economy now. It will 
help our economy in the future with immediate job support and long-term 
impact on our role in the global marketplace.
  To move forward on the bill, Senator Hutchison offered a slots 
amendment, a national slots amendment, that I feel offers a fair and 
reasonable solution on this issue. Over the past 2\1/2\ weeks, she and 
I have worked closely with other Members and their staffs in an effort 
to achieve a compromise on this issue.
  Many of their needs and ideas have been incorporated into her 
amendment. It still may not be perfect, but it represents an attempt to 
fairly balance the competing needs of Members and their constituents 
inside and outside the perimeter. It is fascinating when people have it 
in their minds that something has to happen. They have to have so many 
flights or flights have to go to this city or that city or whatever. 
Then people sort of get attached to airlines. They feel they have to 
represent an airline.
  I sort of thought we were here to represent the people of the States 
from which we come but, more importantly, in some sense, the entire 
country, particularly on an issue such as this.
  Her amendment will permit some additional beyond-perimeter flights 
shortly after enactment of the bill. Then this very interesting part 
about the Department of Transportation, we have introduced that into 
the bill. It is a very good part of the bill. The Department of 
Transportation, which is neutral, which is professional, which is fully 
engaged in all of this, is required to study the effect of those 
flights over the next year.
  Some people will say that is kind of a dodge. It is not kind of a 
dodge. Because slots are so controversial, it takes the Department of 
Transportation and their analysis to guide us about whether there is an 
overload at National, whether there is an underload. My own view is 
there is an underload at National, lots of slots available. But that is 
not the prevailing view on the part of some. They

[[Page S770]]

feel we cannot have a single additional flight.
  So DOT can study that. If they find there is no negative impact, a 
limited number can be added at the appropriate time or not, depending 
on what we want to do.
  Specifically, the amendment provides network carriers an opportunity 
to swap existing flights they conduct within the perimeter and use them 
for flights to Western States beyond the perimeter. Seven round-trip 
flights could be converted under this provision.
  Under this construct a carrier could use flights to large hub 
airports within the perimeter where significant service already is 
provided. This protects States and small communities within the 
perimeter and limits the number of new flights at the airport as 
requested by local officials.
  The amendment also provides five new flight exemptions that would 
only be distributed to new entrant or limited incumbent carriers. To 
provide maximum flexibility for the carriers, these could be used for 
new flights within or beyond the perimeter. All of this is kind of 
opaque, like a puzzle, but it does happen to work.
  We have had approximately 100 amendments filed to the FAA 
reauthorization bill. Much of the talk is focused on slots at National 
Airport. There are lots of airports, but National Airport has received 
the bulk of the amendments. I don't resent that or regret it. I just 
wish we could get to the rest of the bill, which I think is probably 
going to be entirely acceptable to people because it is a very 
reasonable approach.
  Only three other amendments have been filed that directly address the 
issue of west coast access to National. The Ensign amendment would 
allow carriers to have unlimited conversions or swaps beyond the 
perimeter. I believe this proposal goes too far and could have a 
significant negative impact locally and for small communities serviced 
within the perimeter. I do think Senators Ensign and Kyl, with whom I 
have worked on this issue over the past year, can appreciate this 
position and will receive opportunities for their constituents through 
passage of our amendment.
  The Merkley and Wyden and Cantwell-Murray-Merkley-Begich amendments 
are the only other two amendments that have been filed with a focus on 
the issue of beyond-perimeter flights at National. They would both 
allow for new flight exemptions at the airport that would favor 
distribution to limited incumbents or new entrants. The Merkley 
amendment would provide eight new round-trips for beyond-perimeter 
service. The Wyden amendment would add 12 new round-trips beyond the 
perimeter and 4 new round-trips within the perimeter for a total of 16 
new flights. While the Hutchison amendment may not provide the same 
level of opportunity for services to their States that they desire, her 
amendment does provide ample room for their constituencies to obtain 
new service with 5 exemptions rather than 12 beyond perimeter.
  I believe we must strike an appropriate balance. We have no choice. 
We can't make everybody happy. Senator Hutchison's and my approach has 
been to go down the middle. People who don't want anything more and 
people who want a lot more, kind of edge them together and go right 
down the middle. That is all we can do in a bill of this sort where 
emotions run very high.
  I do believe we must strike an appropriate balance between new 
service from incumbent carriers and service from limited or new-entrant 
carriers if we are going to give consumers the greatest options on 
choice and competition. Consumers are really what this is about. 
Airlines are obviously important. They are going to fly where the 
business is. That makes all of us--the Presiding Officer, for part of 
her State which is not in the New York area--very sensitive to rural 
situations. West Virginia is entirely rural. It has no city larger than 
slightly over 50,000 people, that being the State capital. Flights in 
and out of that State are very important to me. Most of them are done 
by propeller. Most of them are not particularly comfortable. But they 
do get one to where one wants to go. Now we have switched to Dulles so 
we can feed out from Dulles to anywhere in the world. Taking care of 
rural areas is incredibly important to us.
  Again, the DOT study included in the amendment will also provide 
valuable insight into the impact of additional flights at National 
Airport on this or any other aspect of it. Under the amendment, if DOT 
finds that more access is appropriate, it can permit up to four 
additional flights at National. These would be provided to incumbent 
carriers to swap service from large hubs within the perimeter, 
resulting in no new air traffic at the airport. Senator Hutchison and I 
would like to emphasize those words, ``no new flights.'' They have room 
for flights. A GAO study showed that, really quite a lot of flights. 
But the prevailing wish is not to have noise and disruption.
  The fact is, the planes are getting quieter, and they will get much 
more quieter as they are entered into all markets.
  In total, as few as 12 or as many as 16 additional beyond-perimeter 
flights could result from the amendment over a 2-year period. If the 
DOT determines the initial 12 flights have had a direct negative impact 
on the DC market--I emphasize, we are putting DOT right on the case so 
they can watch it closely; whatever people might think, they are 
neutral and professional and they do this for a living--it will limit 
the likelihood of adding additional flights in future FAA 
reauthorizations. That makes sense. Let them be the arbiters of that 
rather than us battling it out here.
  This type of review is long overdue and will provide far greater 
understanding of local needs by any carrier seeking access at National. 
If DOT finds there is enough room for up to 16 flights, the amendment 
would seek to balance them among various stakeholders. Eleven of these 
flights would be swaps or conversions of service to incumbent carriers 
already providing this, resulting, again, in no new traffic at that 
particular airport--there are other airports in the country; I have to 
keep telling myself that, but it is hard to recognize that looking at 
the debate so far--and minimizing the impacts of flights on a local 
basis generally.
  Five of the flights would be dedicated to new entrants or limited 
incumbents to receive new exemptions. These could be used for service 
within or beyond the perimeter so all communities in the country would 
have an opportunity to obtain a flight.
  In closing, I recognize every amendment addressing slots at National 
will be considered flawed in some corners. That is in the nature of our 
world. However, I do think it is important that we have votes on these 
amendments to determine a Senate position on this issue.
  I believe the Hutchison amendment is a very reasonable offer. I hope 
it will obtain the support of the majority of the Senate.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). 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.


                 Amendment No. 75, as Further Modified

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senate resume consideration of the Baucus amendment No. 75, as further 
modified--this is the amendment for the finance title of the bill we 
are on which was reported out by the Finance Committee last week--
further, that the amendment, as further modified, be agreed to; and the 
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action 
or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 75), as further modified, was agreed to, as 
follows:

       Strike title VIII and insert the following:

 TITLE VIII--AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND PROVISIONS AND RELATED TAXES

     SEC. 800. AMENDMENT OF 1986 CODE.

       Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this 
     title an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an 
     amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the 
     reference shall be considered to be made to a section or 
     other provision of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

[[Page S771]]

     SEC. 801. EXTENSION OF TAXES FUNDING AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST 
                   FUND.

       (a) Fuel Taxes.--Subparagraph (B) of section 4081(d)(2) is 
     amended by striking ``March 31, 2011'' and inserting 
     ``September 30, 2013''.
       (b) Ticket Taxes.--
       (1) Persons.--Clause (ii) of section 4261(j)(1)(A) is 
     amended by striking ``March 31, 2011'' and inserting 
     ``September 30, 2013''.
       (2) Property.--Clause (ii) of section 4271(d)(1)(A) is 
     amended by striking ``March 31, 2011'' and inserting 
     ``September 30, 2013''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on April 1, 2011.

     SEC. 802. EXTENSION OF AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND 
                   EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 9502(d) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``April 1, 2011'' in the matter preceding 
     subparagraph (A) and inserting ``October 1, 2013'', and
       (2) by striking the semicolon at the end of subparagraph 
     (A) and inserting ``or the FAA Air Transportation 
     Modernization and Safety Improvement Act;''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (2) of section 9502(e) 
     is amended by striking ``April 1, 2011'' and inserting 
     ``October 1, 2013''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on April 1, 2011.

     SEC. 803. MODIFICATION OF EXCISE TAX ON KEROSENE USED IN 
                   AVIATION.

       (a) Rate of Tax on Aviation-grade Kerosene.--
       (1) In general.--Subparagraph (A) of section 4081(a)(2) is 
     amended by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (ii), by 
     striking the period at the end of clause (iii) and inserting 
     ``, and'', and by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(iv) in the case of aviation-grade kerosene, 35.9 cents 
     per gallon.''.
       (2) Fuel removed directly into fuel tank of airplane used 
     in noncommercial aviation.--Subparagraph (C) of section 
     4081(a)(2) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(C) Taxes imposed on fuel used in commercial aviation.--
     In the case of aviation-grade kerosene which is removed from 
     any refinery or terminal directly into the fuel tank of an 
     aircraft for use in commercial aviation by a person 
     registered for such use under section 4101, the rate of tax 
     under subparagraph (A)(iv) shall be 4.3 cents per gallon.''.
       (3) Exemption for aviation-grade kerosene removed into an 
     aircraft.--Subsection (e) of section 4082 is amended--
       (A) by striking ``kerosene'' and inserting ``aviation-grade 
     kerosene'',
       (B) by striking ``section 4081(a)(2)(A)(iii)'' and 
     inserting ``section 4081(a)(2)(A)(iv)'', and
       (C) by striking ``Kerosene'' in the heading and inserting 
     ``Aviation-Grade Kerosene''.
       (4) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Clause (iii) of section 4081(a)(2)(A) is amended by 
     inserting ``other than aviation-grade kerosene'' after 
     ``kerosene''.
       (B) The following provisions are each amended by striking 
     ``kerosene'' and inserting ``aviation-grade kerosene'':
       (i) Section 4081(a)(3)(A)(ii).
       (ii) Section 4081(a)(3)(A)(iv).
       (iii) Section 4081(a)(3)(D).
       (C) Subparagraph (D) of section 4081(a)(3) is amended--
       (i) by striking ``paragraph (2)(C)(i)'' in clause (i) and 
     inserting ``paragraph (2)(C)'', and
       (ii) by striking ``paragraph (2)(C)(ii)'' in clause (ii) 
     and inserting ``paragraph (2)(A)(iv)''.
       (D) Paragraph (4) of section 4081(a) is amended--
       (i) by striking ``kerosene'' in the heading and inserting 
     ``aviation-grade kerosene'', and
       (ii) by striking ``paragraph (2)(C)(i)'' and inserting 
     ``paragraph (2)(C)''.
       (E) Paragraph (2) of section 4081(d) is amended by striking 
     ``(a)(2)(C)(ii)'' and inserting ``(a)(2)(A)(iv)''.
       (b) Retail Tax on Aviation Fuel.--
       (1) Exemption for previously taxed fuel.--Paragraph (2) of 
     section 4041(c) is amended by inserting ``at the rate 
     specified in subsection (a)(2)(A)(iv) thereof'' after 
     ``section 4081''.
       (2) Rate of tax.--Paragraph (3) of section 4041(c) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) Rate of tax.--The rate of tax imposed by this 
     subsection shall be the rate of tax in effect under section 
     4081(a)(2)(A)(iv) (4.3 cents per gallon with respect to any 
     sale or use for commercial aviation).''.
       (c) Refunds Relating to Aviation-grade Kerosene.--
       (1) Aviation-grade kerosene used in commercial aviation.--
     Clause (ii) of section 6427(l)(4)(A) is amended by striking 
     ``specified in section 4041(c) or 4081(a)(2)(A)(iii), as the 
     case may be,'' and inserting ``so imposed''.
       (2) Kerosene used in aviation.--Paragraph (4) of section 
     6427(l) is amended by striking subparagraphs (B) and (C) and 
     inserting the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) Payments to ultimate, registered vendor.--With 
     respect to any kerosene used in aviation (other than kerosene 
     to which paragraph (6) applies), if the ultimate purchaser of 
     such kerosene waives (at such time and in such form and 
     manner as the Secretary shall prescribe) the right to payment 
     under paragraph (1) and assigns such right to the ultimate 
     vendor, then the Secretary shall pay (without interest) the 
     amount which would be paid under paragraph (1) to such 
     ultimate vendor, but only if such ultimate vendor--
       ``(i) is registered under section 4101, and
       ``(ii) meets the requirements of subparagraph (A), (B), or 
     (D) of section 6416(a)(1).''.
       (3) Aviation-grade kerosene not used in aviation.--
     Subsection (l) of section 6427 is amended by redesignating 
     paragraph (5) as paragraph (6) and by inserting after 
     paragraph (4) the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Refunds for aviation-grade kerosene not used in 
     aviation.--If tax has been imposed under section 4081 at the 
     rate specified in section 4081(a)(2)(A)(iv) and the fuel is 
     used other than in an aircraft, the Secretary shall pay 
     (without interest) to the ultimate purchaser of such fuel an 
     amount equal to the amount of tax imposed on such fuel 
     reduced by the amount of tax that would be imposed under 
     section 4041 if no tax under section 4081 had been 
     imposed.''.
       (4) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Subparagraph (B) of section 4082(d)(2) is amended by 
     striking ``6427(l)(5)(B)'' and inserting ``6427(l)(6)(B)''.
       (B) Paragraph (4) of section 6427(i) is amended--
       (i) by striking ``(4)(C) or (5)'' and inserting ``(4)(B) or 
     (6)'', and
       (ii) by striking ``, (l)(4)(C)(ii), and (l)(5)'' and 
     inserting ``and (l)(6)''.
       (C) Subsection (l) of section 6427 is amended by striking 
     ``Diesel Fuel and Kerosene'' in the heading and inserting 
     ``Diesel Fuel, Kerosene, and Aviation Fuel''.
       (D) Paragraph (1) of section 6427(l) is amended by striking 
     ``paragraph (4)(C)(i)'' and inserting ``paragraph (4)(B)''.
       (E) Paragraph (4) of section 6427(l) is amended--
       (i) by striking ``kerosene used in aviation'' in the 
     heading and inserting ``aviation-grade kerosene used in 
     commercial aviation'', and
       (ii) in subparagraph (A)--

       (I) by striking ``kerosene'' and inserting ``aviation-grade 
     kerosene'',
       (II) by striking ``Kerosene used in commercial aviation'' 
     in the heading and inserting ``In general''.

       (d) Transfers to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund.--
       (1) In general.--Subparagraph (C) of section 9502(b)(1) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(C) section 4081 with respect to aviation gasoline and 
     aviation-grade kerosene, and''.
       (2) Transfers on account of certain refunds.--
       (A) In general.--Subsection (d) of section 9502 is 
     amended--
       (i) by striking ``(other than subsection (l)(4) thereof)'' 
     in paragraph (2), and
       (ii) by striking ``(other than payments made by reason of 
     paragraph (4) of section 6427(l))'' in paragraph (3).
       (B) Conforming amendments.--
       (i) Paragraph (4) of section 9503(b) is amended by striking 
     ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (C), by striking the period 
     at the end of subparagraph (D) and inserting a comma, and by 
     inserting after subparagraph (D) the following new 
     subparagraphs:
       ``(E) section 4081 to the extent attributable to the rate 
     specified in clause (ii) or (iv) of section 4081(a)(2)(A), or
       ``(F) section 4041(c).''.
       (ii) Subsection (c) of section 9503 is amended by striking 
     paragraph (5).
       (iii) Subsection (a) of section 9502 is amended--

       (I) by striking ``appropriated, credited, or paid into'' 
     and inserting ``appropriated or credited to'', and
       (II) by striking ``, section 9503(c)(5),''.

       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to fuels removed, entered, or sold after March 
     31, 2011.
       (f) Floor Stocks Tax.--
       (1) Imposition of tax.--In the case of aviation-grade 
     kerosene fuel which is held on April 1, 2011, by any person, 
     there is hereby imposed a floor stocks tax on aviation-grade 
     kerosene equal to--
       (A) the tax which would have been imposed before such date 
     on such kerosene had the amendments made by this section been 
     in effect at all times before such date, reduced by
       (B) the tax imposed before such date on such kerosene under 
     section 4081 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as in 
     effect on such date.
       (2) Liability for tax and method of payment.--
       (A) Liability for tax.--A person holding aviation-grade 
     kerosene on April 1, 2011, shall be liable for such tax.
       (B) Time and method of payment.--The tax imposed by 
     paragraph (1) shall be paid at such time and in such manner 
     as the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe.
       (3) Transfer of floor stock tax revenues to trust funds.--
     For purposes of determining the amount transferred to the 
     Airport and Airway Trust Fund, the tax imposed by this 
     subsection shall be treated as imposed by section 
     4081(a)(2)(A)(iv) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       (4) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
       (A) Aviation-grade kerosene.--The term ``aviation-grade 
     kerosene'' means aviation-grade kerosene as such term is used 
     within the meaning of section 4081 of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986.
       (B) Held by a person.--Aviation-grade kerosene shall be 
     considered as held by a person if title thereto has passed to 
     such person (whether or not delivery to the person has been 
     made).
       (C) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Treasury or the Secretary's delegate.

[[Page S772]]

       (5) Exception for exempt uses.--The tax imposed by 
     paragraph (1) shall not apply to any aviation-grade kerosene 
     held by any person exclusively for any use to the extent a 
     credit or refund of the tax is allowable under the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 for such use.
       (6) Exception for certain amounts of aviation-grade 
     kerosene.--
       (A) In general.--No tax shall be imposed by paragraph (1) 
     on any aviation-grade kerosene held on April 1, 2011, by any 
     person if the aggregate amount of such aviation-grade 
     kerosene held by such person on such date does not exceed 
     2,000 gallons. The preceding sentence shall apply only if 
     such person submits to the Secretary (at the time and in the 
     manner required by the Secretary) such information as the 
     Secretary shall require for purposes of this subparagraph.
       (B) Exempt aviation-grade kerosene.--For purposes of 
     subparagraph (A), there shall not be taken into account any 
     aviation-grade kerosene held by any person which is exempt 
     from the tax imposed by paragraph (1) by reason of paragraph 
     (5).
       (C) Controlled groups.--For purposes of this subsection--
       (i) Corporations.--

       (I) In general.--All persons treated as a controlled group 
     shall be treated as 1 person.
       (II) Controlled group.--The term ``controlled group'' has 
     the meaning given to such term by subsection (a) of section 
     1563 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; except that for 
     such purposes the phrase ``more than 50 percent'' shall be 
     substituted for the phrase ``at least 80 percent'' each place 
     it appears in such subsection.

       (ii) Nonincorporated persons under common control.--Under 
     regulations prescribed by the Secretary, principles similar 
     to the principles of subparagraph (A) shall apply to a group 
     of persons under common control if 1 or more of such persons 
     is not a corporation.
       (7) Other laws applicable.--All provisions of law, 
     including penalties, applicable with respect to the taxes 
     imposed by section 4081 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     on the aviation-grade kerosene involved shall, insofar as 
     applicable and not inconsistent with the provisions of this 
     subsection, apply with respect to the floor stock taxes 
     imposed by paragraph (1) to the same extent as if such taxes 
     were imposed by such section.

     SEC. 804. AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM MODERNIZATION ACCOUNT.

       (a) In General.--Section 9502 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Establishment of Air Traffic Control System 
     Modernization Account.--
       ``(1) Creation of account.--There is established in the 
     Airport and Airway Trust Fund a separate account to be known 
     as the `Air Traffic Control System Modernization Account' 
     consisting of such amounts as may be transferred or credited 
     to the Air Traffic Control System Modernization Account as 
     provided in this subsection or section 9602(b).
       ``(2) Transfers to air traffic control system modernization 
     account.--On October 1, 2011, and annually thereafter the 
     Secretary shall transfer $400,000,000 to the Air Traffic 
     Control System Modernization Account from amounts 
     appropriated to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund under 
     subsection (b) which are attributable to taxes on aviation-
     grade kerosene.
       ``(3) Expenditures from account.--Amounts in the Air 
     Traffic Control System Modernization Account shall be 
     available subject to appropriation for expenditures relating 
     to the modernization of the air traffic control system 
     (including facility and equipment account expenditures).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (1) of section 9502(d) 
     is amended by striking ``Amounts'' and inserting ``Except as 
     provided in subsection (f), amounts''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 805. TREATMENT OF FRACTIONAL AIRCRAFT OWNERSHIP 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) Fuel Surtax.--
       (1) In general.--Subchapter B of chapter 31 is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 4043. SURTAX ON FUEL USED IN AIRCRAFT PART OF A 
                   FRACTIONAL OWNERSHIP PROGRAM.

       ``(a) In General.--There is hereby imposed a tax on any 
     liquid used during any calendar quarter by any person as a 
     fuel in an aircraft which is--
       ``(1) registered in the United States, and
       ``(2) part of a fractional ownership aircraft program.
       ``(b) Amount of Tax.--The rate of tax imposed by subsection 
     (a) is 14.1 cents per gallon.
       ``(c) Fractional Ownership Aircraft Program.--For purposes 
     of this section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `fractional ownership aircraft 
     program' means a program under which--
       ``(A) a single fractional ownership program manager 
     provides fractional ownership program management services on 
     behalf of the fractional owners,
       ``(B) 2 or more airworthy aircraft are part of the program,
       ``(C) there are 1 or more fractional owners per program 
     aircraft, with at least 1 program aircraft having more than 1 
     owner,
       ``(D) each fractional owner possesses at least a minimum 
     fractional ownership interest in 1 or more program aircraft,
       ``(E) there exists a dry-lease aircraft exchange 
     arrangement among all of the fractional owners, and
       ``(F) there are multi-year program agreements covering the 
     fractional ownership, fractional ownership program management 
     services, and dry-lease aircraft exchange aspects of the 
     program.
       ``(2) Minimum fractional ownership interest.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `minimum fractional ownership 
     interest' means, with respect to each type of aircraft--
       ``(i) a fractional ownership interest equal to or greater 
     than \1/16\ of at least 1 subsonic, fixed wing or powered 
     lift program aircraft, or
       ``(ii) a fractional ownership interest equal to or greater 
     than \1/32\ of a least 1 rotorcraft program aircraft.
       ``(B) Fractional ownership interest.--The term `fractional 
     ownership interest' means--
       ``(i) the ownership of an interest in a program aircraft,
       ``(ii) the holding of a multi-year leasehold interest in a 
     program aircraft, or
       ``(iii) the holding of a multi-year leasehold interest 
     which is convertible into an ownership interest in a program 
     aircraft.
       ``(3) Dry-lease aircraft exchange.--The term `dry-lease 
     aircraft exchange' means an agreement, documented by the 
     written program agreements, under which the program aircraft 
     are available, on an as needed basis without crew, to each 
     fractional owner.
       ``(d) Termination.--This section shall not apply to liquids 
     used as a fuel in an aircraft after September 30, 2013.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Subsection (e) of section 4082 
     is amended by inserting ``(other than an aircraft described 
     in section 4043(a))'' after ``an aircraft''.
       (3) Transfer of revenues to airport and airway trust 
     fund.--Subsection (1) of section 9502(b) is amended by 
     redesignating subparagraphs (B) and (C) as subparagraphs (C) 
     and (D), respectively, and by inserting after subparagraph 
     (A) the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) section 4043 (relating to surtax on fuel used in 
     aircraft part of a fractional ownership program),''.
       (4) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for 
     subchapter B of chapter 31 is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new item:

``Sec. 4043. Surtax on fuel used in aircraft part of a fractional 
              ownership program.''.

       (b) Fractional Ownership Programs Treated as Non-commercial 
     Aviation.--Subsection (b) of section 4083 is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new sentence: ``For uses of 
     aircraft before October 1, 2013, such term shall not include 
     the use of any aircraft which is part of a fractional 
     ownership aircraft program (as defined by section 
     4043(c)).''.
       (c) Exemption From Tax on Transportation of Persons.--
     Section 4261, as amended by this Act, is amended by 
     redesignating subsection (j) as subsection (k) and by 
     inserting after subsection (i) the following new subsection:
       ``(j) Exemption for Aircraft in Fractional Ownership 
     Aircraft Programs.--No tax shall be imposed by this section 
     or section 4271 on any air transportation provided before 
     October 1, 2013, by an aircraft which is part of a fractional 
     ownership aircraft program (as defined by section 
     4043(c)).''.
       (d) Effective Dates.--
       (1) Subsection (a).--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to fuel used after March 31, 2011.
       (2) Subsection (b).--The amendment made by subsection (b) 
     shall apply to uses of aircraft after March 31, 2011.
       (3) Subsection (c).--The amendments made by subsection (c) 
     shall apply to taxable transportation provided after March 
     31, 2011.

     SEC. 806. TERMINATION OF EXEMPTION FOR SMALL JET AIRCRAFT ON 
                   NONESTABLISHED LINES.

       (a) In General.--the first sentence of section 4281 is 
     amended by inserting ``or when such aircraft is a turbine 
     engine powered aircraft'' after ``an established line''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable transportation provided after March 
     31, 2011.

     SEC. 807. TRANSPARENCY IN PASSENGER TAX DISCLOSURES.

       (a) In General.--Section 7275 (relating to penalty for 
     offenses relating to certain airline tickets and advertising) 
     is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d),
       (2) by striking ``subsection (a) or (b)'' in subsection 
     (d), as so redesignated, and inserting ``subsection (a), (b), 
     or (c)'', and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Non-tax Charges.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of transportation by air for 
     which disclosure on the ticket or advertising for such 
     transportation of the amounts paid for passenger taxes is 
     required by subsection (a)(2) or (b)(1)(B), if such amounts 
     are separately disclosed, it shall be unlawful for the 
     disclosure of such amounts to include any amounts not 
     attributable to such taxes.
       ``(2) Inclusion in transportation cost.--Nothing in this 
     subsection shall prohibit the inclusion of amounts not 
     attributable to the taxes imposed by subsection (a), (b), or 
     (c) of section 4261 in the disclosure of the amount paid for 
     transportation as required by subsection (a)(1) or (b)(1)(A), 
     or in a separate disclosure of amounts not attributable to 
     such taxes.''.

[[Page S773]]

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable transportation provided after March 
     31, 2011.

     SEC. 808. TAX-EXEMPT BOND FINANCING FOR FIXED-WING EMERGENCY 
                   MEDICAL AIRCRAFT.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (e) of section 147 is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``The 
     preceding sentence shall not apply to any fixed-wing aircraft 
     equipped for, and exclusively dedicated to providing, acute 
     care emergency medical services (within the meaning of 
     4261(g)(2)).''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to obligations issued after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 809. PROTECTION OF AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND 
                   SOLVENCY.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 9502(d) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: 
     ``Unless otherwise provided by this section, for purposes of 
     this paragraph for fiscal year 2012 or 2013, the amount 
     available for making expenditures for such fiscal year shall 
     not exceed 90 percent of the receipts of the Airport and 
     Airway Trust Fund plus interest credited to such Trust Fund 
     for such fiscal year as estimated by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to fiscal years beginning after September 30, 
     2011.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak about 
comments I have heard from both the chairman and the ranking member 
this morning about the FAA bill.
  First of all, I wish to thank them for their hard work and diligence 
on this legislation. This hasn't just come now, this year; this is 
something the chairman and ranking member have been working on for 
several years.
  I had a chance yesterday to talk about the NextGen system and how 
many jobs are going to be created from high-wage technology that is 
going to be used to modernize our transportation system. It is going to 
deliver flights that are probably 20 percent more on time, it will save 
us probably 5 or 6 percent on fuel, it is going to lower 
CO2, and it is going to improve the experience for 
passengers. So I am all for the FAA underlying bill and I applaud my 
colleagues for their hard work in trying to make this legislation a 
reality and doing so this week.
  I have concerns about the proposed Hutchison amendment. I know the 
Senator from Texas indicated she is still talking with people and 
working with people in an effort to make everyone happy. In this place 
I don't think we make everyone happy, but I thank the Senator for her 
willingness to at least on the floor say she is trying to make everyone 
happy, and I think she is probably sincere in her efforts.
  I have been involved with this issue now for probably 3 or 4 years--
not just the FAA bill but the slots issue and air transportation--and 
my former colleague, Senator Gordon Smith from Oregon, and I were 
involved with this issue and several years before that with numerous 
other members of the Commerce Committee. It is probably one of the 
thornier issues the Congress has to deal with, primarily because the 
issue is one that is fused both by issues of economic development 
around airports, as well as transportation interests of the flying 
public, and probably a little bit of a dose of what Members' own 
personal experiences and interests are.
  For me, getting access to the West, to the Nation's capital, is an 
important issue. It is not the primary way I come to work every week. I 
actually fly in and out of the other airport in the region and do so--I 
don't know if I would say happily because, frankly, I think Dulles 
Airport--although I don't know what they have done lately, but they got 
rid of their mobile lounges and now have invested in some transport 
system where you probably walk as far on that system as you do on the 
previous system. There are people smiling on the floor. I think they 
have already been through it. I think they are saying, Yes, I have done 
that drill, and what is up at Dulles?
  Putting that aside, that is the way I fly 80 percent of the time back 
and forth to the Nation's capital. I am pleased to have that flight 
schedule that accommodates me and actually accommodates many 
Washingtonians, because I think there are plenty of my Washingtonians 
who are coming back to the region to do business on a variety of issues 
in that corridor and see that as an access point as well.
  The issue, though, is about whether the West has enough access to 
National Airport. In the past two debates we have had on this issue in 
2000 and 2003, the Congress decided the West did not have enough access 
to National Airport. In both of those instances this body passed 
legislation opening more slots to the West through a process whereby 
the Department of Transportation basically decided what were the best 
areas of the West to service, which were the best networks to possibly 
service those areas, and how to get that traffic from one destination 
to the Nation's capital. In both instances, in 2000 and in 2003, when 
that very broad directive was given to the Department of 
Transportation, each time six new flight paths were opened to the 
Nation's capital, and I think that process worked very well. It worked 
very well because the debate was not here on the Senate floor about 
whose service was going to be delivered, but it was given to the 
Department of Transportation, the broad outline. In each instance, 
increasing access from the West to the Nation's capital is about having 
the flying public gain access to the Nation's capital and it is also 
about economic interests. That is why I still have concerns about this 
proposal on the table and about the fair access it may not provide to 
many people in the West.
  In this particular proposal, unlike the two previous access issues in 
2000 and 2003, in each point six new slots were given and the 
Department of Transportation had a fair and open process about it.
  This particular proposal focuses on the airlines that already service 
the Nation's Capital, and in this case over 60 percent of the Nation's 
Capital slots are controlled by two specific airlines. This proposal 
would open those carriers's ability to trade out slots they already 
have with other cities, thereby giving them access to the West. In 
fact, the proposal of my colleague from Texas, even on those new slots, 
new incumbent carriers they are saying can give access to the West are 
carriers that are currently operating even inside the perimeter today. 
If you think this proposal is about helping access the West, it is 
primarily about accessing the West by people who already control the 
real estate at National Airport, which are two carriers.
  I noticed the Department of Justice looked at this larger issue. That 
is because many of my colleagues who do not want to spend a lot of time 
on this--I guess I am glad I am educated on it, but I wish I had time 
to work on other things. The issue is, the national interest or policy 
question comes into play when you have access to what are limited 
footprint destinations, such as National Airport, such as La Guardia. 
Those are times when the U.S. Government has said we want to make sure 
there is a fair process about this because there is a small footprint 
and, obviously, if somebody controls too much of that footprint, it is 
an issue.
  In the most recent debate, Delta and US Airways have been trying to 
do a swap exchange between La Guardia and DCA, and the Department of 
Justice says: Not such a good idea. You already own too much of the 
market share. If you want to do this, why don't you divest some of the 
slots you have now. Instead of doing that, the airlines are going to go 
down a path of continuing to accumulate and dominate in the East.
  I hope my colleagues will take into consideration that I know the 
chairman and ranking member are trying to work in good faith, both on 
this issue and to move the bill forward. For this Member who wants to 
see a healthy transportation network, I am very concerned about the 
existing incumbents at National Airport continuing to dominate, with 60 
percent of the market, and perhaps cancelling a lot of flights that 
they currently have now within this region only to benefit from the 
more lucrative long-haul flights across the country.
  I am for a fair process. I think everybody should be able to bid on 
any new flights that are going to be put on the table. The two 
processes Congress followed in 2000 and 2003 were closer to what I 
believe, personally, is a more fair and open process.
  I hope we can continue working and dialoging on these issues. I do 
think they are important. They are probably more important for the long 
run of what a transportation network system

[[Page S774]]

looks like in this country, to be sure the consumer interests are taken 
care of and that there is a fair and competitive price.
  I know some of the people who have been involved in this debate--
probably not on the floor but out in the public--are talking about the 
amount of money airlines have invested in these airports, as if somehow 
that means they own the airports. The facts will show, in both these 
cases, the majority of money poured into the infrastructure at both 
these facilities is basically taxpayer dollars through bonding 
authority. It is not as if some airline owns the rights, owns the 
ability to control 50 or 60 percent of one of these airports just 
because they have paid for airport improvements. We all have been 
paying for airport improvements. As I said, I, personally, think the 
airport improvements made at Dulles are not so much of an improvement. 
I am going to continue with that and continue to fly through that 
particular airport.
  I hope my colleagues will keep discussing this issue, and I hope we 
can get somewhere on it. My concern is that a proposal with conversion 
in it will mean many of my colleagues on the Senate floor will have 
their flights canceled to their favorite locations, and basically they 
will start servicing long-haul across the country with a very big share 
of the existing national market.
  I hope we can do something that will instigate more competition, more 
diversity, and something that will help get this legislation passed.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            A Second Opinion

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor today 
because, on Monday, President Obama introduced his new budget. What we 
saw in that budget is, for the most part, more of the same--more 
spending, more taxes, more borrowing. We see this budget from a 
President who doesn't seem to understand the gravity of the Nation's 
fiscal crisis.
  When we start digging down into the budget the President proposed and 
look into the Internal Revenue Service component of that budget, what 
we see is the Internal Revenue Service is starting to focus in and 
audit ObamaCare. There is a glaring difference in the budget this year 
from previous years because of the President's new health spending law. 
The IRS now has unprecedented power over health care in America.
  In fact, when we take a look at this budget, and specifically the 
Internal Revenue Service's fiscal year 2012 budget request, over 250 
times the Affordable Care Act--known in the budget as the ACA but known 
by people all across the country as ObamaCare--is mentioned. Over 250 
times.
  To me, the goal of the health care law has been to let people all 
across this country get the care they need from the doctors they want 
at a price they can afford.
  As a member of my party, looking at our economy, looking at the 
deficit, looking at the incredible debt, what I think we need to do is 
make it cheaper and easier to create private sector jobs in this 
country. That is the way we get the economy going again. But when I 
read this budget, and specifically IRS requests, it seems to me it is 
making it harder and more expensive to create private sector jobs in 
our country.
  The people of this country are not taxed too little. The problem is 
that the government spends too much. When I take a look at this budget, 
that is exactly what I see being rejected by this administration 
because it seems this administration is more interested in taxing, in 
raising taxes, rather than cutting spending.
  When you take a look at what the IRS says in the budget, it says:

       The implementation of the Affordable Care Act of 2010 
     presents a major challenge to the Internal Revenue Service.

  This is the IRS talking about the law that was crammed down the 
throats of the American people in the middle of the night, written 
behind closed doors. We are all familiar with it. Now it is presenting 
a major challenge to the Internal Revenue Service.
  The Internal Revenue Service goes on to say:

       This law represents the largest set of tax law changes in 
     more than 20 years, with more than 40 provisions that amend 
     the tax laws.

  The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this week that the budget 
gives the IRS the ability to hire 5,000 new workers. After taking a 
close look at the IRS's plans, we know they will have to hire over 
1,000 new IRS bureaucrats, Washington bureaucrats, to implement 
ObamaCare measures. What are some of those that we are now going to 
have IRS agents coming and looking into? One is the tanning tax, the 
component that promotes compliance with the new excise tax on tanning 
facilities. The IRS is requesting another $1.5 million and requesting 
81 more full-time equivalents to go ahead and implement this tanning 
tax. For oversight--they call it ``strengthen oversight of exempt 
hospitals.'' These are tax-exempt hospitals, hospitals that do not pay 
taxes, but to do an oversight of these hospitals, they want another 
$9.9 million and another 84 full-time employees. For the new health 
coverage information reporting, they want $34 million and 100 full-time 
employees. For something I call ObamaCare 101--assisting taxpayers in 
understanding the new provisions--the IRS is requesting $22.2 million 
and hiring another 150 full-time equivalents. And then, of course, for 
the call centers, IRS call centers--so if someone has a question, they 
can call and ask a question--they want another $15 million because of 
the complexity of this new health care law that is going to be 
difficult for people to understand.
  The American people and small business owners--and those are the job 
creators of this country--want the IRS to make their lives easier, not 
tougher, not audit their health care choices and health care decisions. 
But adding hundreds of new jobs and millions of new dollars to the IRS 
is not going to make health care better. It is not going to make care 
more available for anyone.
  I am going to continue to come to the floor with a doctor's second 
opinion to fight to repeal and replace this health care law and to do 
it with patient-centered reforms that help the private sector, not the 
IRS, create more jobs.
  This morning, we had a little event called Wyoming Wednesdays where 
people from Wyoming who are here come together in Senator Enzi's 
office, and we have coffee and doughnuts and visit.
  One of the people here from Wyoming said: I saw a sign that was 
worrisome.
  I said: What is the sign?
  He said that this location where they are putting in offices used to 
be a parking lot. When you are replacing a parking lot with more 
offices for more Washington bureaucrats, that is not a good sign for 
the rest of America.
  Here we have the IRS saying they are dealing with a major challenge 
because of the health care law. It represents the largest tax law 
change in more than 20 years. More than 40 provisions are being amended 
in the tax law to go after things. They want this kind of money to 
implement the tax changes with regard to the indoor tanning services--
81 new full-time equivalents--and they say what is involved in this. 
The IRS says there are as many as 25,000 businesses that provide indoor 
tanning services they are now going to tax, including about 10,000 
businesses that offer tanning services along with other services such 
as spas, health clubs, and beauty salons.
  We are here in the Senate, in Congress, with 9 percent unemployment 
in this country, with people looking for work, and more government jobs 
are being created, and these people are creating government jobs to 
make it harder on small businesses. It gets right to the crux of it 
right here because the IRS even says these entities, all these tanning 
entities, typically do not have experience filing Federal excise tax 
returns. So what is the government going to do? Come in, make them file 
claims and forms they do not have experience with. It is going to be 
costly; it is

[[Page S775]]

going to take time; it is going to increase taxes. That is not a way to 
create new jobs.
  They want 10 million more dollars to strengthen oversight on tax-
exempt hospitals. These are tax-exempt hospitals. Why are the American 
taxpayers being asked to pay another $10 million to hire 84 full-time 
equivalents to deal with tax-exempt hospitals? Because, according to 
the law that was crammed down the throats of the American people, the 
IRS is now required to review at least every 3 years the benefit 
activities of tax-exempt hospital organizations, which number about 
5,100 in this country. They actually say in the budget request by the 
IRS, as part of the President's budget that was submitted on Monday:

       These are new requirements for tax-exempt hospitals which 
     include a majority of hospitals in the United States.

  We are going to increase taxpayer dollars going for more IRS auditors 
and make it harder and more burdensome on the tax-exempt hospitals in 
terms of paperwork and what they need to do.
  It goes on and on. That is why the American people are fed up with 
what is happening in Washington.
  Let's talk a little bit about the CLASS Act because there is a whole 
component of the budget wanting 30 staff members added to the health 
department office overseeing implementation of what is called the CLASS 
Act. That stands for community living assistance services and supports.
  The President's own debt commission--remember, the President 
appointed this commission about a year ago to say: Let's look into the 
debt. People thought that was a bold move, a bipartisan move, a lot of 
people coming together to take a look at this debt. For a year, the 
President said: We have a debt commission looking into this, so he did 
not deal with the debt. Now that the debt commission came out with its 
report in December, the President has mostly ignored it. Yet the debt 
commission--it was bipartisan, chaired by Erskine Bowles, a former 
Chief of Staff of the White House for Bill Clinton, and Al Simpson, a 
former Senator from my State of Wyoming--came out, took a look at the 
health care law, and specifically honed in on this CLASS Act.
  One of the Members of this Senate, a colleague on the opposite side 
of the aisle, someone who voted for the health care law, called it a 
Ponzi scheme that Bernie Madoff would be proud of.
  The President's budget commission, the bipartisan budget commission, 
looked at it, and they have significant concerns about the 
sustainability of the program and called for the program to either be 
repealed or reformed because it is not sustainable. They have raised 
concerns. People on both sides of the aisle have raised concerns. Yet 
the Secretary of Health and Human Services has, in her budget, money 
for 30 additional staff members added to the health department offices. 
Why? To go over the details of this act that people say ought to be 
repealed because, as it says, the details of the CLASS Act--they want 
to spend $93.5 million informing and educating people about the CLASS 
Act. I can tell them right now it is unsustainable, it is 
irresponsible, and it is something that should be repealed. Yet the 
Department of Health and Human Services wants to spend over $93 million 
of taxpayer money to inform and educate the public about this component 
of the health care law that people on both sides of the aisle think 
needs to go away.

  Finally, as someone who believes this health care law is bad for 
patients, bad for providers--the nurses and doctors who take care of 
those patients--and bad for the taxpayers--what we saw in the 
President's budget that came out Monday, coming out for next year, is 
it is asking for over 1,000 new IRS agents to go ahead and implement 
the various components and responsibilities that have been put on their 
heads by this health care law. This is only the beginning. The entire 
health care law does not really come fully into play until 2014. That 
is when Americans are going to have more IRS agents, more money being 
spent looking into their own personal lives, looking into what kind of 
insurance they have.
  Is it acceptable to the government? Is it government approved? That 
is why Senator Graham and I have introduced legislation called the 
State Health Care Choice Act, to let States decide. Let States decide 
if Washington ought to be telling the people in their States that they 
must buy, that every individual must buy government-approved insurance. 
Let the States make that decision. Let the States opt out if they would 
like. Let the States decide if all the businesses in their States must 
provide government-approved insurance to their workers. Let the States 
decide as to Medicaid, a program for low-income Americans which is 
being expanded significantly by cramming 16 million more Americans into 
Medicaid. Governors all across the country in a bipartisan way are 
saying: Our States cannot afford this.
  A New York Times story shows Jerry Brown from California and Andrew 
Cuomo from New York complaining about the mandates Medicaid is putting 
on their States, the additional burdens in terms of taxes and the 
mandates and what it is going to do to the people of the State who are 
trying to educate their kids and the cost and the pressure on education 
dollars because they are getting shifted to Medicaid, the cost of 
dollars shifted away from public safety, from firefighters, police 
officers, other public safety officers. As to this health care law, I 
think people at the State level ought to decide that, no, we don't want 
this to apply to us.
  That is why I come today, again as a physician who practiced medicine 
in Wyoming for a quarter of a century, took care of thousands and 
thousands of patients and families, trying to help people get better, 
all in a way that now I think is being taken in the wrong direction by 
this health care law, and why I think we want to continue to look for 
ways to make sure people get the care they want from the doctors they 
need at a price they can afford. The health care law that was passed by 
this body fails in all of those respects, and now we see, with the 
President's budget, a request for money for another thousand IRS 
agents, not to help people get better, not to help people get the care 
they need from a doctor they want at a cost they can afford--no, not at 
all--but to audit the health care of the American people.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANDERS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Effects of the Recession

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise to briefly do three things. No. 1, 
there are a lot of politicians and pundits and economists who are 
proclaiming all over the country that the recession is over. They have 
some economic models by which they determine that the recession is 
over. I suggest those pundits and economists and politicians take a 
look at the booklet we recently produced in my office. It is called 
``Struggling Through the Recession--Letters from Vermont.''
  We have also received letters from other States, people in other 
States as well. We sent out a request for people to tell us, as we 
enter the third year of this recession, what is happening in their 
lives. We got, from my small State, over 400 responses. That is a lot 
from a small State. We probably received an equal number from around 
the rest of the country.
  The problem I had with these letters, some of them are so painful to 
read that it is hard to read more than a few at a time because you get 
sick to your stomach hearing what good and decent and hard-working 
people are going through.
  I wish to take a few moments to read a handful of the letters I am 
receiving from Vermont, in answer to the question: Is the recession 
over?
  This comes from a young lady from central Vermont. She says:

       I have been fortunate to hold onto my job throughout the 
     past 3 years, especially since I have about $42,000 remaining 
     on my school loans.

  One of the recurring themes we hear from all over Vermont--and I 
suspect it is true in New Mexico and all over the country--is a lot of 
young people are graduating with a heck of a lot of debt. The jobs they 
are getting are not sufficient, in terms of pay, to help them pay off 
that debt.

[[Page S776]]

  She writes:

       Anyway, what I want to write isn't about me--it's about my 
     boyfriend, a talented mechanical engineer that graduated with 
     about $80,000 in school loans.

  We are telling the young people of this country: Go out and get an 
education. They are coming out with huge loans, having a hard time 
getting a job.

       He was laid off in November 2009 and it has not only caused 
     financial hardship, but it has put all of our future plans on 
     hold. He fortunately has temporary employment now after 
     nearly a year of searching, but my qualm is with the high 
     cost of education and how people in their twenties are 
     supposed to move forward with their lives with school debt 
     lingering over them.

  That is a very significant point.
  Here is another one. This is a young man from Barre, VT, in the 
central part of the State.

       In 2002, I received a scholarship to Saint Bonaventure 
     University, the first in my family to attend college. Upon 
     graduation in 2006, I was admitted to the Dickinson School of 
     Law at Penn State University and graduated in 2009 with 
     $150,000 of student debt.

  That is not uncommon.

       In Western New York I could find nothing better than a $10/
     hour position stuffing envelopes.

  Another example of a young person graduating from college, doing all 
the right things, and yet ending up with very substantial debt.
  That is from some of the younger people. Then we got letters from 
middle-aged people. This is from a woman from the central part of the 
State.

       My husband lost his job in 2002 and has been self-employed 
     as a carpenter ever since due to the lack of jobs in central 
     Vermont.

  I should tell you the recession has been less disastrous in Vermont 
than in other parts of the country. These are stories from a State that 
has not been hit as hard as other States.

       He's had no insurance and we have not saved a cent since 
     2002. We've depleted our savings account paying for property 
     taxes. We've been burning wood to save money heating the 
     house. The cost of fuel for the house and vehicles puts a 
     huge burden on making ends meet. Being self-employed is 
     extremely challenging due to the economic situation.

  Again, she is touching on an issue that millions of people are aware 
of. The price of gas to get to work is going up. The price of home 
heating fuel in States such as Vermont is going up. Wages are low for 
millions of people. How do they survive in that crisis?
  We also have stories from older people. This is from a woman named 
Beth, who lives in the northeastern part of our State, a very rural 
part of Vermont. She is 69 years of age. She writes:

       I don't know what kind of a future my grand kids will have. 
     How will they be educated if we can't help them? It is great 
     there are loans out there for education but they are being 
     charged more for the schools than I paid for my house. They 
     will be in debt their whole lives.

  Here is a woman who is worried about her grandchildren. Here is 
another woman, Ellen, who lives in Rutland County.

       All I can say is I still have a job for all it is worth. I 
     feel making $8.81 an hour at 17 hours per week is ridiculous!

  This woman is 63 years of age.

       I don't bring home enough to help out with the major 
     household expenses I used to pay half on. I'm lucky if my 
     paycheck reaches $130 a week. By the time I pay a few bills 
     gas up and pick up a few needed items I'm lucky if I have any 
     left for spending. I earned less than $8,000 this year. It 
     [is] just about what I made back in the 1970's and lived 
     better.

  So the point here is, A, if folks tell you the recession is over, 
read some of these stories. These stories are available on my Web site: 
``Sanders.Senate.gov.'' These are mostly from Vermont, but I think they 
touch the same themes that exist all over our country. For millions and 
millions of people, not only those who are unemployed--those who are 
underemployed, those who are working full time and not making a living 
wage--trust me, the recession is not over.
  The reason I ask people to send me these letters is I think it is 
important as a Senate to understand we have to address these economic 
issues. When 16 percent of our people are either unemployed or 
underemployed or have given up looking for work, when millions more are 
working with inadequate wages, we cannot say we should not be 
vigorously going forward in creating millions and millions of jobs that 
our people desperately need.


                            Social Security

  I also want to say a word on Social Security. What I want to say is, 
I get very tired watching the TV or hearing some of my colleagues tell 
me that Social Security is going bankrupt, that Social Security will 
not be there for our kids or that Social Security is part of the 
serious deficit and national debt problem we face. Let me say a few 
words on that.
  No. 1, Social Security has existed in this country for 75 years, and 
it has been an enormous success. We take it for granted. But for 75 
years, Social Security has paid out every nickel owed to every eligible 
American in good times and bad. When Wall Street collapsed a few years 
ago, millions of Americans lost all or part of their retirement savings 
when the stock market crashed. All over America, during the last 10, 20 
years, corporations that had promised defined benefit pension plans to 
their employees rescinded on that promise. People had worked for years, 
expecting a pension from a company. That pension never came. Yet during 
all of that period, Social Security has paid out every nickel owed to 
every eligible American at minimal administrative cost. That is a 
pretty good record. Our job now is to make sure Social Security is 
strong and vibrant 75 years from now and continues to do the excellent 
job it has done in the past 75 years.
  People say: Social Security is going broke. Social Security is in 
crisis. A lot of people believe that because they hear it over and 
over, and it is repeated in the media again, again, and again.
  What are the facts? The facts are that not only is Social Security 
not going broke, Social Security has a $2.6 trillion surplus--a $2.6 
trillion surplus--which, by the way, is going to go up before it goes 
down.
  Social Security, according to the Social Security Administration and 
the Congressional Budget Office, can pay out every nickel owed to every 
eligible American for the next 25, 26, 27 years, at which point it will 
pay out between 75 and 80 percent of all of the benefits. The challenge 
we face, therefore, is how, in 25 or 30 years, do we make up that 20 
percent gap? That is the challenge.
  So Social Security is strong and will pay out every benefit owed to 
every eligible American for the next 25 or 30 years. People say: Oh, 
yeah, well, that is just worthless IOUs, that Social Security trust 
fund.
  Absolutely not true. The U.S. Government, from the day of its 
inception, has paid its debt. Social Security is backed by the faith 
and credit of the United States of America. We have never yet--and I 
certainly hope we never will--default on our debt.
  So the first point I want to make is, Social Security is strong. 
Social Security will pay out benefits for the next 26 years. For people 
to come forward and say we have to privatize Social Security, we have 
to raise the retirement age, we have to lower benefits, is absolutely 
wrong, to my mind. We made a promise to the American people regarding 
Social Security, and that is a promise we have to keep.
  In the dialog around Washington, people lump the very serious problem 
of a $1.5 trillion deficit and a $14 trillion national debt with Social 
Security. So let's ask a very simple question. How much has Social 
Security contributed to our national debt? How much? The answer is, not 
one penny--not one penny--because Social Security is not paid out from 
the U.S. Treasury. Social Security comes from the payroll taxes that 
workers and employers contribute into the Social Security trust fund. 
That trust fund today has a $2.6 trillion surplus. So when people say 
we have a very significant national debt and, therefore, we have to cut 
Social Security, that is absolutely a wrong thing to say.
  Let me say, I will do everything I can to protect a program that has 
worked extremely well for the American people.
  Why are we hearing all of this opposition against Social Security? 
Where does it come from? It does not come from ordinary people. They 
know Social Security has been successful, it is worth preserving, worth 
protecting. By the way, as we all know, Social Security is not just 
there for the elderly, the retirees; it is there for people with 
disabilities; it is there for widows and orphans through the survivors 
fund.

[[Page S777]]

Where is all of this opposition coming from?
  It is coming from two places.
  No. 1, it is coming from folks on Wall Street--from Wall Street--who 
are saying: Gee, we could make many billions of dollars if we ended the 
Social Security system right now and Americans had to invest in 
retirement accounts on Wall Street. And we can make all kinds of 
commissions doing that work.
  That is one of the areas, one of the sources of the opposition to 
Social Security.
  Second is from many of my very conservative Republican friends. Very 
honestly, they do not believe government should be playing a role in 
making sure elderly people have a secure and dignified retirement. They 
do not believe much in government. They do not think government should 
be playing a role in those areas, and they want to get government out 
of those areas.
  I understand where they are coming from. It is an honest position. I 
strongly disagree with them. I think in a civilized, democratic society 
we have to make sure when you get old it has to be guaranteed--
guaranteed--as it has been for 75 years, that you are going to get the 
help you need. I believe government should be playing that role.
  I would remind you, Mr. President, before Social Security was 
developed in the mid 1930s, 50 percent of the elderly people of our 
country at that point lived in poverty. Today, that number is too high, 
but it is 10 percent--50 percent before Social Security; 10 percent 
today. That is a pretty good record.
  So I would respectfully disagree with my Republican friends who say: 
Well, if people want a retirement account, let them invest in Wall 
Street, let them do it through the private sector. I do not agree with 
that. I think Social Security has worked well for 75 years. We have to 
make sure it works well for another 75 years. I will do everything I 
can as chairman of the new Defending Social Security Caucus to make 
that happen.


                     The Deficit and National Debt

  The last point I want to make: I want to talk a little bit about the 
deficit and our national debt.
  I think it is appropriate for the American people to be reminded 
about how we got into the very difficult situation we are in right now. 
I have to tell you, I find it a bit amusing that some of the 
``loudest'' deficit hawks in the Congress are precisely the same people 
who helped drive up the deficit and the national debt--the same people.
  Let's try to determine how we got into the recession.
  No. 1, in the midst of a recession, by definition, less money is 
coming in. That is obviously an important part of why we have the 
deficit and the national debt we have today. But there are other 
factors.
  Mr. President, you will recall that this country, during the Bush 
administration, began two wars--a war in Afghanistan, a war in Iraq. 
The war in Iraq is estimated, by the time we take care of the last 
veteran, to run up a tag of about $3 trillion. Does anybody quite 
remember how we paid for those wars? Well, the answer is we did not pay 
for those wars. Those wars were put on the credit card. President Bush 
said: We are going to go to war, but we do not have to worry about how 
we pay for them.

  The second area: As a result of President Bush's tax policies, which 
have recently been extended, against my vote, in the Obama 
administration, we provided many hundreds of billions of dollars in tax 
breaks to millionaires and billionaires. The wealthiest people in this 
country are doing phenomenally well. The effective tax rate for the 
wealthiest people in this country is lower than at any time on record, 
in many cases lower than what working people are paying. Yet we 
decided, against my vote, to give them hundreds of billions of dollars 
in tax breaks, driving up the deficit.
  Congress voted, against my vote, to bail out Wall Street--unpaid for, 
driving up the deficit. Some years ago, Congress, against my vote, 
decided to pass an insurance company-written Medicare Part D 
prescription drug program--very expensive program, unpaid for.
  So all of these things are unpaired for. The national debt goes up, 
the deficit goes up. Then our Republican friends say: Oh, my goodness, 
we have a very large deficit. What are we going to do? We are going to 
have to cut back on programs that are important to working people and 
lower income people.
  I think that is absolutely unacceptable.
  So the first point I would make is, I regard it as incomprehensible 
that there are folks who supported hundreds of billions of dollars in 
tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires and then they tell us they 
are concerned about the deficit and the national debt. That is absolute 
hypocrisy.
  In my view, the Congress should not be about cutting back on programs 
for low- and moderate-income people after we have given huge tax breaks 
to the wealthiest people in this country.
  Second of all, I think the time is long overdue that we start ending 
a lot of the corporate tax loopholes which now are preventing this 
country and this government from getting the revenue we need. Before we 
talk about major cutbacks for our kids or for the elderly, maybe we 
should end the absurdity of the tax havens that exist in the Cayman 
Islands and Bermuda, where the wealthiest people in this country and 
large corporations are stashing their money away, to the tune of about 
$100 billion a year--$100 billion a year--in taxes that are not being 
paid because of the tax havens that exist.
  I would also argue it is somewhat absurd we have a situation where 
last year ExxonMobil paid no Federal income taxes at all and got a $156 
million rebate from the IRS, after earning $19 billion in profits.
  What I would say is, yes, deficit and national debt are very 
important issues. But it is important for us to understand how we got 
to where we are. It is important for us to understand that the top 1 
percent today earn more income than the bottom 50 percent and have 
enjoyed huge tax breaks. So before we start slashing programs the 
middle class and working families of this country need, let's take a 
look at some of those issues as well.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


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

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I have a modification of my amendment 
at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be so modified.
  The amendment, as further modified, is as follows:

       Strike out 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

[[Page S778]]

       ``(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.
       ``(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.
       ``(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.''.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator is recognized.


                               The Budget

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we have had sort of a dustup, I guess 
you could say, in the Budget Committee yesterday with Mr. Lew from the 
Office of Management and Budget and a very likable individual, but we 
had a serious disagreement, a fundamental matter that I do not think 
can be brushed over and needs to be confronted and settled. There is 
only one way to settle it, I believe; that is, for Mr. Lew and the 
President to cease saying their budget does not add to the debt and 
somehow changes the trajectory on which we are going.
  Mr. Lew, on a Sunday morning program, said: ``Our budget will get us, 
over the next several years, to the point where we can look the 
American people in the eye and say we're not adding to the debt 
anymore. . . . ''
  ``Our budget will get us to the point where we can look the American 
people in the eye and say we're not adding to the debt anymore; we are 
spending money that we have each year, and then we can work on bringing 
down our national debt.''
  That is my goal. I believe that is achievable. But it is clear this 
budget does not do that.
  Troubling, additionally, was the President, in his radio address 
Saturday, said the same thing. Then, again yesterday, while we were 
having this discussion, presumably at a similar time, the President 
said this: ``What my budget does is to put forward some tough choices, 
some significant spending cuts so that by the middle of this decade 
[2015] our annual spending will match our annual revenues. . . . ''

       Our annual spending will match our annual revenues. We will 
     not be adding more to the national debt.

  That is an unequivocal statement. No matter what, it can have only 
one meaning to American citizens who hear it, that his budget calls for 
a situation in which our annual spending will match our annual revenues 
and we will not be adding to the national debt.
  Those of us who have been wrestling with the budget know how hard it 
is. I believe we can achieve that in 10 years, but it is very hard. I 
have to admit it. I wish it were not. The Presiding Officer is on the 
Budget Committee and he

[[Page S779]]

knows how hard that would be. It would be a heroic effort. I think we 
can do it. I think the American people are ready to do it. But it is 
not easy.
  The President says that is what we are going to do and that is his 
plan. But, sadly, it is not correct. I asked Mr. Lew, was he not 
concerned and was not this misleading to the American people who heard 
it. He refused to say his statement was misleading.
  What does the budget do? These are the numbers in his budget, the 
document they presented to us, written by the White House, the 
President's budget he is required by law to submit to Congress. This is 
what happens to the debt. The quote up there again is: ``We will not be 
adding more to the national debt.''
  We add more under his plan, to the national debt, every single year. 
The numbers are stunning in size. They are consistent and, 
unfortunately, in the outer years of his 10-year budget, his numbers 
show the annual debt--annual deficit increasing, not going down. So 
this is what it amounts to in terms of total debt.
  His plan, by his own budget that they submitted to us, would add, 
without dispute, $13 trillion in new debt, doubling it to $26 trillion. 
It started out at $13 trillion; in 10 years, it doubles to $26 
trillion. How can this possibly be a position in which you will not be 
adding more to the debt? What world are we living in? What kind of 
fantastical accounting situation can occur that we can make such a 
statement as that?
  I am going to ask my colleagues in the Senate, any single one of them 
who can defend this statement, I would like them to come down here and 
do so. Otherwise we need to call on the President to be honest with the 
American people. We have a serious debt crisis. To waltz out there in a 
press conference yesterday, to send out to speak on his radio program 
Saturday or to have his Budget Director on Sunday, and even at our 
committee hearing yesterday, insist that somehow they are not adding to 
the debt is not a way to begin a dialog about how to confront the 
serious problems this country has. I have to say that.
  I do not think it is a little bitty matter. I don't think it is 
subject to gentlemen's disagreement. I don't think it is subject to 
anything other than black and white, yes and no. Is that an accurate 
statement or not? It is not true. The debt is added to every year. In 
fact, President Bush was criticized for his deficits--and I think 
rightly so. The highest deficit he ever had was $450, $460 billion. The 
lowest deficit in the 10 years, by the President's own budget document 
he sent to us, is over $600 billion--the lowest. It averages $720 
billion a year in added debt. This is why we are on a dangerous course.
  The essence of what we are talking about is can we get off this wrong 
road? Can we get on the road to prosperity? Can we get on the road to 
progress that gets us out of the debt disaster area we are headed 
toward?
  Let me read a couple things because this is the real test of the 
budget. We can argue over the finer details. But the question is, Can 
we continue at the rate we are going? What I would say about the budget 
is that these numbers, this $13 trillion added debt, is what was being 
predicted before. According to the President, it would have been $14 
trillion. He has reduced it to $13 trillion, which is not enough 
change, if it were to happen. But when the Congressional Budget Office 
independently scores the President's budget, it is going to show he 
doesn't have a $1.1 trillion reduction in spending--probably none. 
There is probably no reduction in the debt.
  What I am saying is, this budget keeps us on the course we were on. I 
do not think that can be disputed. It does not alter the basic debt 
totals each year from what has been projected, and those are the 
numbers, the debt totals, that are unsustainable.
  For example, in 2009, President Obama called the current deficit 
spending, on this basic trend, unsustainable--himself--and warned of 
skyrocketing interest rates for consumers if the United States 
continues to finance government by borrowing from other countries. This 
is Bloomberg:

       ``We can't keep on just borrowing from China,'' Obama said 
     at a town-hall meeting at Rio Rancho, New Mexico, outside 
     Albuquerque. ``We have to pay interest on that debt, and that 
     means we are mortgaging our children's future. . . .''

  That is correct.
  Mr. Bernanke, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, warned in 
June of last year that ``the federal budget appears to be on an 
unsustainable path.''
  Mr. Geithner, the Secretary of the Treasury, in February--actually 
February 15--a couple days ago on ABC, said this--this is what the 
Secretary of Treasury said, Mr. Obama's Secretary:

       Our deficits are too high. They are unsustainable, and left 
     unaddressed, these deficits will hurt economic growth and 
     make us weaker as a nation. . . . We have to restore fiscal 
     responsibility and go back to living within our means.

  Peter Orszag, who was President Obama's Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget, said that the CBO report--he said this in June 
of last summer:

       . . . concludes that we are on an unsustainable fiscal 
     course. About this, there is no ambiguity.

  We are on an ``unsustainable fiscal course,'' there is no doubt about 
it, said Mr. Orszag last summer.
  What I would say to you is, the President's budget does not change 
that direction and we have to change it. We have to be honest with the 
American people that we are not changing it, that the President's plan 
is his plan for the future. He can change the numbers any way he wants 
to. He can change the trajectory we are on. It is a voluntary thing. 
The numbers he put forth are his numbers, and they are a call for our 
country to follow his plan. That is not an acceptable plan. It is not 
an acceptable plan, and we have to change it.
  Briefly, I will add this. The warnings that are out there--Alan 
Greenspan, our former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, said in 
December that it is a little better than 50-50, but not much, that we 
won't have a debt crisis in this country in 2 to 3 years.
  Moody's, the organization most famous for rating government debt and 
private company debt--you know, AAA is the highest rating--Moody's, in 
December, sent a warning letter that, unless the United States changes 
its trajectory of debt, our debt could be downgraded from AAA in less 
than 2 years.
  The International Monetary Fund has said we have to reduce our 
structural deficit more than Greece. They have to go to a 9-percent 
improvement; we have to go to a 12-percent improvement. Only Japan, 
says the International Monetary Fund, is worse off than we are and has 
to take stronger action.
  So this budget is no action at all. It is no alteration of the 
trajectory. It is unacceptable. As Congressman Ryan said, it is debt on 
arrival.
  We cannot pass this budget. It is unthinkable that we would. The 
American people are ready for change. They are supporting Governors and 
mayors around the country who are making tough choices, bringing their 
States and cities up to speed and being more effective. They are doing 
that. These cities are not ceasing to exist.
  We increased discretionary spending, nondefense discretionary 
spending, in the last 2 years under President Obama's leadership and 
the Democratic majority in both Houses, 24 percent--12 percent a year, 
on average. Well, at a 7-percent-a-year increase, the total budget 
doubled in 10 years. I guess at 12 percent it will probably double in 6 
or 7 years. This is the trend we are on. We have to come off of that. 
We are going to have to reduce those numbers because we do not have the 
money.
  But I will tell you, this economy has vibrancy. It is trying to come 
out of this recession. If we create some stability and permanence in 
our rules, eliminate unnecessary regulations, allow our energy prices 
to be competitive and create more American energy and all of the things 
that make sense to bring down costs and increase productivity, bring 
this debt under control, we will be surprised how strong we can bounce 
back. But this is not the path to do it. This is the unsustainable path 
that can lead to danger. The closer we get to it, the more dangerous we 
are.
  So I believe it is time to change course. Where we are going to go, I 
just cannot say. I am rather stunned that the President's budget--I did 
not expect a very strong budget, but I expected one that would make a 
lot more progress than this. So I guess we are

[[Page S780]]

all befuddled right now what our choices will be. All of us have to 
work at it, though, because the future of our country is at stake.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, is there a pending amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The second-degree Hutchison amendment to the 
Inhofe amendment is pending.
  Mr. COBURN. Thank you. Let me confine my remarks for a few minutes to 
how I see where we are from my perspective. My hope is that I can offer 
some amendments, at least get them pending, and then discuss with the 
chairman--I just discussed them with the ranking member--the 
disposition of those. I wonder whether the chairman has any comments on 
that.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I will be objecting to your amendments because you 
objected to the pending amendments, and there will be no reason to add 
more unless you lift your objection.
  Mr. COBURN. I told them I would be happy----
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I am very happy to listen to what you have to say.
  Mr. COBURN. I told Senator Leahy last night that I would be happy to 
lift my objection once my amendments were pending, and we can have a 
debate on his nongermane amendment.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I think the order has to be reversed.
  Mr. COBURN. Well, if the chairman will assure me I will have the 
opportunity to, No. 1, debate Senator Leahy's amendment----
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I cannot assure that at this point. We have not 
arrived----
  Mr. COBURN. Then I will continue with my objection.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. If you have amendments you wish to offer--I think 
five--I am constrained to object to them.
  Mr. COBURN. It is interesting. We have a nongermane amendment that is 
outside the bounds of the Constitution, doing something that is not the 
role of the Federal Government, that we are going to expand the cost at 
a time when we are bankrupt, and five germane amendments that actually 
lower the cost of the airport improvement fund, actually help NextGen 
in terms of money, help preserve the airport trust fund, and we are not 
going to be allowed to bring them up? If that is the way we are going 
to operate, then you can count on me, knowing procedure around here, 
that we will have a very difficult time moving ever to a Leahy 
amendment.
  Mr. President, I came to the floor to discuss what we are trying to 
do and to be helpful in moving that along. I have now heard that I will 
not be allowed to offer these amendments or at least bring them up. I 
am going to discuss each one of them, and I will object to any 
unanimous consent moving forward on any area until we have an 
opportunity, as is the Senate tradition, to have a debate and bring up 
amendments. If we are not allowed to do that, then I am sure we are 
going to start going backward again.
  Passing an FAA authorization bill, as the chairman and ranking member 
have tried to do, is a significant priority for Congress. We have a 
system of air traffic control that needs to be modernized. We have 
monies that we are putting forward to do that. We have not had the 
oversight, according to the inspector general, that is necessary for 
those programs.
  In this bill, we have authorizations for moneys that are not 
priorities for this country at a time that we are facing a $1.6 
trillion deficit, we have an unemployment rate in excess of 9 percent, 
and interest rates that are going to rise in the future.
  My amendments, which I am happy to have voted on and voted down, lead 
us to a path that secures and enhances the airport improvement fund and 
the trust fund, makes common sense that 99 percent of the American 
people would agree with, excludes Alaska because it is a totally 
different animal when it comes to the Essential Air Service 
requirements, and will, in fact, enhance the trust fund. So I am very 
sorry the chairman refuses to allow my amendments to come up, but I 
will offer them and have him object in total.
  What has to happen with every program in this country is that 
wasteful spending, low-priority spending, and duplicative spending has 
to be eliminated. Although I think the chairman and ranking member did 
a fairly good job on this bill, there are areas where we can eliminate 
wasteful spending, there are areas where we can eliminate duplicative 
spending, and there are areas where we can say: This can't be a 
priority now given the financial fix in which we find ourselves.
  During our current budget deficit, the revenues coming into the 
airport trust fund are lower than expected, and we have this very real 
need on NextGen development. Congress has to limit somewhere and make a 
priority next year, and I think they have tried to go in that 
direction, and these amendments will do such a thing.
  The first amendment I would like to talk about is the airport 
improvement Federal cost share reduction amendment. Across this 
country, we now have money being spent on low-priority projects in 
airports that have very little traffic or minimal traffic, and we are 
not spending money on the airports for safety and for the airports in 
which we have the vast majority of traffic. We have seen one program in 
particular where billions of dollars for low-priority projects have 
been spent.
  I would just tell you, if we are ever going to get out of the jam we 
are in, some common sense has to be applied in that we cannot do 
everything everybody wants, and there is going to have to be some 
sacrifice in these areas.
  The whole goal of this first amendment is to discourage low-priority, 
wasteful aviation projects that would not be funded by increasing the 
non-Federal cost share to just 25 percent over 3 years. In other words, 
it is 5 percent now, and so it is 95 percent of the government's money, 
and all we do is, over 3 years, move it to where you have to pay 25 
percent. It is going to discourage a lot of low-priority projects 
because the communities or the States have to have a greater 
participation.
  There is no program in the Federal Government that has a grant 
process and a funding process where the Federal Government pays 95 
percent other than this program--not one. So we are encouraging money 
to be wasted on low-priority projects by maintaining 95 percent Federal 
funding. This gives us 3 years to adjust to 75 percent, which probably 
should be 50 percent but 75 percent given our fiscal issues.
  Nonprimary airports could initially have up to 90 percent of their 
airport improvement projects covered by the Federal Government. In 
recent years, we raised that, under Public Law 108-176, to 95 percent. 
This is 20 percent higher than the same cost share for other airports 
qualifying for this $4 billion program. It is $4 billion a year.
  Lest you think I am too critical, let me give you some examples. Two 
flights a day--two flights a day, noncommercial flights, just two 
private flights a day--is the average for Kentucky's Williamsburg-
Whitley County Airport. We spent $11 million there to build an airport 
with a 5,500-foot lighted runway, a colonial-style terminal, and 
hundreds of acres for growth even though it does not have one airline 
passenger and averages two flights a day. Now, tell me, if you ask the 
average American: Should we spend $11 million there or should we make 
sure we can take care of the kids who do not have what they need in 
this country, should we spend $11 million there or not borrow another 
$11 million from the Chinese, should we spend $11 million there or 
should we, in fact, make sure the airport trust fund has the money to 
do high-priority projects, such as large airports or NextGen, which one 
would the average American think we should do?
  Lest you think I am picking on Kentucky, Halliburton Field in Duncan, 
OK, got $700,000 for a pilot room and a reception room. We are building 
for private aviation with taxpayer money--a low priority. We are 
building a nice pilot room and a reception room for the private pilots 
who fly there. Now, tell me how that is a priority in our country 
today. That is my own State.
  We are sending money down a hole because we refuse to make tough 
choices. All this amendment does is say: Let's move it from 95 percent, 
over 3 years, to 75 percent so we do not get the lower priority 
projects funded, because we are too generous with what

[[Page S781]]

the Federal Government contributes. The chairman may not like it, but I 
will bet you the average American thinks it is a pretty smart thing to 
do given the state we are in.
  All bets are off on the politics of this. I have never been 
accustomed to playing the politics of it at all, but there are just as 
many people on the left who think we ought to cut spending as there are 
on the right. America gets it. The only place that does not get it is 
here. And this does not do anything except enhance what can be done for 
higher priority issues within our aviation community. That is all it 
does. It is a small, simple step. And by rejecting or not allowing an 
amendment such as this to come forward, what we are saying is that we 
are going to keep kicking the can down the road; we are not going to 
pay attention to the American public. We are going to hide from the 
reality that is coming very soon for this country. We will not have any 
money to put into airport improvement programs. We will not have the 
money to fund a NextGen program. It will become a low-priority program 
unless we wake up and start doing what the rest of America recognizes 
we have to do; that is, start living within our means.
  The next amendment is an amendment that is a bipartisan amendment 
between the Senator from Alaska and myself.
  It is an earmark rescission amendment. All it says is the earmarks 
that have been out there, that the money hasn't been spent for over 9 
years, giving 1 year for the agencies to decide whether they think that 
is so, should be rescinded. It puts $500 million, a half a billion 
dollars at a minimum, back in the public Treasury. Why would we not 
want to do that? We have $2.6 million sitting in Atlanta that can't be 
spent on anything except the 1996 Olympics. Why wouldn't we take back 
that $2.6 million? It was earmarked. It didn't get spent. But it is 
sitting out there in a hole. We can reverse that. Estimates are we will 
save a billion dollars. The conservative estimate at a minimum is $500 
million. Yet we are not going to allow this amendment to be considered? 
It makes no sense.
  The next amendment calls on us to sacrifice a little bit. The 
Essential Air Service Program has multiple subsidies where people can 
easily drive 1 hour and 20 minutes and get to a regional airport that 
doesn't require any subsidies. All this amendment does is move it to 
100 miles from where it is today, which is 70. It moves it to 100 miles 
and says if you are less than 100 miles, you ought not be eligible, 
sometimes to the tune of $4 or $500 per person per flight, to have a 
subsidized flight when you could drive 70 minutes, 80 minutes, and have 
access to a ton of flights.
  Again, it is priority. Is it priority for us to continue to spend 
money on a small group of airports, 36, that in no way pay for 
themselves, that are readily accessible throughout the country to major 
airports, and spend the kind of money we are spending?
  Another amendment says if you have less than 10 emplanements a day, 
we ought to think about whether we are subsidizing Essential Air 
Service.
  All these amendments are saying is, will we make the tough decisions. 
We can't do everything we want to do. Is it nice that we have an 
Essential Air Service Program so some people don't have to drive an 
hour? I guess so. What are we willing to sacrifice to get our house in 
order? These are little bitty amendments that will send a wonderful 
signal to the American public that we get it, we absolutely get it. And 
because we get it, we are going to make choices about priorities. We 
are going to enhance the airport trust fund. We are going to enhance 
the airport improvement program because we are going to take lower 
priorities off the board, which is exactly what they want us to do. 
They want us to focus on the big things, the important things, and they 
want us to cut the spending that is not absolutely necessary.
  I can tell my colleagues, it is not absolutely necessary that we 
subsidize some of these smaller airports that are very close to 
regional airports or have less than 10 passengers a day. It is not 
absolutely essential. Would we ask some Americans to sacrifice? Yes. 
But do you know what will happen? We will all have to sacrifice before 
we get through this. The problem is the resistance in this Chamber and 
in this city. We don't want to make the hard choices. It is 
disappointing that we have not done that. We will have to do that. And 
we are either going to do it or somebody from the outside is going to 
tell us what we are going to do.
  Then a fifth amendment--and I know the chairman will be against this 
amendment because it is his program that I am trying to eliminate--in 
the year 2000, we created another program called the Small Community 
Air Services Program. This is an amendment to repeal that. It was 
geared to help smaller communities enhance their air service in 
addition to Essential Air Service; in other words, make it more 
effective, to try to promote utilization, which is a good idea except 
it is not working. When we see the funds from this program, after the 
grant is over, do you know what happens? The airlines leave. They don't 
stay. They leave. So we are kind of spending money in a market that 
won't sustain what we are trying to put there, and then we are putting 
more money on top of it to try to promote it. When it doesn't work, 
what happens? We lose the Essential Air Service anyhow. It has happened 
in Oklahoma.
  In this day and time that we live, we have to have an FAA bill. We 
can't continue to not have an FAA bill. Even if my amendments are voted 
down, considering that they are going to get a vote, I will probably 
support this bill. But it should be noted that we haven't gone far 
enough. We haven't made all the tough choices we need to make. I am 
highly disturbed that we take amendments that are absolutely germane 
and say they can't be offered because a time agreement, even though it 
has been agreed to, isn't disagreed to yet because the Senator from 
Vermont isn't on the floor.
  I am going to offer the amendment and let the chairman object. Then I 
will utilize the procedures that are available to me as a Member of the 
Senate.
  I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call 
up amendment No. 91.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. There is objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I would say to the Senator from Oklahoma, most of 
the pending amendments which are now pending have been objected to from 
his side of the aisle. I don't have any objection to looking at some of 
his amendments and seeing if we can vote on them. But I can't do that 
right now. I obviously can't give him any kind of consent right now.
  It is a difficult situation. It is a sort of rolling veto type of 
situation. If objection is made, we can't have votes on amendments 
which are pending. I am willing to look at what he has suggested. As he 
talked through some of them, they sort of stung pretty hard in my State 
of West Virginia, but I am willing to look at them. But I can't do that 
without consent from folks on my side. So for the time being, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. COBURN. I thank the chairman. I will go on and allow him to 
object to further amendments I have so it will be in the Record that I 
did attempt to offer them.
  I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call 
up amendment No. 80.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending 
amendment and call up amendment No. 81.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 82 and 
set the pending amendment aside.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. COBURN. I thank the chairman for his words. I will take him at 
his word and work with him and allow him to look at some of these. 
There are only two airports in West Virginia that this would have an 
impact on. Both of them are less than 75 miles from the regional 
airport. They both have minimal emplanements daily. They are

[[Page S782]]

over 10 but not far over that. The point is, we ought to help who we 
can help, and it ought to make economic sense. They are not targeted 
because there are 36 airports in here, actually, where the average 
American would say, this is nuts to spend the kind of money we are.
  I thank him for the time.
  I 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. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I rise today in order to 
speak in support of the Essential Air Service Program and explain why 
the program truly is essential, especially in rural States. In 
Nebraska, our two largest airports are separated by only 63 miles in a 
State that covers 77,000 square miles.
  This means that thousands of Nebraskans are hours away from a large 
or even medium-sized airport requiring them to drive several hours to 
take a flight.
  Due to these geographical barriers, many Nebraskans rely on Essential 
Air Service to keep themselves and their communities connected to the 
Nation's transportation network.
  In Nebraska, we have Essential Air Service airports in many 
communities including my hometown of McCook, Alliance, Chadron, Grand 
Island, Kearney, North Platte, and Scottsbluff. Without the EAS 
Program, you would see the many hours it already takes to get to any 
type of air service increased significantly for people in rural areas.
  The cost to travel on one of these EAS flights would become so cost-
prohibitive that many would not even be able to afford to travel. And, 
quite frankly, there would probably be many cases where EAS airports 
would struggle to exist.
  But the EAS Program isn't simply about cutting hours off a driver's 
time to make a flight. It is also about economic development in rural 
areas and job creation.
  EAS promotes accessibility and growth in rural communities and in the 
surrounding rural areas--and I have seen the impact air service can 
have on a community's ability to attract employers firsthand.
  When I was Governor of Nebraska, one of the first questions many 
companies would ask when they wanted to bring a manufacturing plant or 
warehouse distribution complex to town would be what is the air service 
situation in the area.
  Because of these EAS airports, I could respond that the area provided 
an air service transportation option which gave these communities a job 
creation recruiting edge. But don't just take my word for it. Listen to 
other Nebraskans who are saying the same things about how important the 
essential air program is to their communities.
  For example, John Chizek, the mayor in Chadron, NE has said:

       As the Mayor and lifetime resident of Chadron I believe it 
     is essential to continue support of the Essential Air Service 
     Program. As a community we are active in the recruitment of 
     new business. I firmly believe we have a unique atmosphere to 
     offer to businesses looking to move or expand. Our county was 
     recently identified as the poorest in the State and any 
     limitations place on us by reducing EAS support will only 
     hinder our hopes of growth.

  Darwin Skelton, the airport director at Western Nebraska Regional 
Airport, has said:

       Essential Air Service is very important to Western Nebraska 
     Regional Airport and Western Nebraska as a whole, without 
     this funding we would not have commercial air service to our 
     community. We have many businesses in this community that use 
     this airport (i.e. Aurora Loan Service, Vertex, Regional West 
     Medical Center, Twin City Development, just to name a few).
       When they are told of this plight, I am sure you will be 
     receiving letters of support from many businesses/
     organizations from around the area . . . small, more rural 
     markets need air service to grow and maintain connections 
     with larger hubs and doing away with Essential Air Service 
     would be saying to rural America that they are not valued as 
     an important part of air service in the United States.

  Kyle Pothoff, public works director for the city of McCook, said:

       Having access to commercial air service is critical to the 
     economic stability of communities like McCook and without 
     this service it would make recruiting new businesses very 
     difficult.
       A statement that I have recently heard is that economic 
     development does not come by bus or train, it comes by air. 
     This statement could not be more true.

  Finally, Dave Glenn, CEO of Pathology Services in North Platte, said:

       With the economy finally showing signs of improvement, loss 
     of EAS funding for airports like North Platte (LBF) would be 
     disastrous. Pathology Services, P.C. serves 18 hospitals and 
     over 50 clinics in Central and Western Nebraska, Northwest 
     Kansas, and Northeast Colorado. To provide the Medicare 
     required pathologist services, we rely on using our general 
     aviation plane based at the North Platte airport.
       Our hospital has also recently started a medical helicopter 
     service which helps meet the health care needs of patients. 
     Without EAS funding our business and the health of our 
     citizens would be negatively impacted.

  I am well aware that the Essential Air Service does have its critics 
who are concerned about providing government funding support to keep 
air service in rural America. Certainly a review of all government 
supported programs to find efficiencies and ways we can make a program 
run better and spend less I am always open to. But to simply try and 
eliminate the Essential Air Service Program which is a driver of 
economic activity in my State, as you can clearly see from these 
Nebraskans' stories, is the wrong approach. Essential Air Service truly 
is essential to rural Nebraska and rural America and why I oppose any 
efforts to eliminate this important program.
  Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise today, with my colleagues, Senator 
Collins, Coburn, and Brown of Massachusetts to discuss an amendment to 
the S. 223, the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety 
Improvement Act. Currently this bill contains language which adjusts 
for inflation the personal net worth cap in the Small Business 
Administration's 8(a) program. This would expand the net worth level 
established by the SBA in 1989 from $750,000 to approximately $1.4 
million. Our amendment aims to strike that language from the bill.
  In March of 2010, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, issued a 
report detailing extensive fraud within the 8(a) program. The report 
revealed that 14 ineligible firms received $325 million in sole-source 
and set-aside contracts even though these firms were not eligible for 
the 8(a) program. As ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small 
Business and Entrepreneurship, I take very seriously our committee's 
responsibility of vigorous oversight and am concerned with efforts to 
expand the SBA's 8(a) program when these issues have not been fully 
vetted through the regular order in the Small Business Committee. 
Moreover, there has not been a hearing to examine the GAO reports of 
fraud.
  The SBA's 8(a) program is designed to help socially and economically 
disadvantaged small businesses gain access to Federal contracting 
opportunities. I support these goals and applaud the Federal Government 
for consistently meeting the goal for small disadvantaged businesses. 
However, I am deeply troubled by the program's current vulnerabilities 
to fraud and abuse which results in legitimate firms being excluded in 
favor of bad actors who have infiltrated the program. This is not a 
partisan issue. I recently sent a letter along with SBC Chair Mary 
Landrieu to Administrator Mills' where we stated unequivocally that our 
first priority in the 112th Congress is to ensure the SBA is taking the 
requisite steps to purge the contracting programs of any and all fraud 
and abuse.
  When calculating an individual's net worth, the SBA currently 
excludes the value of their primary residence and the equity in the 
8(a) company. The language contained in the FAA bill would result in 
allowing potential multimillionaires to be considered economically 
disadvantaged. Therefore, I wonder about the further effects this 
change would have on the program. I question whether expanding the net 
worth would result in crowding out of business owners with 
significantly lower net worth. Additionally, I worry lower income 
individuals would be at a disadvantage competing with those with 
substantially more resources.
  In light of all these concerns, I fear the current net worth 
expansion is

[[Page S783]]

fraught with unintended consequences and ignores the recent reports of 
fraud in the 8(a) program. I urge my colleagues to support the Snowe-
Collins-Coburn-Brown amendment to strike this language.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest clerk proceeded to call the 
roll.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have been working through this bill. I 
congratulate our manager, Senator Rockefeller, who is one of the most 
experienced people in the Senate and is a good manager. He has worked 
well with Senator Hutchison, comanager of the bill. We have made 
significant progress. We have a few amendments on which we are trying 
to work a way to the end of this. I hope we can work out an agreement 
to complete this legislation maybe as early as tomorrow morning 
sometime. If we can't, the first cloture vote is tomorrow, and we will 
see what happens after that.
  Everyone should understand. It is Wednesday. Tomorrow is Thursday. I 
know a lot of people have arrangements because we have a home work 
period the following week. We want to go home, if at all possible, late 
tomorrow night or early Friday morning, but we can't do that if there 
is work left to be done on this bill. I hope we can work something out 
so we can finish tomorrow. It would certainly be doable.
  We know what we have left. Work on the different issues has been 
extremely difficult and time-consuming, but we have settled most 
everything on the Senate floor, as we are supposed to do.
  There will be no more rollcall votes tonight. We hope we can move 
forward to complete work on this most important piece of legislation 
tomorrow. This legislation is extremely important for our country.
  Let's keep in mind, this deals with people. Almost 300,000 jobs will 
be created or saved with this legislation. I repeat what I have said on 
the Senate floor once before. McCarran Airport in Las Vegas is the 
sixth busiest airport in the country. The manager of that airport, 
Randy Walker, when asked about this bill last week, said: If it passes, 
we will finally be able to stop using World War II technology to land 
and have airplanes take off.
  It is not just McCarran in Las Vegas. At every airport in the country 
it is the same thing, World War II technology. We will be able to have 
a passengers' bill of rights. It is a very fine piece of legislation 
that has been years in the making. We are too close to the end of this 
to walk away. We have to finish this bill. It means jobs, real jobs, 
not make believe jobs.
  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. REID. I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be 
rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________