[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 26 (Thursday, February 17, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S809-S835]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FAA AIR TRANSPORTATION MODERNIZATION AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of S. 223, which the clerk will
report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 223) to modernize the air traffic control
system, improve the safety, reliability, and availability of
transportation by air in the United States, provide for
modernization of the air traffic control system, reauthorize
the Federal Aviation Administration, and for other purposes.
Pending:
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, NM, 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.
Hutchison further modified amendment No. 93 (to modified
amendment No. 7), of a perfecting nature.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington is
recognized.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time be
equally divided in the quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Ms. CANTWELL. 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. Mr. 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.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
filing deadline for second-degree amendments be extended up until the
cloture vote.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown of Ohio). Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I came to the floor to briefly voice my
very strong support for this FAA reauthorization bill and to thank my
chairman, Jay Rockefeller, for his leadership.
Many people have said this, but it is worth repeating. This is a jobs
bill. The FAA reauthorization act is going to modernize our air
transport system. As many have said far more eloquently than I could
ever say, we are looking at a system that has its roots in the 1940s
and the 1950s, and we need to move beyond this and get a 21st century
system. That is what NextGen is going to do--give us a much better way
to handle all of those flights, all of that congestion. It is going to
be, in addition to a jobs bill--280,000 jobs nationwide--it is also
going to be a bill that focuses on safety. The growth that will be
spurred on by this bill is crucial, because this industry also accounts
for nearly 11 million jobs and more than 5 percent of U.S. GDP.
I want to talk about two issues I have a great stake in for the
people of California and, frankly, for the people of this country. The
first issue is the passengers' bill of rights. I am so grateful to our
leader on the committee, Senator Rockefeller, and his ranking member,
Kay Bailey Hutchison, for ensuring that this bipartisan legislation--I
wrote it with Senator Snowe--is included in the FAA bill.
We have all heard the horror stories of travelers trapped for hours
without adequate food or water, some not even able to access their
medicines; planes filled with screaming kids; upset passengers and
unsanitary conditions from overflowing toilets.
In fact, it is a situation that, if anyone has ever been in it, makes
an indelible mark, and, frankly, it makes you less likely to want to
fly in the American skies because you have a chance at being one of
those unfortunate people to get trapped in such a situation.
I thank Kate Hanni, a constituent of mine who was trapped in one of
these aircraft for hours on the tarmac and got off the plane and said:
I need to do something about this. She is the one who lobbied very
hard, a citizen's lobby, to get a passengers' bill of rights.
I am grateful the Department of Transportation, under President
Obama, took the first step by adopting key elements of our passengers'
bill of rights through regulation last year. Secretary LaHood, who
heads the Department of Transportation, sent a strong message and
basically said airlines must give passengers the option of deplaning if
they have been stranded on the tarmac for more than 3 hours.
According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, there have only
been 12 tarmac delays of more than 3 hours from May to October of 2010,
after the Department of Transportation instituted this rule, compared
to 500-plus in the same period a year earlier. So by putting in a
regulation that tells the airlines they cannot keep people on planes
past 3 hours and, if they do, they have to give them an option to get
off, we have turned things around. We have seen 12 tarmac delays
compared to 500. We want to codify these consumer protections. We want
a law. We don't know what the next President
[[Page S810]]
will do. We don't know what could happen. We need a law that says they
cannot keep people on an aircraft for more than 3 hours unless they are
about to take off in the next 30 minutes or the pilot says there is a
danger in taking passengers back to the gate.
We have very commonsense loopholes. But we don't have any loopholes
on this: they have to have adequate water, food, and access to clean
restrooms if there is any type of delay.
We also set up a consumer complaint hotline within the DOT which
would give passengers the means to communicate directly with the agency
about delays. Someone will be on the other end when people are
exhausted and upset and need to have redress.
The passengers' bill of rights has broad bipartisan support. It
passed the Senate 93 to 0 last March. We believe we now have to see it
through.
I understand some of my friends on the other side of the Capitol in
the House have said no to the 3-hour time period. We are going to have
to fight hard for it because the bottom line is, if we don't have an
end time, we could go back to the same delays.
The last issue I wish to bring before the Senate that is important
not only to my State but to every State is the issue of having more
direct flight options into Washington, DC, Reagan National Airport than
we have now for many cities across this great Nation. We have now 38
million people in California. We have an economy that is about the
seventh largest in the world. We have one direct flight from Los
Angeles into Washington National Airport. If one lives in San
Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, San Jose, Fresno, or any other city
in our great State, they do not have an option of flying directly into
our Nation's Capital. That is not good for business or jobs in
California. It is not good for business or jobs in Washington or
Virginia.
We need to encourage more domestic tourism. That creates jobs for our
communities. Tourism in my State generated $90 billion and supported
881,000 jobs in 2009 alone. It makes a difference flying into the
airport right here in DC. We can be in the Capitol in 15-20 minutes,
depending on traffic, compared to getting off in Dulles, a great
airport but not easy. Once we get off the plane, we have to get into a
special train, and we walk and we go up escalators. We go on moving
walks. It is quite good for exercise, but it is not good if one is
interested in getting somewhere in a reasonable amount of time. Then
the drive could be anywhere, on a good night, from 50 minutes to an
hour and a half. That makes a difference to travelers, particularly
those who are working or have work in this area.
I know there is a compromise on which my chairman and ranking member
have been working to open some more slots so we can get more options in
our State and other States that are likewise deprived. I will be
supporting that compromise. It is crucial.
We need to have a bill that includes increasing service for citizens
beyond this kind of artificial perimeter that was set up. We can't
afford to wait any longer as opportunity lies in the balance. We are
not going to overrun Washington National. Nobody wants to do that. We
only want to do what makes sense and allow more freedom for the
airlines to pick the routes for which they have a demand.
We have one direct flight into all of California. Boy, one can never
get on that either. It just doesn't make any sense. We have multiple
flights out of Dulles. There is not a balance there at all.
Again, this is a jobs bill. This is a consumer bill. This is a bill
that is going to help commerce. I strongly support it.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, Senator Boxer--and not everybody
knows this--is the author of the passengers' bill of rights. It has
been an obsession of hers. It is not about helping airlines; it is
about helping human beings. That has been a long process on the
committee. It is in the bill. It is a very good part. She is
responsible for all of that.
When Senator Boxer talks about more flights to the West, she echoes
my deepest thinking. It is hard sometimes for people to understand. We
are the East, and we get the feeling that everything happens in the
East. But the fact is, the West is growing and the East is not. All of
our slots are predicated on the fact that everybody lives in the East.
Yes, there are some people out West--well, there are a lot more people
out West. Los Angeles is huge beyond belief. That happens to be the
home of Senator Boxer. But there are a lot of cities out there which
don't get service and should have service. We have tried to address
that in this bill.
The slots issue has been a very difficult one in the bill. But we
have tried to address that by allowing the Department of Transportation
to say: Are they getting enough? Is DC overcrowded or is it not? If it
isn't, then they allow more to come on.
I enormously appreciate Senator Boxer in general. She chairs an
important committee, but she comes to our hearings and always makes
enormous contributions. On this bill of rights she is the author, which
puts her right up there with the Founding Fathers.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague and
friend Senator Boxer to hail the inclusion of the passengers' bill of
rights in the reauthorization of the FAA. We have worked together for 5
years to protect passengers, and moving the passengers' bill of rights
off the ``to-do'' list and into law will be a victory for the traveling
public.
Senator Boxer and I have worked diligently as far back as the spring
of 2007 to move this essential safety measure forward. Last year's
passage of the FAA reauthorization bill brought us closer to our goal,
but the legislation expired as the House and Senate grappled with other
issues. Undeterred, Senator Boxer and I continued to stand up for this
common sense safety and consumer protection proposal.
Make no mistake, providing airline travelers with access to food,
water, restrooms, and medication is not just an issue of comfort--
passengers who are pregnant, elderly, or ill require access to clean
water and appropriate facilities--and no passenger should be held
against their will just steps from an airport facility.
When passengers are able to safely deplane in the event of a delay,
they absolutely should be given the choice to do so. This proposal
ensures that passengers are given the right to get off a plane after 3
hours of delay on the tarmac. In 3 hours, a passenger could drive from
Portland, ME, to Boston, complete an Olympic triathlon, or watch a full
length movie. In that time, airlines can certainly ascertain whether or
not they will actually be able to get off the ground. In March of last
year, American Airlines flight 160 from San Diego to New York sat on
the runway in Philadelphia for more than 5 hours, with passengers
wondering if they ever would make it to New York.
Passengers already compete for window and aisle seats, and hope for
exit rows with a bit more legroom. In fact, a Web site has made a
business of providing charts of each air carrier's planes to show which
have the best seats. The average airline seat is 17.2 inches wide, and
passengers stuck in middle seats are given so little space to move. We
have reached the point where we consult the Web to find which seat is
least painful. Consumers want assurances that they will not be confined
to their seats for any longer than necessary, and this bill helps
assure passengers that their time in these tight spaces won't be longer
than absolutely necessary to get to their destination.
We have gone from a record high of 268 flights delayed on the tarmac
in June of 2009, to zero planes delayed on the tarmac for more than 3
hours in 2 consecutive months in October and November of last year. In
the 8 months since the DOT rule was put in place, only 15 flights were
delayed for more than 3 hours; in the same 8-month period the year
before 586 flights with thousands of passengers aboard were held on the
runway for hours on end.
After so many years of hearing horror stories of passengers being
held hostage aboard aircraft for 9, 12, and even, what I believe is a
record, 16 hours, passengers will be able to point
[[Page S811]]
to Federal law that protects them. I hope the only runway record we set
in the near future is the number of consecutive months without a single
tarmac delay.
To its credit, the Department of Transportation took our bill, and
wrote much of it into regulation, and for that, I commend Secretary
LaHood and his predecessors. Flights will no longer be stranded on U.S.
runways for hours on end, with passengers on board just hoping for
clean water, lights, or appropriate facilities. The Department will
also impose a fine of $27,500 per passenger on a stranded flight.
Airlines that neglect the welfare of passengers aboard their aircraft
won't soon forget the hefty fines they face.
The rules and regulations drafted by the Department of Transportation
go a long way towards addressing our concerns. While it would be easy
to say the job is done, and passengers are protected, I am pleased the
FAA reauthorization will codify the passengers' bill of rights
provisions.
It is critical that the Department of Transportation understands that
the passengers' bill of rights will extend these passenger protections
to international flights using U.S. airports. A passengers' final
destination should not dictate his or her rights on the runway. Let us
be clear, this passengers' bill of rights applies to every passenger on
every commercial plane taking off from or landing in the United States
or its territories.
At the end of a flight, there is simply no excuse for trapping people
aboard an aircraft for hours on end with airport facilities only yards
away. On December 26, 2010, four international flights were held at
their U.S. destinations for upwards of 10 hours. While the airport and
airlines continue to bicker over who was responsible for the delay, we
want to make sure it never happens again. This legislation will ensure
that airlines operating international flights will have a strong
incentive to find a way to give passengers a way out. It is my hope
that in the future all airlines will move heaven and earth to ensure
that passengers are not trapped aboard aircraft without access to basic
needs.
Airports and airlines have worked hard to improve service and reduce
delays. In Portland, one of the major airports in Maine, the number of
cancelled flights has dropped from 702 in 2001, to 213 in 2010, and the
airport had the greatest percentage of on time departures since 2002.
The naysayers who told travelers that these new rules would cause
hundreds of cancellations have been proven wrong. Now, if we could only
tame our famous New England winter storms, we could reduce that number
even more.
This bill also provides recourse to consumers who have complaints or
concerns about their air travel experience. When you have an issue with
air travel, a consumer complaint hotline at DOT will be available to
take your call. While it is our hope that this bill will improve the
flying experience for travelers, passengers should have a clear path to
addressing concerns with airlines. DOT should serve as a clearinghouse
for collecting these concerns so a ``big picture'' view of the entire
industry is available.
I am pleased that this legislation puts into Federal law the clear
right of passengers to be treated with dignity while traveling.
Reasonable treatment aboard aircraft should not just be a rule, it
should be a legal right of passengers.
I look forward to working with Senator Boxer on other vital
transportation issues that affect our rail lines, ports, and highways,
and the entire Nation. With the reauthorization of many of our
transportation programs this year, I am confident that improving the
movement of passengers and freight will remain a congressional
priority.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a Federal
program that creates jobs, improves communities, and ensures air travel
throughout the United States. The Essential Air Service Program was
created in the wake of the airline deregulation of the 1970s to ensure
the continuation of commercial airline service for smaller communities.
Four airports in Maine participate in the EAS Program: Augusta,
Rockland, Bar Harbor, and Presque Isle. The EAS Program supports these
communities and creates direct and indirect jobs.
If the EAS Program were discontinued, travelers would lose choices
and the economies of these communities would suffer. For residents of
northern Maine, the only way to travel by air would be following a 3-
to 4-hour car drive.
The Maine Department of Transportation calculates that 1,351 direct
and indirect jobs rely on aviation activities at the four Maine EAS
airports. In rural areas such as Rockland and Presque Isle, these jobs
make a huge difference. Without EAS, these jobs would likely disappear.
Additionally, without EAS, our rural communities would be less able
to attract new businesses and residents. A businessperson may be less
likely to locate a new operation in northern Maine if scheduled airline
service is more than 3 hours away. It would be simply unfair to pull
the rug out from under these rural communities as they try to attract
new jobs and businesses.
EAS is a small fraction of the total FAA spending, but it has a large
impact on our Nation's rural communities and travelers. I strongly
support the Essential Air Service Program and will oppose eliminating
this program.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have a briefing by the Secretary of
State. We have votes scheduled at 10 until noon, about. I ask unanimous
consent that vote be extended to 10 after the hour of noon to allow
Members to listen to the Secretary of State and still move the bill
along.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I have talked to the Republican leader. He knows I have
asked this consent.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 380
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, in a few minutes, I will ask the Senate to
proceed to the consideration of S. 380. S. 380 extends the Andean Trade
Preference Act. But first I would like to make a few comments about the
importance of this trade preference act.
I am very aware that a lot is going on in the world and there is
upheaval in the Middle East and there is a lot going on on both sides
of the aisle on spending, and I am very aware of what has dominated the
news and the attention of the Congress and the American people. I want
to talk for a few minutes about the importance of the Andean Trade
Preference Act and the need to reauthorize it.
I remind my colleagues that the Andean Trade Preference Act was first
enacted by President George Herbert Walker Bush as a way to boost the
licit economies of several Andean nations that were major producers of
illegal drugs. Over the past two decades, this program has been
supported by Democratic and Republican Presidents, it has been
reauthorized by Democratic and Republican Congresses, and it has been
widely recognized as a dramatic success--creating jobs for our workers,
who can sell cheaper imports to American consumers as a result of these
trade preferences, while also supporting the economic development of
strategically important countries in our hemisphere.
One of these countries is Colombia. We have been rightly focused on
other parts of the world over the past decade, but one of the untold
success stories is Colombia's transformation from a failed state to a
thriving democracy. It has been one of the world's great stories and
one of the greatest bipartisan triumphs of U.S. foreign policy in
recent memory.
Through the courage and perseverance of the Colombian people, the
government and armed forces of Colombia took their country back from
terrorists and drug traffickers and warlords who murdered the innocent
indiscriminately and sowed our society with illegal drugs. We were with
them every step of the way. It was President Bill Clinton, together
with a Republican Congress, who first enacted Plan Colombia, and it was
President George W. Bush, initially with a Democratic Congress, who
expanded Plan Colombia.
[[Page S812]]
Over the past decade, the U.S. taxpayer has invested more than $8
billion to help Colombia win its war, and it has been some of the best
money we have ever spent on a national security program. Remember, the
Plan Colombia and the war, where we helped the Colombians take back
their country from FARC and the terrorists and drug dealers, were to
prevent drugs from coming to the United States of America, where the
demand was created.
So I am proud that as an act of generosity and help on the part of
the American people, it was in America's national security interest to
see Colombia not become a failed state, which it almost was 10 years
ago.
The Andean Trade Preference Act has been a critical component of this
effort. It has provided Colombia, along with other Andean nations,
essential open access to our markets that has catalyzed their success.
What is more, the vast majority of the products these countries are
exporting to us Americans barely produce at all, such as cut flowers.
So it provides a huge benefit for our partners, with little competition
or displacement for our workers.
Unfortunately, after the long record of bipartisan support for this
successful and vital program, the last Congress did something deeply
shortsighted and terrible: Rather than extend the trade preferences, as
previous Congresses have done, it made their passage and the passage of
other vital free-trade measures conditional on the extension of a whole
array of new government spending--spending our country cannot afford.
As a result, the Andean Trade Preference Act expired last weekend and
with it the privileged market access that is so vital to key Andean
partners, such as Colombia. What is even more terrible, we are failing
Colombia at the worst of all possible times, as it is struggling to
recover and rebuild from massive flooding. I saw with my own eyes the
massive flooding, where hundreds of thousands of people have been
displaced. They have been devastated, and the estimated cost to rebuild
is several billion dollars.
But it is even worse than that. Not only has this Congress denied
Colombians vital trade preferences at a time when their country is
literally underwater, it has done so amid the continued failure to
ratify the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. This agreement mainly
benefits us, leveling the playing field for U.S. workers seeking access
to Colombian markets.
But the signal of strategic commitment that it sends to Colombia
can't be understated. By failing for 5 straight years now to pass a
Colombia Free Trade Agreement, we are sending the opposite signal--that
the United States is an unreliable and untrustworthy ally and that we
seem to be incapable of rising above our own domestic political
differences to consolidate our strategic partnership with one of our
best friends in the world. It is sad.
No trade agreement during a time of great need due to a natural
disaster, and how have the Congress and the administration responded?
By failing to extend critical trade preferences for Colombia and our
other Andean friends. We have kicked an ally while they are down and
right when they need us most. Colombian officials tell me that without
these trade preferences, their cut flower industry, which is one of the
pillars of the Colombian economy, could contract by 15 to 20 percent in
the coming weeks.
Now is the time to right this wrong. Now is the time to come together
and extend the Trade Preference Act--by itself, on its own, and on its
merits, just as Congresses before us have done. This legislation will
do that. It will extend the privileged market access for our Andean
friends until November 30 of next year. After we have invested so much
in the success of the Andean region--investments that have earned us
enormous goodwill and gratitude--why would we do anything to call our
friendship into question? Why would we do anything that harms our
allies? We cannot afford not to extend the Andean Trade Preference Act.
Let me also explain something to my colleagues. Before we went out of
session last year, we made an agreement--and the Senator from Ohio,
whom I see on the floor and who was one of the negotiators--that the
trade adjustment assistance would be extended along with the Andean
Trade Preference Act. The interesting thing about that extension is
that it was not only an extension of the trade adjustment assistance as
it was prior to the stimulus being passed, but also after. In other
words, the trade adjustment assistance had gone up to some $2.6
billion, an additional $620 million for the remainder of this year. So
it is in existence today, with $1 billion being spent on various
programs. There is a GAO study that severely questions these multiple
employment and training programs that are in existence today. They talk
about the $18 billion being spent to administer 47 programs, an
increase of 3 programs and roughly $5 billion since their last
reporting.
What I am asking my colleagues who are supportive of the TAA is to
agree to an extension of the Andean Trade Preference Agreement in
return for our extension, our agreement to extend the trade adjustment
assistance at the level of pre-stimulus. The stimulus was supposedly
advertised as a one-shot deal. So why should we increase trade
adjustment assistance in keeping with the enactment of the stimulus
package? Now that the stimulus is supposedly over, can't we go back to
previous levels of adjustment assistance?
I wish to make the record perfectly clear: This proposal of killing
off trade adjustment assistance is in being as we speak today. We are
saying we don't want the increase that was put in in 2009 as a result
of the stimulus package.
Things are not great in our Western Hemisphere. We have a return of
Danny Ortega in Nicaragua, we have Hugo Chavez continuing to
consolidate power in Venezuela. We are seeing other nations in the
region--and I won't enumerate them--that are becoming more and more
dictatorial, totalitarian, and anti-American. So when we don't extend
the ATPA, the signal to our friends and our adversaries in the region
is very clear: You can't count on the United States of America to keep
its solemn agreements negotiated and ratified by Republican and
Democratic Presidents and Congresses.
I understand and appreciate and respect the Senator from Ohio, the
Senator from Pennsylvania, and the Senator from Montana and their
dedication to trade adjustment assistance. I am not seeking to end TAA.
We are seeking to leave TAA at its previous level prior to the stimulus
package being enacted. I don't understand why that shouldn't be
sufficient in this era of huge deficits and debts.
I ask my friend from Ohio and those on the other side of the aisle
who oppose a long-term extension--who oppose the Andean Trade
Preference Act being extended--that we would agree to the extension of
the trade adjustment assistance only at the level where it was before.
Isn't that reasonable? Isn't that reasonable? It is $1 billion a year.
It is $1 billion a year that is going to be allowed under the TAA.
Again, I understand there are a lot of things going on in the world.
There are a lot of things going on domestically. There are a lot of
things happening, but shouldn't we pay attention to our friends, our
little friends who helped us so much in this war on drugs? If they had
become, as they nearly did 10 years ago, a failed state, the
consequences to the United States national security would have been
profound. We are watching the violence in Mexico and we are alarmed by
it, including the death of a DEA agent and the wounding of another one
in the last couple of days in Mexico. My friends, that was a Sunday
school picnic compared to what was going on in Colombia before we
helped them with the Andean Trade Preference Agreement. I urge my
colleagues to please consider at least a short-term extension of this
ATPA, along with the basic TAA, at least to give these people an
opportunity to recover from the devastation they have experienced.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate
consideration of S. 380. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read
a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the
table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the
Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Is there objection?
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I
know the Presiding Officer, the junior Senator from North Carolina,
wants to
[[Page S813]]
be part of the TAA extension. I appreciate that, as do Senator Casey
and Senator McCain and Senator Baucus.
My problem is this: I want to work with Senator McCain on this. I
want to make this work. I want to extend the Andean trade preferences.
He and I worked this agreement out with Senator Kyl and Senator Casey
and others at the end of last year, in the last 2 hours of the session.
I think that was the time line. Right at the end, we were able to
extend all of this, but only for 6 weeks. He wanted longer, I wanted
longer, but we couldn't get an agreement.
Senator McCain asked, is it not reasonable to extend the old TAA. The
old TAA started 50 years ago. It was a great program. It was
bipartisan. It has always been that. But it is not reasonable to do
only the old TAA. There have been 150,000 workers who are eligible
since the Recovery Act passed for the expanded TAA because they happen
to have lost their jobs to countries we didn't have a free trade
agreement with. They were not eligible under the old one, but they are
eligible under the new one. Or they happen to be service workers. They
are eligible under the new one but not under the old one.
It is a situation where because of things we do in this body--we pass
a trade agreement, people lose their jobs. We have an obligation--I
know people are focused on government spending, as we should be, and on
the deficit, as we should be, but this is an action of the House and
Senate. We pass tax policy here. We give tax breaks to companies that
move overseas. Why don't we pay for this TAA with something like that?
We could always do that.
The point is there are so many workers in this country who have lost
their jobs because of trade agreements, because of tax law and trade
law. They should be eligible for getting some assistance so they can
get retrained and go back to work. We all know people in our States--
Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Texas, West Virginia, and Ohio--where that has
happened.
The other thing we need to extend is the health care tax credit. We
know that literally thousands of workers--I can give you some examples
quickly: 400 Americans in Arizona, 1,400 Americans in Georgia--mostly
Delta workers--6,800 Americans in Michigan, 9,200 Americans in Ohio,
68,000 Americans scattered around every other State in this country--
because of the Recovery Act and the expansion of the health care tax
credit, they would be able to continue to get their health care.
So with reluctance--I don't want to do this, because I want to see
the Andean trade preferences extended--I am going to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, all I can say to my friend from Ohio is
we have deep sympathy for the plight of the citizens of Ohio who have
been very hard hit in this economic disaster that this Nation has
undergone in the last couple of years. There has been enormous loss of
jobs and income on the part of the citizens of Ohio, and particularly
that part of the country. I would also argue that my home State of
Arizona has suffered rather dramatically as well.
But does it make sense to dramatically increase any program at this
particular time? We are already spending $1 billion a year. That seems
to be a significant amount of money.
I would also point out that a lot of these training programs have
drawn scrutiny and even criticism from the GAO. This criticism has been
kind of telling. It says:
In fiscal year 2009, nine Federal agencies spent $18
billion to administer 47 programs, an increase of three
programs and roughly $5 billion since they reported in 2003.
So I don't think we could see tangible benefits from the trade
adjustment assistance. But we are willing, I say to my friend from
Ohio, to continue to support a $1 billion program per year for trade
adjustment assistance when we are slashing vital programs that people
know are far--we are all having to make sacrifices. Can't my friend
from Ohio be satisfied with $1 billion for trade adjustment assistance?
Again, I wish to say, we do have problems in our hemisphere. We do
have Brazilians striking out on a new and independent course. We have
Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Bolivia, we have these countries that
are looking on us as either an adversary or an enemy, depending on
which country we are talking about. So the message we are sending by
not at least extending this agreement I think is a terrible one, and I
ask my friend from Ohio to reconsider.
I also wish to say this: The President of the United States and the
White House should be weighing in on this. The President of the United
States has said he wants the Korea Free Trade Agreement and we want the
``Colombian and Panamanian Free Trade Agreement'' as well.
Well, if they want that, should they not want to extend the trade
preferences that were negotiated by President Bush and extended under
President Clinton? Should we not want that--and Republican and
Democratic Congresses alike?
I have taken too much time of this body. Again, I ask my friend from
Ohio to reconsider, negotiate, do whatever we can before we continue to
send this terrible message to our friends in the hemisphere who have
literally laid down their lives in the war against drugs, which we have
felt is in vital U.S. national security interests.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 2
minutes to make a motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I have great respect for the senior Senator from
Arizona. I wish to find a way--and I will give some specific names of
people who have benefited from the expansion of TAA. I brought in a
stack of literally 500 letters from Georgia, Michigan, and Ohio--the
States hit the hardest--some 300 people in Arizona, and others who have
benefited from the expansion of the health care tax revenue and TAA.
I offered to Senator McCain--other than the fact that it costs more
money, and I don't dispute that--that if we can work on specific
problems they have with individual parts of the expansion and if there
is a way of working out any kind of language they don't like, I am
happy to do that. I am going to offer a unanimous consent request on
TAA and tax credits and on Andean. The reason I objected is I cannot
walk off this floor having helped the workers in Ecuador and Colombia
but not the workers in Toledo and Cleveland and Phoenix and Charleston,
WV. That is why I will make this request--which will help in every
case--on the Andean trade preference, TAA, and health care tax credit.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate
consideration of Calendar No. 11, H.R. 359, that a Brown of Ohio
substitute amendment, also on behalf of Senators Hagan and Casey, which
provides an 18-month extension for trade adjustment assistance, and the
Andean Trade Preferences Act be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be
read the third time and passed, and the motions to reconsider be laid
upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, I certainly didn't want to
get too much into this debate because the fact is that GAO concluded:
Based on our survey of agency officials, we determined that
only 5 of the 47 programs have had impact studies that assess
whether the program is responsible for improving employment
outcomes. The five impact studies generally found that the
effects of participation were not consistent across programs,
with only some demonstrating positive impacts that tended to
be small, inconclusive or restricted to short-term impacts.
We are talking about an additional $1.6 billion. We can't do that.
Why in the world the Senator from Ohio and other Senators from his part
of the country were satisfied for years with a TAA of roughly $1
billion and now are not satisfied with that in these times of economic
difficulties confounds me. It is a sad day for our friends in Colombia
and the Andes who have sacrificed so much on our behalf. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
[[Page S814]]
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam 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
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
cloture vote with respect to amendment No. 7 be vitiated; further, that
amendment No. 93 be further modified with the changes that are at the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment, as further modified is as follows:
Strike all after the word ``Sec'' and add the following:
__. RONALD REAGAN WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT SLOTS.
(a) Increase in Number of Slot Exemptions.--Section 41718
is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
``(g) Additional Slots.--
``(1) Initial increase in exemptions.--Within 95 days after
the date of enactment of the FAA Air Transportation
Modernization and Safety Improvement Act, the Secretary shall
grant, by order, 24 slot exemptions from the application of
sections 49104(a)(5), 49109, 49111(e), and 41714 of this
title to air carriers to operate limited frequencies and
aircraft on routes between Ronald Reagan Washington National
Airport and airports located beyond the perimeter described
in section 49109 or, as provided in paragraph (2)(C),
airports located within that perimeter, and exemptions from
the requirements of subparts K and S of part 93, Code of
Federal Regulations, if the Secretary finds that the
exemptions will--
``(A) provide air transportation with domestic network
benefits in areas beyond the perimeter described in section
49109;
``(B) increase competition in multiple markets;
``(C) not reduce travel options for communities served by
small hub airports and medium hub airports within the
perimeter described in section 49109;
``(D) not result in meaningfully increased travel delays;
``(E) enhance options for nonstop travel to and from the
beyond-perimeter airports that will be served as a result of
those exemptions;
``(F) have a positive impact on the overall level of
competition in the markets that will be served as a result of
those exemptions; and
``(G) produce public benefits, including the likelihood
that the service to airports located beyond the perimeter
described in section 49109 will result in lower fares, higher
capacity, and a variety of service options.
``(2) New entrants and limited incumbents.--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.
``(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. The Secretary may not grant more than 2
slot exemptions under paragraph (1) to an air carrier with
respect to the same airport, except in the case of an airport
serving a metropolitan area with a population of more than 1
million persons.
``(4) Conditions.--Beyond-perimeter flight operations
carried out by an air carrier using an exemption granted
under this subsection shall be subject to the following
conditions:
``(A) An air carrier may not operate a multi-aisle or
widebody aircraft in conducting such operations.
``(B) An air carrier granted an exemption under this
subsection is prohibited from selling, trading, leasing, or
otherwise transferring the rights to its beyond-perimeter
exemptions, except through an air carrier merger or
acquisition.
``(5) Operations deadline.--An air carrier granted a slot
exemption under this subsection shall commence operations
using that slot within 60 days after the date on which the
exemption was granted.
``(6) Impact study.--Within 17 months after granting the
additional exemptions authorized by paragraph (1) the
Secretary shall complete a study of the direct effects of the
additional exemptions, including the extent to which the
additional exemptions have--
``(A) caused congestion problems at the airport;
``(B) had a negative effect on the financial condition of
the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority;
``(C) affected the environment in the area surrounding the
airport; and
``(D) resulted in meaningful loss of service to small and
medium markets within the perimeter described in section
49109.
``(7) Additional exemptions.--
``(A) Determination.--The Secretary shall determine, on the
basis of the study required by paragraph (6), whether--
``(i) the additional exemptions authorized by paragraph (1)
have had a substantial negative effect on Ronald Reagan
Washington National Airport, Washington Dulles International
Airport, or Baltimore/Washington Thurgood Marshall
International Airport; and
``(ii) the granting of additional exemptions under this
paragraph may, or may not, reasonably be expected to have a
substantial negative effect on any of those airports.
``(B) Authority to grant additional exemptions.--Beginning
6 months after the date on which the impact study is
concluded, the Secretary may grant up to 8 slot exemptions to
incumbent air carriers, in addition to those granted under
paragraph (1) of this subsection, if the Secretary determines
that--
``(i) the additional exemptions authorized by paragraph (1)
have not had a substantial negative effect on any of those
airports; and
``(ii) the granting of additional exemptions under this
subparagraph may not reasonably be expected to have a
negative effect on any of those airports.
``(C) 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.
``(D) 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.
``(E) 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--
``(1) 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; and
``(2) shall afford a scheduling priority to slots currently
held by limited incumbent air carriers for service to
airports located beyond the perimeter described in section
49109, to the extent necessary to protect viability of such
service .''.
(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. Madam President, we are ready for the vote on the
amendment. I ask for a vote on amendment No. 93, as further modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
93, as further modified.
The amendment (No. 93), as further modified, was agreed to.
Amendment No. 7, as Amended
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to Inhofe
amendment No. 7, as amended.
The amendment (No. 7), as amended, was agreed to.
[[Page S815]]
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I wish to ask the Senator from
Arizona to engage in a colloquy with myself and Senator Rockefeller and
any others who wish to speak within this colloquy regarding an issue
that was not able to be resolved because of the time constraints.
I want to say that every stakeholder representing constituents all
over America gave greatly to adopt this amendment that will have, in my
opinion, a responsible relaxation of the perimeter rule at Washington
National Airport.
We can talk about the details certainly as we move forward, but there
was one major issue left unresolved that I think deserves a colloquy so
we know what we have to do to finish this process in conference before
we adopt an FAA bill that is a very important bill for our country.
I ask the Senator from Arizona to state his concerns about the
unfinished part of this bill, and then we will open it for discussion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Madam President, first, I ask unanimous consent that the
cloture vote on the underlying bill occur at 2 p.m. today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KYL. Madam President, very briefly, the Senator from Texas is
correct. No one who was directly involved in these negotiations is
pleased with the outcome. Some will say that must be a pretty good
outcome then. One of the things we did in order to enable us to come to
agreement is defer a big issue. That issue will have to be resolved in
conference. It is the issue of how the additional flights that are
being allowed under this legislation will be allocated among the
various air carriers.
Ordinarily, an agency will make a decision based upon criteria the
Congress lays out in the underlying legislation; otherwise, their
decisions can be challenged as arbitrary and capricious. It is up to us
to devise what those standards are. We were not able to agree on them.
It is one of the things we will have to try to come to an agreement
with each other about and then articulate a position with our House
colleagues in conference. This pertains both to the original or first-
year tranche as well to the second-year tranche.
I hope my colleagues and I can continue to work together in the
spirit of cooperation to devise good criteria so the last piece of this
legislation can be put into place.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I wish to make a couple of
observations. First of all, I apologize to all of our colleagues having
to postpone cloture and precloture votes. What has happened is a number
of folks have come in at the very last second and asked for changes.
That is not usually the way committee business is done. We have been on
this for a number of years. But we have to face the reality of that
fact. We want to get cloture, and we want the bill to pass.
I say to my friend from Arizona that I will work with him and with--
whether it is GAO, DOT, or whomever we decide to work with or both,
which we can obviously do and which is in the legislation; the GAO is
automatic for any Member--that I will work to try and resolve this
problem as best as I can.
There are many problems wandering around, but the basis of the bill,
the structure of the bill, the overall bill is actually not just about
slots. That is a relatively small part. It has been virtually all of
the conversation and the debate.
As Senator Hutchison pointed out, a new air traffic control system,
airline safety, all kinds of other things, are so predominantly
important that we have had to proceed in this way to try to accommodate
our colleagues, and that we will continue to try to do.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, let me thank the chair and the ranking
member for their leadership on this issue. Along with my colleagues
from Maryland, we have the airports that are most affected by these
changes, and we have worked in that spirit of compromise. As the
Senator from Arizona noted, I don't think anyone is totally satisfied.
I wish to particularly single out the ranking member and the chair
for their willingness to acknowledge our work on the issue of the
effects of these additional flights. Going up from where the House
position was and the airport authority's original position was to make
sure--vis-a-vis Dulles--that the economic effects of this and the
question involving the potential shared debt service between the two
airports be addressed. This was an issue, again, that we were not able
to resolve, but I appreciate the chair, the ranking member and their
staffs' willingness to continue to work as this bill goes to
conference.
It is very important that we get this bill passed and we move forward
on NextGen and all the other important parts of the FAA bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, there have been a lot of
negotiations on this amendment, but I do think we now have a
breakthrough and a way forward to solve the unresolved issues and pass
a very good FAA bill.
In general, the amendment does relax the perimeter rule, with
exemptions. There will be five new entrant capabilities--``new
entrant'' meaning air carriers that do not serve National Airport now
at all--and limited incumbents that have fewer flights from National
Airport will get five new slots that will be able to go outside of the
1,250-mile perimeter that has been a standard restriction at National
Airport. In addition, there will be seven flights that incumbent
carriers can exchange from inside the perimeter to outside the
perimeter.
Earlier the Senators from outside the perimeter, which is basically
west of St. Louis or Denver, have wanted 75 new flights. They came down
to 30, then they came down to 21, and now we are at 16. That would be
total because the last four would come later, after a study has shown
that there would not be disruptions or congestion at National Airport.
So I think we have a very limited number of flights that will be coming
in to National Airport--a total of 16 but, of those 16, 11 are already
flights that go in and out of National. Thanks to the good work of the
Senators from Virginia and Maryland, there will be very little increase
or disruption in the National Airport area.
In addition, although the western Senators negotiated down
significantly from what they originally wanted, the Senators from the
northwest also wanted to have the capability for more competition and
more consumer access, and I agree with them. I think they did a great
job. Senator Wyden, Senator Cantwell, Senator Merkley, and Senator
Murray also had great concerns, along with the Senators from Alaska,
Senator Murkowski and Senator Begich. They had concerns we had to
address. And the California Senators most certainly have wanted more
access from California, and that is a huge population base that will
now have better access to National Airport as well as Dulles.
I think that is the outline of the amendment we have just adopted,
and we are going to continue to work in conference. The House bill has
five new entrants only, and we have 16. We have conversions; the House
does not. So there will be a lot of talk and a lot of input, but my
goal is to have more competition, to have strengthened air carriers for
our overall U.S. air competition, and to ensure that the people west of
the Mississippi River have access to National Airport.
I think we have made a good start, and I commend all of those who
have been involved in a very delicate negotiation. I especially thank
my chairman, Senator Rockefeller of the Commerce Committee, for helping
us to get to this point where we could pass an FAA bill.
As has been mentioned, we are on our 18th short-term extension of
FAA, and if we are going to have the next-generation air traffic
control system, a modernization of the air traffic control system and
the safety requirements, we have to pass the underlying bill. So we
have taken a major first step. It is not the end by any means, but it
is the beginning of the end.
I now recognize Senator Wyden, who was very much a part of
resurrecting from the dead, I would say is not too strong a term, the
amendment that
[[Page S816]]
would have gone by the wayside but for his persistence in ensuring that
we could come to terms that would make no one happy but also no one
truly unhappy.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I yield to the distinguished chairman of
the Commerce Committee, and I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed
to speak briefly after the chairman of the Commerce Committee has
spoken.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I wish to echo what Senator
Hutchison has just said. In the process of legislation, if you look at
it logically, you do it over a period of years--1 or 2--or a number of
months, and people get their amendments in. That has not been the case
here. On the other hand, one has to recognize that people feel very
strongly, and when Senators feel very strongly, they have that right,
and they have the right to try, therefore, to affect the legislation
even though it may be at the very last moment. I think everybody is
acting in good faith.
I appreciate very much the Senator from Washington, Maria Cantwell,
because she has given up a lot and she has also been very cooperative.
She is going to be the new chair of the aviation subcommittee, which I
look forward to and appreciate. I also appreciate the leadership of
Senator Hutchison and all other Members--the Senator from Virginia
whose time I have taken, Senator Wyden--who have participated in trying
to work this out. It is not a beautiful process, but it is one that
throughout the Senate has been solid and strong, and it needs to be
voted for when that time comes. As I said, slots are not the only
issue. The other issues are huge, and they are resolved without any
contentiousness at all. So in that spirit of really thanking all who
fought for what they have a right to fight for and saying that we have
tried to respond as best we could--and if nobody is entirely happy,
that probably means it is a good bill, a good approach--I wish to thank
everyone.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I appreciate the chance to speak for just
a few minutes.
I particularly wish to thank Senator Hutchison and Senator
Rockefeller and tell colleagues that last night, at 10 o'clock, after
hours and hours worth of negotiation, I thought the prospect of working
this out was absolutely gone. I thought that once again the Senate
would walk away from the idea of trying to come up with a way to have a
more competitive market-oriented system in the aviation sector.
Obviously, this is not all that needs to be done, but this issue of
slots, I would say to colleagues and the folks who are listening, is
not about adding more gambling machines; this is about the right to
land a plane. In much of our country, we have crowded airports, and
folks are very concerned about that because it really relates to the
business climate and it relates to quality of life. And it is not just
in my part of the country but lots of other parts.
So this morning we still had three or four outstanding issues. A
group of Senators, on a bipartisan basis, got together. We were just a
little ways up here in the building, and in good faith we worked
through a variety of issues--issues to make sure everybody was treated
fairly in terms of scheduling, issues to ensure fairness with respect
to the new flights and to something called conversion, which
essentially involves taking short distance of flights and turning them
into long distance flights. We still have some matters, obviously, that
we are going to have to review with respect to studying this issue and
ensuring all airlines have equal access to the markets. It is a
sensitive subject, particularly to folks here in Virginia and Maryland.
So these are areas that are going to take some additional work, but I
think, with the new provisions that have been added, particularly to
make sure we would have the five new round-trip flights from Reagan
National, ensuring these new slots would be intended for long-distance,
for out-of-perimeter, we have moved a long way to ensure that the
Senate will go into conference on a bipartisan basis in a unified
fashion.
Madam President, I would like to take particular note of the
extraordinary work done by Senator Cantwell, my colleague from the
Pacific Northwest. When you reach an agreement such as this, which had
three or four provisions, in effect, that were still being thrashed
through this morning, it only comes together when colleagues say they
have to find a way to get to some common ground and they can't simply
go into a negotiation and have everything their way. Nobody, in my
view, in these discussions moved more from the position they were most
interested in than Senator Cantwell.
Chairman Rockefeller has been right to note that she will be the
chair of the subcommittee. I can assure colleagues that no one will do
more to protect the consumer, protect competition, and to protect the
marketplace that we would like in the aviation sector than Senator
Cantwell. She was instrumental last night and this morning, where we
practically could have been fed intravenously and she just stayed put
and kept negotiating to get to the point where we had an agreement on
these slots.
I referenced, Chairman Rockefeller, when the Senator was off the
floor, that we can continue this kind of cooperation as we have this
bill pass the Senate and we go to conference. There is a reason we
couldn't resolve the slots issue in the past; that is, despite efforts
to come together, we just couldn't get Senators to focus on these three
or four outstanding issues that were dealt with this morning. I think
we have been fair to the big markets under this agreement as well as
the smaller markets.
So as the chairman goes into the conference, I think the good will
that came about as a result particularly of last night's efforts and
this morning's efforts and all the cooperation he and Senator Hutchison
have shown--he will be able to take an issue that was seen as
absolutely impossible to resolve even as of late last night--because I
felt when I walked in this morning that we were just going to hang
drapes on this question and possibly the whole bill. I think now this
bipartisan effort in good will shown by a lot of Senators on both sides
of the aisle, led by the chairman and Senator Hutchison, is going to
pay off. It is a very good start to an issue that isn't going to be
resolved today, but some of the principles that have been laid out
today are going to make a huge difference.
I wish to close by saying that my colleague from the Pacific
Northwest, Senator Cantwell, who I believe knows as much about aviation
as anybody on the planet at this point, did an awful lot to bring
people together.
I look forward to working with the chairman as we go to conference,
and I thank him for his cooperation. I also look forward to talking
about some additional issues that he knows I care a lot about--the
drones that are so important to central Oregon--but I acknowledge that
he has made it possible for us to make an enormous amount of headway
today, and I look forward to working with him and Senator Hutchison in
the days ahead.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). The Senator from Georgia.
(The remarks of Mr. Isakson are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, 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. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
FCC Resolution of Disapproval
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, yesterday, along with Senators Hutchison
and McConnell, I introduced a Resolution of Disapproval that if
adopted, will overturn the FCC's attempt to regulate the Internet
through its recent Open Internet Order.
In December, the FCC, defying Congress and the Judiciary, announced
an order that will give it sweeping new authority to regulate content
on, and access to, the Internet. Particularly in today's economy, the
Internet and associated applications should be able to
[[Page S817]]
evolve without unnecessary government interference that could stifle
innovation. The last thing the government needs to do is once again
burden the private sector with additional burdensome regulatory red
tape. While the FCC's action is certainly concerning, it should come as
no surprise considering this administration's history of usurping the
private sector's role in our economy and replacing it with more heavy-
handed federal regulation. As we have learned, such regulation only
serves to micro-manage private businesses and limits the ability of
companies to grow. On the contrary, this order will serve to smother
creative new uses for the Internet and to slow the expansion of
advanced broadband networks.
As you know, the Internet has become an indispensable part of our
economy and an integral part of our society. It is a source of
innovation, information, entertainment, commerce, and communication.
Largely unfettered by government laws and regulations, the Internet
owes much of its success to innovators and entrepreneurs having the
freedom to imagine, explore, and create new uses for the Internet. The
innovation and ingenuity associated with the creation and development
of the Internet in this country is a prime example of what the private
sector is capable of if its hands are not tied by Washington
bureaucrats. The problem with the FCC's order is that it puts the FCC
in the position of being the final arbiter of what broadband service
providers can and cannot do with their networks. As the Internet
evolves, new network services and management practices may be necessary
or desirable. Yet, I fear that companies will now either be barred from
innovating or will have to seek the FCC's permission first.
Under the order, Internet providers ``shall not block lawful content,
applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable
network management''. The order also states that these providers
``shall not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network
traffic over a consumer's broadband Internet access service.'' Guess
who gets to make the determinations as to what constitutes ``lawful''
or ``reasonable''? Not the consumer. Not Congress. Rather, it is the
unelected bureaucrats at the FCC, alone, that will make those
determinations. This gives the Federal Government, for the first time,
the power to make decisions that will affect what websites consumers
can and cannot access and how they may access them.
I continue to believe that the competitive market is the best means
to preserve and advance the future of the Internet. That is why I have
continued to fight the FCC's attempts at regulating the Internet under
the guise of preserving ``openness''. In 2009, I cosponsored an
amendment with Senator Hutchison that would have prohibited the FCC
from using any appropriated funds ``to adopt, implement, or otherwise
litigate any network neutrality based rules, protocols, or standards.''
Also, late last year, I authored a letter, signed by 28 of my
colleagues, to the FCC urging it not to proceed with this order.
With the sweeping new authority the FCC has given itself, one
question that should be asked: Is this order even necessary? How many
people in this country have been unable to access the Internet like
this order would suggest? Do the American people really want more
government oversight when it comes to the Internet? The Internet is
that last frontier when it comes to innovation without government
interference, do we really want to jeopardize this? Isn't this more
like a solution looking for a problem?
Consumers today have more access to more Internet services than ever
before. Business has invested tens of billions of dollars in new
broadband infrastructure. Internet entrepreneurs continue to offer new
services, applications, devices, and content to users of broadband
Internet networks. In this type of environment, there is little
justification for this type of proposed intrusion into the broadband
marketplace It appears, then, that this Order is simply a solution in
search of a problem that does not exist. As we have seen time and again
in Washington, this is a recipe for producing unintended consequences.
I do believe that government does have a significant role to play in
guiding the future of the Internet. There is a role for the government
in guiding the future of broadband, but net neutrality misses the mark.
The new government restrictions provided for under the FCC's order will
only serve to reduce the private sector's investment in our nation's
broadband infrastructure. Rather, Congress should work with industry to
find ways to encourage broadband investment and to promote competition
among Internet providers. Investors are eager. During this economic
downturn, tens of billions of dollars have been invested in new
broadband infrastructure. In turn, this has enabled Internet
entrepreneurs to offer new services, applications, devices, and content
to more and more users of broadband Internet networks.
President Obama recently announced his initiative to expand broadband
deployment so that 98 percent of Americans have access to wireless
Internet service. I support this goal. However, for this goal to be
achievable, there needs to substantial private sector investment and
participation, which cannot coexist with the FCC's order. In fact, I am
confident that if Congress and the courts do not act to reverse this
order, it will discourage investment, stifle innovation, and cost this
country more jobs.
The FCC's order is anti-free market, anti-competitive, will threaten
American innovation and cost American jobs. What possible reason would
the private sector agree to invest under this type of heavy-handed
regulatory environment provided under this order? I cannot think of
one. In fact, this order only creates disincentives for private
investment and innovation, which will only put us behind the rest of
the world. Consumers today use and have access to more Internet
services than ever before. While the FCC order will have little
positive impact for consumers, it will certainly reduce the potential
for innovation and investment in broadband networks. This will
dramatically slow the pace of that innovation and jeopardize billions
of dollars of future investment into broadband networks.
The good news is that Congress has the tools to correct this. I
encourage my colleagues to support the Hutchison-McConnell-Ensign
Resolution of Disapproval. This will allow Congress to repeal the FCC's
dangerous order on net neutrality. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Silver Fleece Award
Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, we are spending money that we do not have.
The administration's budget proposes taxing the American people to the
tune of $2.6 trillion, spending $3.7 trillion, and borrowing $1.1
trillion. Under the budget, interest payments on the debt are set to
quadruple from $200 billion this year to $900 billion in 10 years.
The great Harvard economic historian, Naill Ferguson, has stated that
the decline of a country can be measured when it pays its money lenders
more than its Army. We will hit that level in the next few fiscal
years.
Now, in response today, I am announcing our first Silver Fleece
Award. It is not a Golden Fleece Award because in this time of
austerity, we can no longer afford that. We pay homage to Senator
William Proxmire of Wisconsin that put forward the Golden Fleece Award
in the late 1970s and 1980s.
Working with Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, we feature what is in
his ``Wastebook'' on a new site called ``Wastebook on Facebook.''
There, the Silver Fleece Award is being proposed in three parts for a
vote by people who wish to participate.
This month we had three nominees for the Silver Fleece Award. The
second runner up was a pair of National Science Foundation grants worth
$456,000. These grants went to studies on why political candidates make
vague statements and how Americans use online dating. The first runner
up was for $615,000 in a grant to create a library archive about the
Grateful Dead, a well-known rock-and-roll band.
However, neither of these two projects were voted on as the worst of
[[Page S818]]
the current waste we see. Instead, the inaugural winner of the Silver
Fleece Award is for a nearly $1 million grant going to fund signs to
display poetry in zoos. The organization administering the program,
Poets House and Public Libraries, states that the goal of the program
is to ``deepen public awareness of environmental issues through
poetry.'' I would add, using borrowed taxpayer funds.
Thanks to this nearly $1 million program, a visitor to the Little
Rock Zoo in Arkansas can now read the words of author Hans Christian
Andersen saying:
Just as living is not enough, said the butterfly. One must
have sunshine, freedom and a little flower.
I would argue that future generations would be far more interested in
a life without debt, and taxpayers should not pick up the bill for such
projects.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the 2008
Readers' Digest article, the Poets House and Public Libraries statement
on the Language of Conservation, and the April 15, 2010, article from
the Arkansas Democrat Gazette.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Poets House and Public Libraries
Public Libraries: The Language of Conservation
The Language of Conservation is a Poets House program
designed to deepen public awareness of environmental issues
through poetry. The program features poetry installations in
zoos, which are complemented by poetry, nature and
conservation resources and programs at public libraries.
Working with five zoos and four public libraries in New
Orleans, Milwaukee, Little Rock, Jacksonville, and Chicago,
Poets-in-Residence collaborated with wildlife biologists and
exhibit designers to curate exhibitions in zoos that feature
poems celebrating the natural world and the connection
between species. The installations debuted in 2010 on the
following dates: Little Rock on April 17; Jacksonville on May
14; New Orleans on May 15; Brookfield on May 22; and
Milwaukee on June 19.
The Poets-in-Residence are Mark Doty in New Orleans, Joseph
Bruchac in Little Rock, Alison Hawthorne Deming in
Jacksonville, Pattiann Rogers in Milwaukee, and Project
Leader Sandra Alcosser in Brookfield, IL (just outside of
Chicago). The Chicago-based American Library Association is
collaborating with Poets House to share the outcomes of the
project--which is designed to be replicated--with libraries
throughout the United States and beyond. The Language of
Conservation is made possible with funding from the Institute
for Museum and Library Services.
This partnership between poetry and science began as a
successful program developed by Poets House and the Wildlife
Conservation Society that incorporated poetry into wildlife
exhibits at the Central Park Zoo in New York City. Through
the Central Park Zoo project, Wildlife Conservation Society
researchers discovered that the use of poetry installations
made zoo visitors dramatically more aware of the impact
humans have on ecosystems.
A story about the Language of Conservation, with a focus on
Project Leader Sandra Alcosser, appears in 360, San Diego
State University's blog.
____
[From the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Little Rock), Apr. 15, 2010]
Poetry Drives Home Message at Zoo: 50 Pieces Going Up To Get Patrons To
Think About Nature, Their Role in It
(By L. Lamor Williams)
Conservation was a foreign concept when notable 19th-
century author Hans Christian Andersen wrote: ``Just living
is not enough, said the butterfly. One must have sunshine,
freedom and a little flower.'' The Little Rock Zoo is hoping
such poetry posted around the park will inspire patrons to
think of their place in the world alongside nature.
The Little Rock Zoo is one of five around the country
chosen to participate in a $1 million federal grant program
aimed at promoting conservation through poetry.
``The goal of the installation is to make you think a
little bit more about the place of humanity in nature,'' said
Susan Altrui, a spokesman for the zoo. ``The impact that we
have on our environment and the natural world is something we
should all consider.'' The zoo's share of the grant was
$31,000, which covers the cost of the signs and their
installation around the park. The other zoos are in Chicago,
New Orleans, Milwaukee and Jacksonville, Fla.
Little Rock Zoo employees have been working to install
excerpts of nature-inspired poems around the park and plan to
have all 50 pieces up by Saturday morning.
The banner that displays Andersen's quote hangs in a play
area near the exhibits that house small North American
animals such as geese and prairie dogs. The yellow words seem
to float on a blue sky next to a lone monarch butterfly above
a field of sunflowers. Many may be familiar with such
Andersen works as The Little Mermaid and The Ugly Duckling.
The program is funded by the Institute of Museum and
Library Science--created by the federal Museum and Library
Services Act of 1996--in conjunction with the Central
Arkansas Library System, the Poets House nonprofit group, the
Little Rock Zoo and the Institute for Learning Innovation,
Altrui said.
The five zoos were chosen by the Institute for Learning
Innovation--a nonprofit group that seeks to support museums,
libraries and other learning institutions--and the Poet's
House--a national poetry library and literary center--to
mimic a program started at New York City's Central Park Zoo
last year, she said.
``They saw a lot of success with it. It was done with the
same organizations. They saw quite a shift in attitude before
and after in how people viewed conservation,'' Altrui said.
``The installation was making them think more. It was making
them understand the connection between animals, wildlife and
humanity's place in the world and in nature.'' The Institute
for Learning Innovation has already randomly surveyed zoo
visitors and will conduct another survey sometime after the
program is in full swing to measure attitudes toward
conservation and whether the project had any impact on Little
Rock Zoo visitors, Altrui said.
``The [follow-up] survey will gauge whether or not this has
had any effect on attitudes and whether or not someone has
learned,'' Altrui said. ``If we're not doing something that
encourages learning, then why are we spending the money on
it. Having that measurement tool is important when you have a
federal grant. We want that measurement tool also to make
sure that what we're doing is effective. `` A grand-opening
ceremony will serve as a highlight of the zoo's Earth Day
celebration, which begins Friday at 9 a.m. and runs through
closing time Saturday. The grand opening of the Language of
Conservation poetry installation begins at 10 a.m. Saturday
at the Civitan Pavilion.
Among the speakers will be Little Rock Mayor Mark Stodola
and poet Joseph Bruchac, who wrote some of the poetry
featured around the park, Altrui said. A full list of the
zoo's Earth Day Party for the Planet events, is available at
littlerockzoo.com.
J.J. Muehlhausen, project director, said she has been on
pins and needles waiting for the final pieces to be
installed. Among them, a large print poem that will greet
visitors at the arch over the zoo's entryway.
Her favorite poem has already been installed above the
entrance to the park's Cafe Africa. It's a simple piece by
W.S. Merwin that reads: ``On the last day of the world I
would want to plant a tree.'' ``I think that even when we
leave this world there will still be trees on this world,''
she said. ``The first job that God gave us as humans after he
created us was to take care of the flora and fauna--the
plants and animals--of this world. That was our No. 1 job
assignment.''
Mr. KIRK. I would also like to now announce the new nominees for the
next March Silver Fleece Award. First, we will have the opportunity to
vote to give the Silver Fleece Award for a $150,000 transportation
grant to create a ``wildlife crossing'' at Monkton, VT. This is a
technical term for a tunnel that will allow salamanders and other
animals to cross below a road.
Our second nominee is a $46,000 grant from the National Science
Foundation to study why people lie in text messages.
Third, we will nominate funding for a videogame called WolfQuest
which was funded by a $508,253 grant from the National Science
Foundation to a Minnesota zoo. We invite your votes and your feedback
on ``Wastebook on Facebook'' to decide what next month's silver fleece
award winner will be.
The sad thing is, the only loser currently is the American people.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, in about 5 minutes, we are going to
be, hopefully, voting for cloture on the underlying bill, the basic FAA
bill, which has been the product of an awful lot of work. I think,
generally speaking, we have tried to bring everybody in. Senators do
have rights, and as a bill comes closer to a cloture vote or passage
vote, some of those rights are exercised, which then complicates
things. On the other hand, it is what the system is, and people ought
to have those rights. You cannot ask everybody to sort of sit back and
think through a whole bill. Something occurs to them at the last
moment, and they need to come down and address that. We have tried to
do that.
I think we are pretty close to a slots amendment agreement. Not
everybody is happy about it, but everybody has
[[Page S819]]
given up and everybody has gotten from it.
So we will have this vote, and then we will continue work on various
aspects of the bill. I hope we can get it done tonight from the Senate
side. Then we have to go negotiate with the House, and their bill is
quite different.
But what is interesting about the aviation bill, it truly does affect
America vastly. I do not know how many times I have said it employs 11
million people. Actually, it employs, directly and indirectly, probably
closer to 13 million people, and it affects people's lives in every
single way. They are trying to build a high-speed rail system. You
cannot build a high-speed interstate system. You can take a chance at
it, but it does not work very well.
So travel by aviation is how people get to where they want to go. It
is a complicated industry. Costs go up. Sometimes it is because of
fuel. Passengers are held on tarmacs. Sometimes it is because there is
just congestion or there is a crisis at the airport of some sort.
Passengers, when they are on their way from one place to another, do
not sort of think about the problems the airline industry or airports
are going through. They just think about the fact that they are being
inconvenienced, if, in fact, they are being inconvenienced.
But I think it is a very good bill, and it has been worked on a very
long time by myself and an extraordinarily wonderful Senator, Kay
Bailey Hutchison, whom I call cochair of the Commerce Committee,
because she is.
People have operated in good faith. We have had a lot of scrums and
huddles about on the Senate floor. But that is the way legislation
probably needs to work. It is a very complicated bill, but it is a bill
that I think we will get cloture on, and people should actually be very
anxious to vote for it when it comes to final passage.
I will give a talk about that. But I just remind people again, we
have an air traffic control system which is so antiquated that there
are actually very many near misses in the sky because we are using a
radar system and planes often come very close to running into each
other on the tarmac. It is a very old system. It is a 50-year-old
system. This bill will fix that and make it safer for people to travel.
More planes can take off and fly.
So I hope we invoke cloture at 2 o'clock, and then we will continue
to work on the bill. It is important for America, and it is important
to satisfy as many people as we possibly can.
I thank the Presiding Officer.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill 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 (Mr. Sanders). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask to move to the vote.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, and pursuant to rule
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion,
which the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No. 5,
S. 223, FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety
Improvement Act:
Harry Reid, John D. Rockefeller IV, Kent Conrad, Bernard
Sanders, Benjamin L. Cardin, Sheldon Whitehouse,
Patrick J. Leahy, John F. Kerry, Amy Klobuchar, Jeff
Bingaman, Jack Reed, Tom Harkin, Carl Levin, Kirsten E.
Gillibrand, Christopher A. Coons, Claire McCaskill,
Richard J. Durbin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on S. 223,
the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act,
shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
Kerry) is necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 96, nays 2, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 20 Leg.]
YEAS--96
Akaka
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Lee
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Rubio
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--2
DeMint
Paul
NOT VOTING--2
Kerry
Vitter
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 96, the nays are 2.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
vote explanation
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for the
cloture vote on S. 223. If I had attended today's session, I would have
voted to invoke cloture.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I and Senator Merkley and many of the
Senators spent a great deal of time working on the question of slots,
which, in plain English, is about the right to land a plane. I am very
pleased we were able to work out our bipartisan agreement. I outlined
why it was so important earlier in the morning.
Given all the attention that discussion received, I want to make sure
the Senate did not lose sight of another important aviation issue.
Chairman Rockefeller has been very supportive of our efforts to try to
expand and improve the unmanned aerial systems--what are known as UAS
programs--that are so essential for the future of the aviation sector.
In this part of the aviation sector, we have seen enormous growth in
the last few years. A lot of folks know these systems are critical to
military operations. They have been of enormous importance in Iraq and
Afghanistan. But people may not be as aware that these unmanned aerial
systems also have enormous potential in the civilian sector. I am
talking now about firefighting, law enforcement, border patrol, search
and rescue, environmental monitoring. Law enforcement in rural areas,
that is much of my State, but I know other parts of the country are
also very concerned about this issue.
As yet, the Federal Aviation Administration has not come up with a
good plan for how to integrate these unmanned aerial system vehicles
into the airspace.
I am pleased that the bill before us includes requirements for the
Federal Aviation Administration to work on a plan for these systems and
establish test sites for UAS research.
It is my hope as we go forward--and Chairman Rockefeller has been
very supportive of our efforts; we have discussed this many times--that
it is going to be possible to expand these sites. Senator Merkley,
Senator Tester, Senator Baucus, Senator Schumer and a number of other
colleagues are interested in this issue. This is a chance for the
Federal Aviation Administration to finally give these unmanned aerial
systems the attention and the priority that is warranted.
There is enormous potential in the civilian sector. We talked about
it in the military sector.
I yield now to the chairman of the committee who has been
exceptionally
[[Page S820]]
helpful to me, not just on this question of the unmanned aerial systems
but for his patience as we worked through the slots issues where we
finally got a breakthrough this morning. I am glad to yield to him for
any comments he may have.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator very much. I
thank him. I agree with what the Senator from Oregon is saying. I want
to be helpful, and we will continue to be helpful. There are some in
positions not to be helpful and are not being helpful. I understand
that. Such is life. I will continue to be helpful on this issue, not
just on the substance because he has been so important in the
resolution of what he mentioned at the very end, the slots. He has been
a nonstop peacemaker, sort of the Secretary General of the UN. He
really has. I respect that, and I appreciate it.
This is complicated. It is emotional. He has been great. I will
continue to work with him on this issue to try and get to our mutual
goal.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the full committee.
He has been exceptionally gracious. I think Senators understand we
would not be here other than the fact that the chairman and Senator
Hutchison have prosecuted this case relentlessly in a bipartisan way.
We knew if we stayed at it on the slots issue we would get it resolved.
I thank him, given all the other things he has on his plate, for his
help on the unmanned aerial systems. As my colleague knows, Senator
Schumer and I have strong views on this issue, and we are fairly
passionate characters. The chairman has been very patient. We know we
have challenges in terms of working out the exact number of additional
sites. We thank him for his thoughtfulness.
This is going to be a good bill. We are going to conference in a good
position. It could not have happened without his tenacity and Senator
Hutchison's.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon. I
like what he said.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to add my voice of thanks to all
involved in the whole slots issue. I know at the last minute Senator
Wyden was actually shuttling back and forth between one side of the
Chamber and the other. I think it turned out well. It could not have
happened without the support of the chairman and ranking member.
Coming from the largest State in the Union, we have one flight into
Washington, DC. It makes no sense. It is not good for the economy. It
is inconvenient. It adds a lot of congestion on the highways. We are
very pleased that we are on our way to passing a good bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning
business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mrs. Boxer pertaining to the introduction of S. 388
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, I yield the floor, and
unless Senators Rockefeller or Hutchison want to speak, 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. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
budget debate
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this week the Senate began a debate about
nothing less than the future of this country. Next year we face a $1.65
trillion deficit, the third year in a row where the United States will
run a deficit of over a trillion dollars. Even more daunting, we are
over $14 trillion in total debt.
According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, or CBO,
the debt held by the public is projected to reach $18.3 trillion--or 77
percent of GDP--by the end of 2021. This is a problem that truly
threatens the well-being of this Nation.
CBO projects that the cost of simply paying the interest on all of
this debt will rise to $792 billion--or 3.3 percent of GDP--in 2021.
When you are pushing $1 trillion a year in interest payments alone, you
are reaching a day when the national government will not have the
resources to accomplish even the limited mission delegated to it by the
Constitution This is what ADM Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, meant when he testified today that ``our debt is the
greatest threat to national security.''
The President could have led on this issue, when he released his
budget earlier this week. But he took a pass instead. Apparently he and
his Democratic congressional allies have done some polling that tells
them two things.
First, the American people are demanding that Washington tackle our
annual deficits and skyrocketing debt.
And second, Democrats can benefit politically by standing aside,
letting Republicans propose solutions to this problem, and then
demagoguing the daylights out of any effort to restrain spending.
The coming debate is going to be a bruising one. But as we go
forward, it is critical that we keep one thing in mind. We cannot get
out of this hole by taking more of taxpayers' hard-earned money. Our
debt and deficit problems exist because Washington spends too much, not
because taxes are too low. It is a terrible idea to propose raising
taxes by over $1.6 trillion on net over the next 10 years alone. Yet,
that is exactly what the Obama administration's budget, released
earlier this week, proposes.
I said it earlier this week, and I will say it again. This budget
proves once and for all that our deficits and debt are not caused by
our taxes being too low.
The President has proposed a net tax increase of over $1.6 trillion.
Yet for next year--and every year--of his 10-year budget, he runs a
deficit. At their best, the annual deficits dip to roughly $600
billion. Even after these astronomical tax increases, the President is
still unable to balance the budget. And there are not many more easy
targets for Democrats to tax.
In 2012, in a foolish attempt at class warfare, Democrats are
prepared to let the tax rates expire with far reaching consequences for
the small business owners who account for half of all small business
flow-through income. Those small business owners would see their
marginal rates hiked by 17 percent to 24 percent under this budget. In
Obamacare they taxed medical devices, insurance plans, prescription
drugs, small businesses, and individual Americans. The result--a
surprise only to the most hardened ideologues--is the loss of 800,000
jobs according to the Congressional Budget Office. And yet they still
can't balance the budget. So who else do they propose to tax?
The bottom line is that there isn't anyone left to tax, unless the
President and his Democratic allies are willing to crush the middle
class with additional tax burdens. There is only one way out. We need
to restrain spending. As the chairman of the House Budget Committee,
Congressman Paul Ryan, explained, we need to get spending in line with
revenue, not the other way around. The analyses of the Congressional
Budget Office, or CBO, confirm this.
The CBO is the nonpartisan official scorekeeper for Congress.
According to its January 2011 Budget and Economic Outlook, from 1971 to
2010, taxes have averaged 18 percent of gross domestic product, or GDP.
So in recent history, we have had an average level of taxation of 18
percent of GDP.
Take a look at this chart that was made using CBO's January 2011
document. CBO explains that if no changes in law are made, taxes will
go up to 20.8 percent of GDP by 2021, and will average 19.9 percent
from 2012 to 2021. Taxes at 20.8 percent of GDP would represent a tax
increase of 16 percent from their recent historical average.
CBO also states that if most of the provisions from the December 2010
tax act were made permanent, then ``annual revenues would average about
18 percent of GDP through 2021--which is equal to their 40-year
average.'' So, according to CBO, even if all the Bush-era tax rates
were permanently extended, taxes would still be high enough when
measured against the level of taxation in recent history.
[[Page S821]]
So, if taxes are high enough already, should we raise them anyway? I
will go ahead and answer my own rhetorical question. Of course we
shouldn't raise taxes any higher.
On August 14, 2008, Jason Furman and Austan Goolsbee wrote a Wall
Street Journal editorial. In that editorial, Furman and Goolsbee stated
that Candidate Obama's tax plan would reduce ``revenues to less than
18.2% of GDP--the level of taxes that prevailed under President
Reagan.'' Today, Austan Goolsbee is the Chairman of the Obama
administration's Council of Economic Advisers and Jason Furman is the
Deputy Director of the Obama administration's National Economic
Council. The President must have missed their editorial, because his
recently released budget ignores the campaign promises of these top
officials, and raises taxes well above their historical levels. As one
writer has put it, all of the President's campaign promises seem to
come with an expiration date.
As this debate over the debt and deficits rages on, pay close
attention to the words that Republicans and Democrats use. You will
hear Republicans say that we need spending restraint. By contrast, you
will hear Democrats say that we need to deal with the deficit.
Let's be clear. Dealing with the deficit is code for raising taxes.
Liberal pundit after liberal pundit will pronounce confidently that you
can't deal with the deficit solely with spending restraint. Yet they
won't say why, and they won't explain how you can deal with the deficit
and debt through tax increases. That is because they can't. If they
came clean with the American people, they would have to admit that
their intention is to raise taxes on everyone and everything.
As I have already shown, taxes are high enough already, and we should
not be raising them even higher.
Yet the bottom line is that rather than dealing seriously with out-
of-control spending, tax-and-spend Democrats want to raise taxes to pay
for more out-of-control spending. And guess what: If we raised taxes to
eliminate the deficit, the current levels of spending would just cause
a new deficit to arise.
I have a chart here that demonstrates just how futile it is to raise
the top tax rate if the goal is to raise more money. When the top tax
rate has been raised over the years, taxes as a percentage of GDP still
hovered around their historical average of 18 percent. This held true
even when the top tax rate was raised to a confiscatory level of over
90 percent.
The conventional wisdom on the other side of the aisle is that we can
simply raise more tax revenue by increasing tax rates. However, the
history is pretty clear. This strategy simply does not work. Just take
another look at this chart if you don't believe me. Instead of raising
tax rates, what we need to do is implement a pro-growth tax policy.
That starts with not raising taxes.
For 2 years, we were able to fight off tax increases on small
businesses proposed by President Obama and congressional Democratic
leadership. However, I have another chart here that shows the
relationship between the annual growth of Federal revenues and GDP. As
you can see from this chart, when GDP increases, Federal revenues
increase. Similarly, when GDP decreases, Federal revenues decrease.
This should not be a shocking revelation.
When the economy is growing, the government collects more money in
tax revenues because there is more taxable income being earned. The key
is to have commonsense, pro-growth tax and regulatory policies. And as
I mentioned before, a pro-growth agenda starts with refusing to raise
taxes. Part of the difference between Republicans and Democrats on
whether to increase taxes comes from different ways of looking at the
world. Conservative Republicans look at the money earned by the
American people and understand that it belongs to the people. As free
men and women, America's citizens have a right to the fruit of their
own labors. Americans work too hard--they sacrifice too much--for
Washington to blithely raise their taxes to pay for an ever expanding
Federal Government.
Yet liberal Democrats have a different view. Listening to President
Obama and many congressional Democrats, it is clear that they view the
money earned by the American people as the Federal Government's money
first. It is only by the grace of the Federal bureaucracy that citizens
are given an allowance to live on. This is a huge difference. You hear
it when liberals talk about the cost of tax cuts. The cost of tax cuts?
Cost to whom? When Democrats talk like this, they are effectively
saying that anything you earn is the government's to spend. And it is a
cost to the government when they decide to let you keep your money. For
most Americans, this is an odd way of looking at the world.
Government costs money when it spends trillions of dollars on who-
knows-what. The taxpayer does not cost the government money when he
keeps what he earns. Yet this liberal worldview was on clear display in
the recent debate about whether to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax bills.
President Obama and many congressional Democrats said that we
shouldn't be giving tax breaks to certain taxpayers. Since when did
keeping your own hard-earned money constitute the government giving you
anything? That is not how the American people view it. And it is not
how I view it.
President Obama and many congressional Democrats viewed a failure to
increase taxes as a giveaway to taxpayers that increased the deficit.
Republicans view the job-killing tax increase with nearly 10 percent
unemployment as a terrible idea. The way to deal with the deficit is
not to raise taxes. The way to deal with the deficit is to live within
our means, as families and individuals do across America. The Federal
Government should only spend what it takes in.
The President and his allies like to say they inherited these
deficits. That is only a half truth. They inherited some debt and
deficits. But they have helped create much more. For example, nearly $1
trillion was added to our debt by President Obama's partisan stimulus
bill. That bill was loaded with pent-up Democratic agenda items and was
sold with the promise that it would keep unemployment below 8 percent.
We all know that by the President's own standard the stimulus bill has
failed miserably. Unemployment has been at or above 9 percent for the
last 21 months. That stimulus debt was not inherited by President
Obama, it was created by President Obama, and he is bequeathing it to
all of our children and grandchildren.
The numbers do not lie. When Democrats took over Washington, it was
like setting Homer Simpson loose at an all-you-can-eat buffet. For too
long, the desire of unions and government workers and special interest
groups to create new programs and grow the size of government had gone
unfulfilled, and when they finally seized the reins of power in 2008,
liberal Democrats went hog wild. Our Nation's deficit has gone from
$161 billion in 2007, when Democrats took over control of Congress--
remember, they had 2 years before President Obama even got elected. The
Democrats were in control of Congress. It went from $161 billion in
2007 to $1.65 trillion in 2011.
With respect to the debt, when congressional Democrats took over
control of Congress in 2007, the debt was $8.68 trillion. It is now
over $14 trillion. So when Democrats are talking about what a bad
situation they inherited, let's remember that these folks have been in
charge of Congress for the last 4 years. They acted as though the bills
on their spending would never come due. And like a college student who
maxed out his parent's credit card, Democrats are now looking for
someone to bail them out.
Unfortunately, they are looking to the American taxpayers to foot the
bill. This cannot happen. The American taxpayer is already
overburdened. Citizens are not going to stand for tax hikes when
spending restraint is called for. The bottom line is simple. We cannot
tax our way out of this problem. I personally will resist any effort to
do so.
That is one of the reasons why I am for a balanced budget
constitutional amendment. I have found Congress is incapable, fiscally
incapable, of getting this mess under control. It is hard to believe we
are that incapable, but we are. So we need to put some restraints on
Congress, and the best way to do that, in my opinion, is a balanced
budget amendment. I think that would be the best way.
[[Page S822]]
There are some who are looking at putting caps on spending, and that
sounds good, except for one thing. If you break the caps, you have got
to increase taxes. I think we would find ourselves increasing taxes all
the time around here, and that is a big mistake as far as I am
concerned. So I am very strongly for the balanced budget constitutional
amendment. I believe with the mess we are in, good people on both sides
of the aisle ought to be interested as well.
The last time I brought up the balanced budget amendment, we had 66
votes for it in the Senate. It passed the House overwhelmingly. If we
had had one more vote back in 1997 we would have had a different
situation today, because the balanced budget constitutional amendment
would have passed, and I believe 38 States would have ratified it in a
very quick fashion, certainly within a year or so.
Had that happened, we would not be in the mess we are in today. We
are in a terrible mess. One of the reasons is Congress cannot get its
fiscal house in order, and the reason it cannot is because of what I
have been talking about. I think it is going to take restraints that
the balanced budget amendment would bring to force Congress to have to
live within its means or at least vote to break the budget.
Most people who spend do not want that provision, because they know
when they vote to break the budget, their constituents are going to see
that and they may not be here the next election. So as much as I would
prefer to not have any artificial approach, I have come to the
conclusion that Congress plain cannot handle its own problems. It does
not have the fiscal restraint to do it.
A balanced budget amendment would be a constitutional amendment,
locked into our beloved Constitution. It would, like all of the States
in this country, except Vermont, require us to balance the budget or at
least show a reason why not and to vote so that we have to vote on why
not.
Germany has a balanced budget amendment. They meet those restraints.
Switzerland has a balanced budget amendment. They meet those
restraints. If they can do it, why can't we? I think we have got to get
real around here and start doing some things that will help save the
country, rather than push it right into bankruptcy.
We spend too much. Congress and the President pushed Build America
Bonds. Why do you think they did that? The government is going to pay--
it has been paying 35 percent on those bonds. Guess who pays that 35
percent. All of the States that have lived with fiscal restraint will
be paying for the profligacy of States that do not live with fiscal
restraint. That is not the way to go. It is not fair to the States that
are careful with their money. We know which States they are. In almost
every case, they are States that are dominated by my friends on the
other side. The fact is, I am totally opposed to this proposal.
In this budget, the President wants to make these bonds permanent,
while bringing down the 35 percent government match to 28 percent. But
think about that. That is still 28 percent from American taxpayers,
most of whom have lived with fiscal restraint in their respective
States, to help States that have not and that probably will not behave
responsibly. As long as they can get free money from the government,
why not, in their eyes?
Some of these states are in such dire straits that even some of these
Governors who have been big raging liberals in the past are starting to
say, we have got to do something about it. I want to pay particular
praise to them. I hope they will get spending under control, because
their lack of fiscal restraint and our lack of fiscal restraint here is
hurting our country.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill.) The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Infrastructure Investment
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the budget the President released Monday
includes more than $1 trillion in deficit reduction and two-thirds of
it comes from spending cuts. That puts the Nation on the path toward
fiscal sustainability. But it also reflects the urgency to invest now
in programs that will pay off for a long time. Investing in
transportation and infrastructure is the best way to ensure economic
recovery now and economic growth well into the future.
It has been 2 years since the President signed into law the American
Recovery and Restoration Act. The investments made in infrastructure
over 2 years have either saved or created over a million jobs all
across the Nation. In the first year alone, that Recovery Act led to
350,000 direct on-project jobs. Direct job creation from these projects
has resulted in payroll expenditures of over $4 billion.
Using this data, the House Transportation Committee calculates that
$717 million in unemployment checks have been avoided as a result of
this direct job creation.
In his State of the Union Address, President Obama challenged us to
start rebuilding our infrastructure for the 21st century. Our aging
network of roads and rails was built from a long time past. Our
infrastructure used to be the best. But let's be honest, America has
lost its lead. Mongolia has a more advanced air traffic control system
than America. South Korea has faster and easier access to the Internet
than America. Europe and China have high-speed rail systems far more
advanced than America. Dozens of commissions, academics, groups, the
smartest people in America, have all come to the same conclusion: Our
infrastructure is old and we need to invest in fixing it.
We have to reduce the debt and deficit. I was a member of the Deficit
Commission. I understand it as well as anyone. But the American people
do not want us to do this at the expense of critical infrastructure
that will be needed to grow our economy.
Unfortunately, the House Republicans currently are in a debate on the
floor of the House proposing that we cut off our investments in
transportation--right in the middle of the year, right before the
construction season. House Republicans are debating that this week.
Their plan cuts billions in funding for roads, rail, and mass
transit. It is going to cost us over 300,000 private-sector jobs. Let
me repeat that: 300,000 private-sector jobs; not government jobs,
300,000 jobs in the private sector. Can we afford that?
Let me give you some examples of what the House Republican budget
cuts. They cut money from the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund--
over $1 billion of it. That provides low-interest and no-interest loans
to our local communities to help them build and make safe wastewater
and drinking water. Most communities cannot afford to do this on their
own without raising property taxes through the roof, and EPA's funding
is vital if these projects are going to get done. This cut alone by the
House Republicans would result in 454 fewer sewer projects and 214
fewer clean water projects across America. And it would cost us over
33,000 jobs.
There is a program called the TIGER grants. Mayors know all about it
because what President Obama said is, we are going to cut out the
middleman. We are not going through the State capitals and the State
departments of transportation. If a mayor comes to us with a good idea
of a transportation project right at the local level, we are going to
send that money directly in a TIGER grant.
So what did the House Republicans decide to do? They took $1.1
billion from that program. That, unfortunately, would eliminate all
funding for this program this year, cutting off this construction
season, $500 million worth of investment in our Nation's
infrastructure. Worse, it rescinds $600 million for projects that have
already been awarded.
The Department of Transportation announced these projects last year.
Now the House Republicans want to cut them off. Communities in 40
States across the country have been planning
[[Page S823]]
for these funds for up to 75 projects, which would be absolutely
abolished by the House Republican action.
The House proposal will literally take away funding promised for
these projects, stopping work. Cutting $1.1 billion from TIGER programs
will put more than 30,000 private-sector workers out of work in
America.
Then they want to cut $7.1 billion from High Speed and Intercity
Passenger Rail Grants. I know all about that because, Madam President,
as you know, that route from Saint Louis to Chicago on Amtrak is one of
the prime areas for high-speed rail in America. The Republican proposal
would completely eliminate it, stop it cold.
Worse, they would rescind more than $6 billion for projects already
awarded funding. They take away funding from 54 projects in 23 States
across the country. The U.S. Department of Transportation tells us that
cutting $7.1 billion from high-speed rail will put more than 200,000
private-sector jobs at risk.
At a time when we should be creating jobs and building the economy
and building the infrastructure for even more jobs to follow, the House
Republicans have decided to start cutting jobs in America.
As the Speaker said when asked about whether he was concerned about
the loss of jobs from the House Republican cuts, he said: So be it.
I am sorry, but the Speaker has missed the obvious message from the
American people. They want us to create jobs, preserve jobs, right here
in America. Killing jobs in the U.S. House of Representatives was not
the mission that anyone was sent on in the last election.
Compare that cutting with the President's budget. The President
understands we have to invest in infrastructure. The unemployment rate
in the construction industry--a private-sector industry--is over 20
percent. Construction costs at this moment are low, and local
governments are moving forward where they can on projects because they
are saving money--at the same time the House Republicans want to stop
construction in America on these important projects. We need to make
these investments in infrastructure.
The President's budget calls for a 6-year, $556 billion
reauthorization of national transportation programs, He frontloads this
6-year bill with a $50 billion infusion of investments in fiscal year
2012. This will help us get the biggest bang for the buck. He creates
an Infrastructure Bank. Madam President, $5 billion is set aside to
provide credit assistance and loans to attract private investment into
public infrastructure.
The President is investing $8.3 billion in high-speed rail. He wants
to bring that high-speed rail to 80 percent of the American population
within 25 years. This is the first step in a long-term infrastructure
investment by our country, while the President still freezes spending,
reduces the deficit, and brings our domestic discretionary spending to
a lower level than it was under President Eisenhower in the 1950s.
We can invest in infrastructure in a way that is fiscally responsible
and will lead to stronger economic growth long into the future.
The House is proposing slashing investments in transportation and
infrastructure. That will cost us jobs, and it will stop us from the
economic recovery we desperately need. We need to enact a balanced
plan: cut spending, reduce the deficit, but remember that education,
innovation, and infrastructure are critical if America is going to
continue to be competitive in the 21st century.
(The remarks of Mr. Durbin pertaining to the introduction of S. 386
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Senate resume consideration of the McCain amendment No. 4 and proceed
to a vote in relation to that amendment; that upon disposition of the
McCain amendment, the Senate resume consideration of the Paul amendment
No. 18 and there be 4 minutes equally divided prior to a vote in
relation to that amendment; that no amendments be in order to the
amendments prior to the votes; and that the motions to reconsider be
considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or
debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 4
The McCain amendment No. 4 is the pending question.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays were previously ordered.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I move to table.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
Kerry) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 61, nays 38, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 21 Leg.]
YEAS--61
Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Harkin
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inouye
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Manchin
McCaskill
McConnell
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--38
Ayotte
Barrasso
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Hatch
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Kohl
Kyl
Lautenberg
Lee
Lugar
McCain
Menendez
Nelson (FL)
Paul
Portman
Risch
Rubio
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
NOT VOTING--1
Kerry
The motion was agree to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table.
Amendment No. 18
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 4
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to
amendment No. 18 offered by the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Paul.
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Madam President, this amendment will keep OSHA out of the
cockpit. This amendment is not about safety. OSHA wants to get into the
cockpit to add regulatory burden. But already the airlines voluntarily
adhere to OSHA regulations.
Before you vote to bring OSHA into the cockpit, you need to know and
remember that 20 airlines have gone bankrupt in the last 10 years. Do
we want to add more regulatory burden? Do we want to add more
regulatory cost? The opposite side, the President included, has said
they want less regulatory burden. Here is their chance. They have a
small chance here. Keep OSHA out of the cockpit.
OSHA has 2,000 pages of rules. OSHA regulations cost the economy $50
billion. Ronald Reagan was talking about OSHA way back in 1976 when he
commented on OSHA's 144 regulations with regard to climbing a ladder. I
repeat: 144 regulations about how to climb a ladder. No. 1 among those
regulations: Remember to face the ladder when you are going to climb
it.
[[Page S824]]
He also mentioned the hazards of being on a farm. From the OSHA
manual on hazards on being on a farm: When you walk around, look around
carefully and make sure you look down because there could be a slippery
substance. You could step in it and fall. That is from the 31-page OSHA
manual.
OSHA isn't all about safety. It is about regulatory burden--undue
regulatory burden--on businesses, and I hope you will reject this.
There is a slippery substance around here that we need to avoid, and
that is more government regulations. I recommend that we vote not to
allow OSHA into the cockpit.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this has nothing to do with OSHA and the
cockpit at all. Frankly, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said the people
who work in the airline industry, people who handle the airplanes,
flight attendants, have one of the highest rates of accidents and
illnesses in any part of the private sector. What happened is Congress
urged the FAA to consult with OSHA about workplace safety. They entered
into a memorandum of understanding. All this bill says is that FAA
should consult with OSHA, work together to increase workplace safety in
the airline industry. OSHA will have no regulatory power, they will
have no subpoena power, they cannot issue citations, they cannot get in
the cockpit. FAA merely consults with them. FAA still retains all of
their authority, and it will not change in any way the way airline
safety is regulated. FAA will continue to keep all of that authority.
It will be the sole purview of the FAA.
In addition, by terms of this memorandum of understanding, the FAA
will not adopt any OSHA standard unless there is no impact on airline
security. So that is a nonissue. Keeping OSHA out of the cockpit--OSHA
is not about to get into the cockpit. What we do want to do is to have
the FAA get the best expertise and advice on what they should do for
safety around our airplanes and in our airports.
Mr. President, I move to table the Paul amendment No. 18. I ask for
the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusettes (Mr.
Kerry) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 47, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 22 Leg.]
YEAS--52
Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson (SD)
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Manchin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--47
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Brown (MA)
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Kyl
Lee
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NOT VOTING--1
Kerry
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table.
Vote Explanation
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for the
votes on the FAA Authorization bill regarding the McCain amendment No.
4 to repeal the Essential Air Service Program and Paul amendment No. 18
to strike the clarifying memorandum of understanding between the
Federal Aviation Administration and the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration. Had I attended today's session, I would have opposed or
supported any motion to table both the McCain and the Paul
amendments.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, first of all, I express my appreciation, as
I have before, to the manager of this bill, Senator Rockefeller, who
has worked so hard for so long on this bill--years. I appreciate the
work done by the ranking member of this committee, Senator Hutchison,
who has worked with him for years on this legislation.
I ask unanimous consent the pending amendments be set aside and
Senator Coburn be recognized to offer his amendment No. 64; that after
the amendment is reported, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to
the Coburn amendment and that no amendments be in order to the Coburn
amendment prior to the vote.
Upon disposition of the Coburn amendment No. 64, the pending
amendments be set aside and Senator Coburn be recognized for up to 10
minutes to offer amendment No. 80, with a modification which is at the
desk, Nos. 81 and 91; and Senator Schumer be recognized up to 2 minutes
to offer amendment No. 71; Senator Brown of Ohio be recognized for up
to 2 minutes to call up the Brown-Portman amendment No. 105 to the
Ensign amendment No. 32, and the Reid of Nevada amendment No. 54 and
the Udall amendment No. 51 be modified with the changes that are at the
desk; the Wyden amendment No. 27 be withdrawn; and the Senate then
proceed to votes in relation to the following amendments in the order
listed: Brown-Portman amendment No. 105; Ensign No. 32, as amended;
Reid No. 54, as modified; Udall No. 49, as modified; Udall No. 51, as
further modified; Coburn No. 80, as modified; Coburn No. 81; Coburn No.
91; and Schumer No. 71.
Further, there be 2 minutes, equally divided, prior to each voted
listed above; that notwithstanding rule XXII, the Leahy-Inhofe
amendment No. 50 remain in order and that upon disposition of the
Schumer No. 71, there be 10 minutes of debate, equally divided, prior
to a vote in relation to the Leahy-Inhofe amendment No. 50; that the
Leahy-Inhofe amendment be subject to a 60-vote threshold for passage;
that if it does not achieve 60 affirmative votes, the amendment not be
agreed to; and that there be no amendments in order to any of the
amendments listed in this agreement prior to the votes.
Further, upon disposition of the Leahy-Inhofe amendment, there be no
further amendments or motions in order to the bill, except for a
managers' package, to be agreed to if it has the concurrence of the
majority and Republican leaders; the bill then be read a third time and
the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill, as amended; the
motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with
no intervening action or debate; and if the bill is passed, it be held
at the desk.
Finally, that when the Senate receives the House companion to S. 223,
as determined by the two leaders, it be in order for the majority
leader to proceed to its immediate consideration; strike all after the
enacting clause and insert the text of S. 223, as passed by the Senate,
in lieu thereof; that the companion bill, as amended, be read a third
time, the statutory pay-go statement be read and the bill be passed;
the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table;
that upon passage, the Senate insist on its amendment, request a
conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses;
and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the
Senate with a ratio of 5 to 4; all with no intervening action or
debate.
[[Page S825]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 54), as modified, and the amendment (No. 51), as
further modified, are as follows:
amendment no. 54, as modified
On page 27, strike line 11 and all that follows through
``or transfer'' on line 23, and insert the following:
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking ``purpose;'' and
inserting the following: ``purpose, which includes serving as
noise buffer land that may be--
``(I) undeveloped; or
``(II) developed in a way that is compatible with using the
land for noise buffering purposes;''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (B)(iii), by striking ``paid to the
Secretary for deposit in the Fund if another eligible project
does not exist.'' and inserting ``reinvested in another
project at the airport or transferred to another airport as
the Secretary prescribes.'';
(B) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (5); and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3)(A) A lease by an airport owner or operator of land
acquired for a noise compatibility purpose using a grant
provided under this subchapter shall not be considered a
disposal for purposes of paragraph (2).
``(B) The airport owner or operator may use revenues from a
lease described in subparagraph (A) for capital purposes.
``(C) The Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration shall coordinate with each airport owner or
operator to ensure that leases described in subparagraph (A)
are consistent with noise buffering purposes.
``(D) The provisions of this paragraph apply to all land
acquired before, on, or after the date of the enactment of
this paragraph.
``(4) In approving the reinvestment or transfer
Amendment No. 51, as further modified
On page 311, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
SEC. 733. PRIVACY PROTECTIONS FOR AIRCRAFT PASSENGER
SCREENING WITH ADVANCED IMAGING TECHNOLOGY.
(a) In General.--Section 44901 is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(l) Limitations on Use of Advanced Imaging Technology for
Screening Passengers.--
``(1) In general.--The Assistant Secretary of Homeland
Security (Transportation Security Administration) shall
ensure that advanced imaging technology is used for the
screening of passengers under this section only in accordance
with this subsection.
``(2) Implementation of automated target recognition
software.--Beginning January 1, 2012, all advanced imaging
technology used as a primary screening method for passengers
shall be equipped with automatic target recognition software.
``(3) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) Advanced imaging technology.--The term `advanced
imaging technology'--
``(i) means a device that creates a visual image of an
individual showing the surface of the skin beneath clothing
and revealing other objects on the body that are covered by
the clothing; and
``(ii) includes devices using backscatter x-rays or
millimeter waves and devices referred to as `whole-body
imaging technology' or `body scanning'.
``(B) Automatic target recognition software.--The term
`automatic target recognition software' means software
installed on an advanced imaging technology machine that
produces a generic image of the individual being screened
that is the same as the images produced for all other
screened individuals.
``(C) Primary screening.--The term `primary screening'
means the initial examination of any passenger at an airport
checkpoint, including using available screening technologies
to detect weapons, explosives, narcotics, or other
indications of unlawful action, in order to determine whether
to clear the passenger to board an aircraft or to further
examine the passenger.''.
(b) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than March 1, 2012, the
Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security (Transportation
Security Administration) shall submit to the appropriate
congressional committees a report on the implementation of
section 44901(l) of title 49, United States Code, as added by
subsection (a).
(2) Elements.--The report required by paragraph (1) shall
include the following:
(A) A description of all matters the Assistant Secretary
considers relevant to the implementation of such section.
(B) The status of the compliance of the Transportation
Security Administration with the provisions of such section.
(C) If the Administration is not in full compliance with
such provisions--
(i) the reasons for such non-compliance; and
(ii) a timeline depicting when the Assistant Secretary
expects the Administration to achieve full compliance.
(3) Security classification.--The report required by
paragraph (1) shall be submitted, to the greatest extent
practicable, in an unclassified format, with a classified
annex, if necessary.
(4) Appropriate congressional committees defined.--In this
subsection, the term ``appropriate congressional committees''
means--
(A) the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
and Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
of the Senate; and
(B) the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of
Representatives.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendments so I may call up amendment No. 79 regarding a Grand
Canyon economic impact study for air tour operators, and that it be in
order notwithstanding rule XXII.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, until the Senator from Oklahoma is
ready to start, I want to say I so appreciate the majority leader
working with us, as well as Senator Rockefeller, Senator Coburn, all of
the people who have had so many interests in this bill. I think we are
finally on the glidepath now, if I can use an aviation metaphor. I am
pleased to see that Senator Coburn is on the floor because now I
believe we will be able to achieve the passage of this bill after a few
votes tonight. I am very grateful to everyone for staying here to
finish this important document.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Amendment No. 64
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up
amendment No. 64.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an
amendment numbered 64.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To rescind unused earmarks)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ___. ORPHAN EARMARKS ACT.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Orphan
Earmarks Act''.
(b) Unused Earmarks.--
(1) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``earmark''
means the following:
(A) A congressionally directed spending item, as defined in
Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate.
(B) A congressional earmark, as defined for purposes of
Rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
(2) Rescission.--Any earmark of funds provided for any
Federal agency with more than 90 percent of the appropriated
amount remaining available for obligation at the end of the
9th fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the
earmark was made available is rescinded effective at the end
of that 9th fiscal year, except that the agency head may
delay any such rescission if the agency head determines that
an additional obligation of the earmark is likely to occur
during the following 12-month period.
(3) Identification and report.--
(A) Agency identification.--Each Federal agency shall
identify and report every project that is an earmark with an
unobligated balance at the end of each fiscal year to the
Director of OMB.
(B) Annual report.--The Director of OMB shall submit to
Congress and publically post on the website of OMB an annual
report that includes--
(i) a listing and accounting for earmarks with unobligated
balances summarized by agency including the amount of the
original earmark, amount of the unobligated balance, and the
year when the funding expires, if applicable;
(ii) the number of rescissions resulting from this section
and the annual savings resulting from this section for the
previous fiscal year; and
(iii) a listing and accounting for earmarks provided for
Federal agencies scheduled to be rescinded at the end of the
current fiscal year.
Mr. COBURN. Amendment No. 64 is an amendment by myself and Senator
Begich from Alaska. It is an orphan earmark amendment where we instruct
the agencies to eliminate moneys that have been sitting for 9 years or
longer and have not expended it. That is close to $500 million that we
could count so far, probably $1 billion. It helps the agencies. It is
money we have already allocated that will never be spent, that is
unaccounted for. I believe we are going to have a voice vote on it and
I appreciate everybody's support of that amendment.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the Appropriations Committee will not
oppose this amendment not because we think it is a good idea--it is
not--but
[[Page S826]]
because this amendment does nothing that is not already covered by
title X of the bill.
Sadly, this is the kind of amendment that took up far too much of
the Senate's time and effort in the last session, and none of it with
any discernable value to the American people.
Specifically, we asked CBO to score this amendment and they said
they could not. They pointed out that the definition provided in the
amendment did not exist 9 years ago; consequently, there are no
earmarks older than 9 years that meet this definition. So any claims
that this amendment saves the American taxpayer money is simply not
substantiated by CBO.
Mr. President, we took the further step of asking agencies across
the Federal Government if they could tell us what is out there that
could possibly meet the Coburn standard. There are indeed a few
projects at the Department of Transportation, but they are already
covered by title X of the underlying bill.
Outside of the Department of Transportation, we discovered that
there are a few sewer grants still on the books, but they total less
than $5 million.
And outside of those two agencies, there may be anecdotal evidence of
an earmark here or an earmark there, but that is it. Meanwhile, I note
that this amendment as well as title X may well end up costing the
American taxpayer more than the amendment claims to save.
The requirement that OMB must create and administer a database and
maintain it on its Web site costs money, not to mention the time and
labor necessary to establish the criterion for what defines a
Congressional earmark for the purposes of this amendment.
In the spirit of President Obama, I will not take this opportunity to
relitigate our past debates over the worthiness of Congressionally
directed spending requests.
Since my announcement of a moratorium on earmarks this year, it is no
surprise to me to see a number of press reports about the communities
across the country that are now finding themselves without resources
they urgently need.
However, I must say, in the spirit of our many past debates over
earmarks, that I find this amendment to be duplicative, ineffective,
and a potential waste of the taxpayers' dollars. And if it had come up
for a vote, I would most certainly have voted no.
We have serious financial issues before us, and we need to get to
work.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the amendment is
considered adopted.
The amendment (No. 64) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 80, As Modified
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up
amendment No. 80, as modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an
amendment numbered 80, as modified.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 141, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
SEC. 420. LIMITATION ON ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE TO LOCATIONS
THAT ARE 90 OR MORE MILES AWAY FROM THE NEAREST
MEDIUM OR LARGE HUB AIRPORT.
(a) In General.--Section 41731(a)(1) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by redesignating clauses (i)
through (iii) as subclauses (I) through (III), respectively;
(2) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses
(i) and (ii), respectively;
(3) in clause (i)(I), as redesignated, by inserting ``(A)''
before ``(i)(I)'';
(4) in subparagraph (A)(ii), as redesignated, by striking
the period at the end and inserting ``; and''; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) is located not less than 90 miles from the nearest
medium or large hub airport.''.
(6) The secretary may waive the requirements of this
subsection as a result of geographic characteristics
resulting in undue difficulty accessing the nearest medium or
large hub airport.
(b) Exceptions for Locations in Alaska.--Section 41731 is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Exception for Locations in Alaska.--Subsection
(a)(1)(B) shall not apply with respect to locations in the
State of Alaska.''.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this is an amendment regarding Essential
Air Service. The amendment of Senator McCain is to eliminate Essential
Air Service, which is basically a subsidy for people who have to drive
short distances--not long distances--to the airport. But we have
selectively said certain people in this country can be advantaged by
driving certain distances.
What this amendment as modified says is, provided the Secretary
doesn't see extraneous circumstances otherwise, you have to be at 90
miles or greater to qualify for Essential Air Service. We started out
with 100 and we saw there were significant difficulties that people
actually had with that requirement. What we have done is taken this
amendment and moved it to 90 miles. It does not affect a large number
of airports but there are several within this that have minimal
enplanements.
Remember, the average American drives over an hour to get to the
airport now. We are saying we are not going to do it if you are driving
an hour and a half, 90 miles, unless there is a circumstance where the
Secretary of Transportation says otherwise, such as some particular
places in West Virginia where it is tremendously mountainous and the
time and distance does not meet with the average. All it does is lessen
it.
Remember, in this bill we are increasing the amount of funds at a
time we are going bankrupt. We are increasing the amount of funds for
Essential Air Service. What we have done is a compromise to extend it
to those who actually need it but also not subsidize something we
should not. It affects less than 26 airports, and now less than that,
now that we have modified it. I appreciate my colleagues' support on
that. I think we will have actual votes on that in a minute.
Amendment No. 81
I call up amendment No. 81.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an
amendment numbered 81.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To limit essential air service to locations that average 10
or more enplanements per day)
On page 141, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
SEC. 420. LIMITATION ON ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE TO LOCATIONS
THAT AVERAGE 10 OR MORE ENPLANEMENTS PER DAY.
(a) In General.--Section 41731(a)(1) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by redesignating clauses (i)
through (iii) as subclauses (I) through (III), respectively;
(2) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses
(i) and (ii), respectively;
(3) in clause (i)(I), as redesignated, by inserting ``(A)''
before ``(i)(I)'';
(4) in subparagraph (A)(ii), as redesignated, by striking
the period at the end and inserting ``; and''; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) had an average of 10 enplanements per day or more in
the most recent calendar year for which enplanement data is
available to the Administrator.''.
(b) Exceptions for Locations in Alaska.--Section 41731 is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Exception for Locations in Alaska.--Subsection
(a)(1)(B) shall not apply with respect to locations in the
State of Alaska.''.
(c) Waivers.--Such section is further amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(d) Waivers.--The Administrator may waive subsection
(a)(1)(B) with respect to a location if the Administrator
determines that the reason the location averages fewer than
10 enplanements per day is not because of inherent issues
with the location.''.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this is another amendment on Essential Air
Service. This amendment eliminates Essential Air Service when the
average enplanements are less than 10 a day. There is no way we can
afford, given our financial situation, to subsidize Essential Air
Service for the airports that have less than 10 a day.
I know that is a disagreement amongst us, especially for those who
are having the benefit, that have subsidy today. By the way, the
subsidy is supposed to be limited to $200, but if you take what happens
on many of these, it is over $400; one of them is $482 per person per
subsidy on airports that have less than 10 enplanements a day. It is
common sense, given the realities of where we are today, realities of a
$1.68 trillion deficit projected by the White House for this year. It
makes common sense we would do this.
Amendment No. 91
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 91.
[[Page S827]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an
amendment numbered 91.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To decrease the Federal share of project costs under the
airport improvement program for non-primary airports)
Strike section 207 and insert the following:
SEC. 207. FEDERAL SHARE OF AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT COSTS
FOR NON-PRIMARY AIRPORTS.
Notwithstanding section 47109(a) of title 49, United States
Code, section 47109(e) of such title (as added by section
204(a)(2) of this Act), or any other provision of law, the
United States Government's share of allowable project costs
for a grant made under chapter 471 of title 49, United States
Code, for an airport improvement project for an airport that
is not a primary airport is--
(1) for fiscal year 2012, 85 percent;
(2) for fiscal year 2013, 80 percent; and
(3) for fiscal year 2014, 75 percent.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, the Airport Improvement Program is a
needed program but what we do regularly in the Airport Improvement
Program is we are incentivizing the expenditure of moneys in a way that
does not recognize the priorities of this country. The way we do that
is we have a cost sharing in which the Federal Government pays for 95
percent of all these programs.
What has happened, and even in my own State, we have spent money in
airports that have very few landings every day. There is no commercial
service but very few private planes landing. All this amendment does is
it says if you are going to qualify for the AIP for airport
improvement, that over the next 3 years we would take that from 95
percent down to 75 percent, which is well above the average of every
other grant program that we have in the Federal Government.
It is not about trying to eliminate, it is trying to say if we are
going to set priorities, what we should do is lower the amount of
Federal funds so that the State or the community that wants to utilize
these funds will recognize, by their having to pony up a little bit
more of the money, in fact it is a legitimate thing. At 95 percent we
are having all sorts of money wasted on things that are not a priority
for our country given the financial situation we are in.
With that, I think I have responded in less than the time allocated
to me, and I yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Amendment No. 71
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Rockefeller and Senator
Hutchison for their help here. Pursuant to the previous order, I call
up my amendment No. 71.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an
amendment numbered 71.
Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To control helicopter noise pollution in residential areas)
At the end of title VII, add the following:
SEC. 733. CONTROLLING HELICOPTER NOISE POLLUTION IN
RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
Section 44715 is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(g) Controlling Helicopter Noise Pollution in Residential
Areas.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 47502, not later
than the date that is 1 year and 90 days after the date of
the enactment of the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and
Safety Improvement Act, the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration shall prescribe--
``(A) standards to measure helicopter noise; and
``(B) regulations to control helicopter noise pollution in
residential areas.
``(2) Rulemaking with respect to reducing helicopter noise
pollution in nassau and suffolk counties in new york state.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
the enactment of the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and
Safety Improvement Act, and before finalizing the regulations
required by paragraph (1), the Administrator shall prescribe
regulations with respect to helicopters operating in the
counties of Nassau and Suffolk in the State of New York that
include--
``(i) requirements with respect to the flight paths and
altitudes of helicopters flying over those counties to reduce
helicopter noise pollution; and
``(ii) penalties for failing to comply with the
requirements described in clause (i).
``(B) Applicability of certain rulemaking procedures.--The
requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58 Fed. Reg. 51735;
relating to regulatory planning and review) (or any successor
thereto) shall not apply to regulations prescribed under
subparagraph (A).
``(3) Exceptions for emergency, law enforcement, and
military helicopters.--In prescribing standards and
regulations under paragraphs (1) and (2), the Administrator
may provide for exceptions to any requirements with respect
to reducing helicopter noise pollution in residential areas
for helicopter activity related to emergency, law
enforcement, or military activities.''.
Mr. SCHUMER. I yield the floor.
Amendment No. 105 To Amendment No. 32
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of
Senator Brown of Ohio, to call up the Brown-Portman amendment No. 105
to the Ensign amendment No. 32.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller], for Mr.
Brown of Ohio, for himself and Mr. Portman, proposes an
amendment No. 105 to amendment No. 32.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To improve the provisions relating to integrating unmanned
aerial systems into the National Airspace System)
Beginning on page 1, line 3, of the amendment, strike ``(3)
establishes'' and all that follows through page 3, line 10,
and insert the following:
(3) establishes a process to develop--
(A) air traffic requirements for all unmanned aerial
systems at the test sites; and
(B) certification and flight standards for nonmilitary
unmanned aerial systems at the test sites;
(4) dedicates funding for unmanned aerial systems research
and development relating to--
(A) air traffic requirements; and
(B) certification and flight standards for nonmilitary
unmanned aerial systems in the National Airspace System;
(5) encourages leveraging and coordination of such research
and development activities with the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration and the Department of Defense;
(6) addresses both military and nonmilitary unmanned aerial
system operations;
(7) ensures that the unmanned aircraft systems integration
plan is incorporated in the Administration's NextGen Air
Transportation System implementation plan; and
(8) provides for integration into the National Airspace
System of safety standards and navigation procedures
validated--
(A) under the pilot project created pursuant to paragraph
(1); or
(B) through other related research and development
activities carried out pursuant to paragraph (4).
(b) Selection of Test Sites.--
(1) Increased number of test sites; deadline for pilot
project.--Notwithstanding subsection (a)(1), the plan
developed under subsection (a) shall include a pilot project
to integrate unmanned aerial systems into the National
Airspace System at 6 test sites in the National Airspace
System by December 31, 2012.
(2) Test site criteria.--The Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration shall take into consideration
geographical and climate diversity and appropriate facilities
in determining where the test sites to be established under
the pilot project required by subsection (a)(1) are to be
located.
(c) Certification and Flight Standards for Military
Unmanned Aerial Systems.--The Secretary of Defense shall
establish a process to develop certification and flight
standards for military unmanned aerial systems at the test
sites referred to in subsection (a)(1).
(d) Certification Process.--The Administrator of the
Federal Aviation Administration shall expedite the approval
process for requests for certificates of authorization at
test sites referred to in subsection (a)(1).
(e) Report on Systems and Detection Techniques.--Not later
than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,
the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
shall submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives a report describing and assessing the
progress being made in establishing special use airspace to
fill the immediate need of the Department of Defense to
develop detection techniques for small unmanned aerial
vehicles and to validate sensor integration and operation of
unmanned aerial systems.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of
Brown-Portman No. 105.
This is the first of what I imagine will be many bills and amendments
my colleague Senator Portman and I will be working on together.
What the Brown-Portman amendment does is twofold: it paves the way
for further research and development of unmanned aerial systems into
our national airspace and would designate six sites across the country
to further test these new technologies.
[[Page S828]]
This is clearly needed and I appreciate the work of Senator
Rockefeller, Senator Hutchison, and committee staff on the issue.
UASs are a growing and important sector of the aviation industry that
is critical to our economy--whether it is protecting our men and women
serving in Afghanistan, patrolling our border, or better monitoring our
Nation's agricultural sector.
As further research and development is conducted, other scientific,
environmental, and law enforcement uses will become more standard.
In Ohio, cutting edge work is already being done on UASs: at Wright-
Patterson Air Force Base, the Springfield National Guard Base, and NASA
Glenn in Cleveland.
There is great potential in this sector for job creation and I am
confident Ohio will continue its role as the nation's leader in
aviation and aeronautics manufacturing and R&D as it relates to UASs.
I thank my colleagues for their support.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I yield back my time on our side.
Amendment No. 105
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Brown-
Portman amendment to the Ensign amendment.
Without objection, the second-degree amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 105) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 32
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Ensign
amendment, as amended.
Without objection, that amendment, as amended, is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 32), as amended, was agreed to.
Amendment No. 54, As Modified
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Reid
amendment, No. 54, as modified.
Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 54), as modified, was agreed to.
Amendment No. 49, As Modified
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Udall
amendment, No. 49, as modified.
Without objection, that amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 49), as modified, was agreed to.
Amendment No. 51, As Further Modified
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Udall
amendment No. 51, as further modified.
Without objection, that amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 51), as further modified, was agreed to.
Amendment No. 80, As Modified
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Coburn
amendment No. 80, as modified.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I move to table and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second on the motion to
table?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
Kerry) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 34, nays 65, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 23 Leg.]
YEAS--34
Akaka
Alexander
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Cardin
Casey
Collins
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Inouye
Johnson (SD)
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Mikulski
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Snowe
Stabenow
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--65
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blunt
Boozman
Brown (MA)
Burr
Cantwell
Carper
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Conrad
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Franken
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Lee
Lieberman
Lugar
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murray
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Vitter
Wicker
NOT VOTING--1
Kerry
The motion was rejected.
Amendment No. 80, as Modified
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
80, as modified.
Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 80), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the
table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority reader.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the next votes be 10 minutes
in duration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 81
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 81, offered by Senator
Coburn.
The amendment (No. 81) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 91
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to Coburn
amendment No. 91.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas
and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
Kerry) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 40, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 24 Leg.]
YEAS--59
Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inouye
Johnson (SD)
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Manchin
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--40
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Brown (MA)
Burr
Cantwell
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Kyl
Lee
Lugar
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Paul
Portman
Risch
Rubio
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
NOT VOTING--1
Kerry
The motion was agreed to.
Amendment No. 71
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to Schumer
amendment No. 71.
All time is yielded back.
The amendment (No. 71) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 50
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 10 minutes of debate, evenly
divided, on the Leahy-Inhofe amendment No. 50.
[[Page S829]]
Who yields time?
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, Senator Leahy is somewhere around here.
But since he is not on the floor, I will go ahead and present this
amendment.
This is a Leahy-Inhofe amendment. It is on two almost unrelated
things, but the Leahy portion of the amendment extends the public
safety officer program benefits from 6 to 10 families whose loved ones
died in voluntary services. It is fully offset for 10 years.
The important part of this amendment is mine, and that is--if I could
have your attention over here, and I am speaking to the Republicans
now, we have been trying to do this for a number of years, and Senator
Leahy and I have agreed to this. Those of us who have been pilots--and
I have been for 55 years--I have been involved in a lot of humanitarian
missions. What this does is offer liability protection to those of us
who volunteer ourselves, our money, and our aircraft to do missions no
one else will do. They are humanitarian missions. The longest one I did
was all the way down to Dominica, North of Caracas, Venezuela, through
two hurricanes, and we saved a lot of lives down there. This would
offer liability protection to those individuals who make those
sacrifices.
There are 8,000 of us, by the way, around the country, I am sure from
every State represented here. So I would encourage my colleagues to
support the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I have no problem at all with my senior
Senator's modification to the amendment. I am going to ask to have a
voice vote on this to accommodate everybody, recognizing the late hour,
but I want to make a point. What Senator Leahy wants to do is great to
help people. But the one question we have not asked is--and we are
going to be asked to ask it all the time from here forward given where
we are--is it a Federal responsibility to supply these benefits? You
can't find it in the Constitution. You can't find it anywhere.
When we look at the hard decisions we are going to have to make over
the next 2 years in terms of trimming both mandatory programs and
discretionary programs, where we set an example that we are going to
expand something that is not in our constitutional role, we are making
a mistake and we are setting ourselves up for failure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased we will finally vote on the
bipartisan amendment that Senator Inhofe and I have proposed. I thank
the Commerce Committee chairman and ranking member.
Before we vote I would like to respond to some remarks made on the
floor yesterday. The junior Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn,
expressed some concern with the portion of our amendment that makes an
improvement to the Public Safety Officers Benefits Act. As I understand
one of Senator Coburn's concerns, it is the belief that the PSOB
improvement I propose exceeds Congress's proper role under the
Constitution.
Section 8 of article 1 in the Constitution empowers Congress to
provide for the ``general welfare'' of the United States. Supporting
our first responders, and encouraging more Americans to serve their
communities as first responders, who are our first line of national
security, falls squarely within this clause.
Congress can and does legislate in many areas that support the
general welfare of our Nation, whether providing funds to fight violent
crime through joint law enforcement task forces, or providing disaster
aid to the states following natural disasters. Congress has
traditionally acted to support our Federal system through beneficial
legislation for the states. I find it difficult to understand how
supporting all of our Nation's first responders, on an equal basis,
exceeds Congress's proper and traditional constitutional role.
According to my review, there have been 65 Federal cases concerning
the PSOB program, and not one of them challenged its constitutionality.
In 1986, the Supreme Court took up a case involving the PSOB program,
which did not involve a constitutional challenge, and in fact invoked
the Constitution's supremacy clause to hold that the Federal PSOB
program's benefit could not be interfered with by any inconsistent
state law.
Senators may disagree about the wisdom or necessity of legislating
for the general welfare or in support of our first responders, but as a
constitutional matter, Congress authority to enact programs like the
Public Safety Officers Benefits Act is well established.
For over 30 years, since 1976, the Public Safety Officers Benefits
Program has assisted the families of first responders lost in the line
of duty, including local police, firefighters, and EMS technicians.
This policy was enacted in part to encourage more Americans to serve
their communities as police officers, firefighters, and paramedics. The
importance of the services they provide is undeniable.
Senator Coburn also expressed concern that our amendment expanded
Federal costs. So let me be clear on this point: while the estimated
cost of this proposal is modest--less than $13 million over 10 years
our--amendment is fully paid for through an included offset. Let me
repeat that because I think there may be some confusion on this point--
this amendment is completely paid for. It is deficit neutral and will
have no budgetary impact given the included offset.
I also heard a concern about the fact that this amendment may not be
germane to the underlying bill. If I am not mistaken, one of the very
first amendments the Senate voted on, and for which Senator Coburn
voted in favor and had no procedural objection that I am aware of, was
an amendment to repeal the health care law. I do not think that
amendment would be ruled germane. Nonetheless, in the spirit of moving
the legislative process forward, the Senate voted on it.
Senator Inhofe and I have worked together to try to advance two
proposals that are important to us, and which will both support our
Nation's first responders and encourage volunteerism. I thank Senator
Inhofe once again, and I urge all Senators to join us in support of
this amendment.
I ask unanimous consent that letters of support for my amendment from
the American Ambulance Association, the National Association of EMTs,
the International Association of Fire Fighters, and the International
Association of Fire Chiefs be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
American Ambulance
Association,
McLean, Virginia, February 4, 2011.
The Hon. Patrick Leahy,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Leahy: On behalf of the membership of the
American Ambulance Association (AAA), I am proud to convey
our strong support for Amendment No. 50 to the FAA Air
Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act (S.
223). Your amendment would ensure that the survivors of
paramedics and emergency medical technicians who die in the
line of duty and who are employed by nonprofit ambulance
service agencies are eligible for death benefits under the
Public Safety Officers' Benefit program. It would also
provide much needed liability protection to volunteer pilots.
We greatly appreciate that the amendment is named after
Dale Long who lost his life in the line of duty in June of
2009. Dale was a certified paramedic and provided emergency
medical care to patients for nearly twenty five years, most
recently with the Bennington Rescue Squad. Just two months
prior to his death, Dale was recognized by the American
Ambulance Association as a Star of Life for his years of
dedicated service to patients. In 2010, Dale was honored by
the National EMS Memorial. Dale is deeply missed and we
greatly appreciate your efforts on his behalf and those of
thousands of paramedics and EMTs around the country.
The ambulance service agencies and EMS personnel which they
employ, just like the communities they serve, are unique.
Communities are served by governmental and non-profit
agencies and a large portion by for-profit agencies. There is
one characteristic, however, that is constant. When there is
an emergency, all EMS personnel, regardless of by whom they
are employed, put their lives on the line. We therefore
applaud your leadership to make EMS personnel employed by
nonprofit agencies eligible for public safety officer
benefits and encourage you to ensure that eventually all EMS
personnel are covered.
The AAA is the primary national trade association for
providers of emergency and non-emergency ambulance services.
The AAA is comprised of more than 600 ambulance service
operations which account for providing services to over 75
percent of the
[[Page S830]]
U.S. population. AAA members include private, public, fire-
based, hospital-based and volunteer ambulance service
providers serving urban, suburban and rural areas. The AAA
was formed in 1979 in response to the need for improvements
in medical transportation and emergency medical services.
Again, we strongly support Amendment No. 50 to S. 223 and
greatly appreciate all of your efforts on the issue.
Sincerely,
Steve Williamson,
President.
____
National Association
of Emergency Medical Technicians,
Clinton, Mississippi, February 4, 2011.
Hon. Patrick Leahy,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Leahy, The National Association of Emergency
Medical Technicians, NAEMT, strongly supports Amendment No.
50 to the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety
Improvement Act (S. 223). In addition to providing liability
protection to volunteer pilots, your amendment would ensure
that the survivors of paramedics and emergency medical
technicians who die in the line of duty and who are employed
by nonprofit ambulance service agencies are eligible for
death benefits under the Public Safety Officers' Benefit
program. Your amendment would provide piece of mind to
thousands of emergency medical service, EMS, personnel and
their families including those of Dale Long.
The death in June of 2009 of Dale Long was a tragedy. Dale
was a certified paramedic and provided emergency medical care
to patients for nearly twenty five years and served with the
Bennington Rescue Squad for the last four of those years. In
1998, he was recognized as the Vermont Advanced Provider of
the Year. Dale will be deeply missed and we greatly
appreciate you honoring Dale by naming this vital amendment
after him.
The ambulance service agencies and EMS personnel which they
employ, just like the communities they serve, are unique.
Communities are served by governmental and non-profit
agencies and a large portion by for-profit agencies. There is
one characteristic, however, that is constant. When there is
an emergency, all EMS personnel, regardless of by whom they
are employed, are willing to put their lives on the line. We
very much appreciate your leadership to make EMS personnel
employed by nonprofit agencies eligible for federal death
benefits and encourage you to ensure that eventually all EMS
personnel are covered.
Again, we strongly support Amendment No. 50 to S. 223 and
thank you for all of your efforts on this issue.
Sincerely,
Connie Meyer,
President, NAEMT.
____
International Association
of Fire Fighters,
February 7, 2011.
Hon. Patrick Leahy, Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the nation's nearly 300,000
professional fire fighters and emergency medical personnel, I
wish to express our support for the Dale Long Emergency
Medical Service Providers Protection Act, and urge the Senate
to adopt it as an amendment to the FAA reauthorization.
The legislation corrects an inequity in Public Safety
Officers Benefit, PSOB, by extending coverage to those
employees and volunteers of non-profit ambulance squads that
serve public agencies. Throughout the nation, many non-profit
entities serve as the principal 911 emergency responder for
their communities, and the emergency care providers who work
or volunteer for such agencies should be treated as public
safety officers. For example, Dale Long, the individual for
whom this legislation is named, served as a paramedic for the
Bennington Rescue
Squad, which is the designated 911 emergency response
agency for the town of Bennington, VT.
We believe your amendment fixes this oversight without
undermining the original purpose of the PSOB program to
provide assistance to the families of fallen public safety
officers. The amendment strikes, the appropriate balance, and
we urge the Senate's support.
Thank you for your consideration of the views of America's
professional fire fighters and emergency medical responders.
Sincerely,
Barry Kasinitz,
Director of Governmental Affairs.
____
International Association
of Fire Chiefs,
Fairfax, VA, February 8, 2011.
Hon. Patrick Leahy,
Chairman, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Senate Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Leahy: On behalf of the nearly 13,000 chief
fire and emergency officers of the International Association
of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), I would like to express our support
for your amendment to S. 223, FAA Air Transportation
Modernization and Safety Improvement Act, which would add the
``Dale Long Emergency Medical Service Providers Protection
Act.'' This amendment strikes a proper balance between
providing for the families and loved ones of fallen non-
profit EMS personnel, and protecting the original intent of
the Public Safety Officers' Benefits (PSOB) program.
The amendment would afford previously excluded survivor
benefits through the U.S. Department of Justice's PSOB
program to the families and loved ones of fallen EMS
personnel who work or volunteer for a public or non-profit
rescue squad or ambulance crew that is officially authorized
or licensed to engage in rescue activity, and is officially
designated as a pre-hospital emergency medical response
agency.
Across the United States, many non-profits serve as the
principal 9-1-1 emergency medical responder for their
communities. These EMS personnel who work or volunteer for
such agencies should be treated as public safety officers
under the PSOB program. EMT specialist Dale R. Long, the
individual for whom this legislation is named, served as a
paramedic for the Bennington Rescue Squad, which is the
designated 9-1-1 emergency response agency for the town of
Bennington, Vermont.
Thank you for your continued support for America's public
safety community.
Sincerely,
Chief Jack Parow, MA, EFO, CFO,
President and Chairman of the Board.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back?
Mr. DURBIN. I yield back the time.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the 60-
vote threshold on this vote and have a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 50) was agreed to.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendments Nos. 10, As Modified; 22; 37, As Modified, 46, as Modified;
53, 57, 59, 65, 86, and 94
Under the previous order, the managers' package is agreed to.
The amendments were agreed to as follows:
amendment no. 10, as modified
(Purpose: To change the effective date for certain noise level
amendments)
On page 278, line 2, strike ``5 years after the date of
enactment of this Act.'' and insert ``on Dec. 31, 2014.''
amendment no. 22
(Purpose: To cap the local cost share under the contract air traffic
control tower program at 20 percent)
On page 143, beginning on line 10, strike ``for'' and all
that follows through ``enplanements'' on line 13 and insert
``capped at 20 percent''.
amendment no. 37, as modified
(Purpose: To clarify the allowable costs standards for public-use
airport projects)
Strike section 214, and insert the following:
SEC. 214. ALLOWABLE PROJECT COSTS.
(a) Allowable Project Costs.--Section 47110(b)(2)(D) is
amended to read as follows:
``(D) if the cost is for airport development and is
incurred before execution of the grant agreement, but in the
same fiscal year as execution of the grant agreement, and
if--
``(i) the cost was incurred before execution of the grant
agreement due to climactic conditions affecting the
construction season in the vicinity of the airport;
``(ii) the cost is in accordance with an airport layout
plan approved by the Secretary and with all statutory and
administrative requirements that would have been applicable
to the project if the project had been carried out after
execution of the grant agreement including submission of a
complete grant application to the appropriate regional or
district office of the Federal Aviation Administration;
``(iii) the sponsor notifies the Secretary before
authorizing work to commence on the project;
``(iv) the sponsor has an alternative funding source
available to fund the project; and
``(v) the sponsor's decision to proceed with the project in
advance of execution of the grant agreement does not affect
the priority assigned to the project by the Secretary for the
allocation of discretionary funds;''.
amendment no. 46, as modified
(Purpose: To allow the IRA rollover of amounts received in airline
carrier bankruptcy)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ___. ROLLOVER OF AMOUNTS RECEIVED IN AIRLINE CARRIER
BANKRUPTCY.
(a) General Rules.--
(1) Rollover of airline payment amount.--If a qualified
airline employee receives any airline payment amount and
transfers any portion of such amount to a traditional IRA
within 180 days of receipt of such amount (or, if later,
within 180 days of the date of the enactment of this Act),
then
[[Page S831]]
such amount (to the extent so transferred) shall be treated
as a rollover contribution described in section 402(c) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986. A qualified airline employee
making such a transfer may exclude from gross income the
amount transferred, in the taxable year in which the airline
payment amount was paid to the qualified airline employee by
the commercial passenger airline carrier.
(2) Transfer of amounts attributable to airline payment
amount following rollover to roth ira.--A qualified airline
employee who has contributed an airline payment amount to a
Roth IRA that is treated as a qualified rollover contribution
pursuant to section 125 of the Worker, Retiree, and Employer
Recovery Act of 2008, may transfer to a traditional IRA, in a
trustee-to-trustee transfer, all or any part of the
contribution (together with any net income allocable to such
contribution), and the transfer to the traditional IRA will
be deemed to have been made at the time of the rollover to
the Roth IRA, if such transfer is made within 180 days of the
date of the enactment of this Act. A qualified airline
employee making such a transfer may exclude from gross income
the airline payment amount previously rolled over to the Roth
IRA, to the extent an amount attributable to the previous
rollover was transferred to a traditional IRA, in the taxable
year in which the airline payment amount was paid to the
qualified airline employee by the commercial passenger
airline carrier. No amount so transferred to a traditional
IRA may be treated as a qualified rollover contribution with
respect to a Roth IRA within the 5-taxable year period
beginning with the taxable year in which such transfer was
made.
(3) Extension of time to file claim for refund.--A
qualified airline employee who excludes an amount from gross
income in a prior taxable year under paragraph (1) or (2) may
reflect such exclusion in a claim for refund filed within the
period of limitation under section 6511(a) (or, if later,
April 15, 2012).
(b) Treatment of Airline Payment Amounts and Transfers for
Employment Taxes.--For purposes of chapter 21 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 and section 209 of the Social Security
Act, an airline payment amount shall not fail to be treated
as a payment of wages by the commercial passenger airline
carrier to the qualified airline employee in the taxable year
of payment because such amount is excluded from the qualified
airline employee's gross income under subsection (a).
(c) Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of this
section--
(1) Airline payment amount.--
(A) In general.--The term ``airline payment amount'' means
any payment of any money or other property which is payable
by a commercial passenger airline carrier to a qualified
airline employee--
(i) under the approval of an order of a Federal bankruptcy
court in a case filed after September 11, 2001, and before
January 1, 2007, and
(ii) in respect of the qualified airline employee's
interest in a bankruptcy claim against the carrier, any note
of the carrier (or amount paid in lieu of a note being
issued), or any other fixed obligation of the carrier to pay
a lump sum amount.
The amount of such payment shall be determined without regard
to any requirement to deduct and withhold tax from such
payment under sections 3102(a) and 3402(a).
(B) Exception.--An airline payment amount shall not include
any amount payable on the basis of the carrier's future
earnings or profits.
(2) Qualified airline employee.--The term ``qualified
airline employee'' means an employee or former employee of a
commercial passenger airline carrier who was a participant in
a defined benefit plan maintained by the carrier which--
(A) is a plan described in section 401(a) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 which includes a trust exempt from tax
under section 501(a) of such Code, and
(B) was terminated or became subject to the restrictions
contained in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 402(b) of the
Pension Protection Act of 2006.
(3) Traditional ira.--The term ``traditional IRA'' means an
individual retirement plan (as defined in section 7701(a)(37)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) which is not a Roth
IRA.
(4) Roth ira.--The term ``Roth IRA'' has the meaning given
such term by section 408A(b) of such Code.
(d) Surviving Spouse.--If a qualified airline employee died
after receiving an airline payment amount, or if an airline
payment amount was paid to the surviving spouse of a
qualified airline employee in respect of the qualified
airline employee, the surviving spouse of the qualified
airline employee may take all actions permitted under section
125 of the Worker, Retiree and Employer Recovery Act of 2008,
or under this section, to the same extent that the qualified
airline employee could have done had the qualified airline
employee survived.
(e) Effective Date.--This section shall apply to transfers
made after the date of the enactment of this Act with respect
to airline payment amounts paid before, on, or after such
date.
SEC. ___. APPLICATION OF LEVY TO PAYMENTS TO FEDERAL VENDORS
RELATING TO PROPERTY.
(a) In General.--Section 6331(h)(3) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``goods or services'' and
inserting ``property, goods, or services''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to levies issued after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
SEC. ___. MODIFICATION OF CONTROL DEFINITION FOR PURPOSES OF
SECTION 249.
(a) In General.--Section 249(a) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``, or a corporation in
control of, or controlled by,'' and inserting ``, or a
corporation in the same parent-subsidiary controlled group
(within the meaning of section 1563(a)(1) as''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 249(b) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
(1) by striking ``subsection (a)--'' and all that follows
through ``The adjusted issue price'' and inserting
``subsection (a), the adjusted issue price'', and
(2) by striking paragraph (2).
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to repurchases after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
amendment no. 53
(Purpose: To require the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration to improve the inspection, mounting, and retention of
emergency locator transmitters)
On page 208, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
(c) Implementation of NTSB Safety Recommendations.--
(1) Inspection.--As part of the annual inspection of
general aviation aircraft, the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration (referred to in this section as the
``Administrator'') shall require a detailed inspection of
each emergency locator transmitter (referred to in this
section as ``ELT'') installed in general aviation aircraft
operating in the United States to ensure that each ELT is
mounted and retained in accordance with the manufacturer's
specifications.
(2) Mounting and retention.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall determine
if the ELT mounting requirements and retention tests
specified by Technical Standard Orders C91a and C126 are
adequate to assess retention capabilities in ELT designs.
(B) Revision.--Based on the results of the determination
conducted under subparagraph (A), the Administrator shall
make any necessary revisions to the requirements and tests
referred to in subparagraph (A) to ensure that emergency
locator transmitters are properly retained in the event of an
airplane accident.
(3) Report.--Upon the completion of the revisions required
under paragraph (2)(B), the Administrator shall submit a
report on the implementation of this subsection to--
(A) the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
of the Senate; and
(B) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of
the House of Representatives.
AMENDMENT NO. 57
(Purpose: To authorize the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administrator to authorize general aviation airport sponsors to
allocate mineral revenues not needed to carry out 5-year projected
airport maintenance needs for other transportation infrastructure
projects)
On page 54, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
SEC. 224. USE OF MINERAL REVENUE AT CERTAIN AIRPORTS.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.
(2) General aviation airport.--The term ``general aviation
airport'' means an airport that does not receive scheduled
passenger aircraft service.
(b) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
(referred to in this section as the ``Administrator'') may
declare certain revenue derived from or generated by mineral
extraction, production, lease or other means at any general
aviation airport to be revenue greater than the amount needed
to carry out the 5-year projected maintenance needs of the
airport in order to comply with the applicable design and
safety standards of the Federal Aviation Administration.
(c) Use of Revenue.--An airport sponsor that is in
compliance with the conditions under subsection (d) may
allocate revenue identified by the Administrator under
subsection (b) for Federal, State, or local transportation
infrastructure projects carried out by the airport sponsor or
by a governing body within the geographical limits of the
airport sponsor's jurisdiction.
(d) Conditions.--An airport sponsor may not allocate
revenue identified by the Administrator under subsection (b)
unless the airport sponsor--
(1) enters into a written agreement with the Administrator
that sets forth a 5-year capital improvement program for the
airport, which--
(A) includes the projected costs for the operation,
maintenance, and capacity needs of the airport in order to
comply with applicable design and safety standards of the
Federal Aviation Administration; and
(B) appropriately adjusts such costs to account for
inflation;
[[Page S832]]
(2) agrees in writing--
(A) to waive all rights to receive entitlement funds or
discretionary funds to be used at the airport under section
47114 or 47115 of title 49, United States Code, during the 5-
year period of the capital improvement plan described in
paragraph (1);
(B) to perpetually comply with sections 47107(b) and 47133
of such title, unless granted specific exceptions by the
Administrator in accordance with this section; and
(C) to operate the airport as a public-use airport, unless
the Administrator specifically grants a request to allow the
airport to close; and
(3) complies with all grant assurance obligations in effect
as of the date of the enactment of this Act during the 20-
year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act;
(e) Completion of Determination.--Not later than 90 days
after receiving an airport sponsor's application and
requisite supporting documentation to declare that certain
mineral revenue is not needed to carry out the 5-year capital
improvement program at such airport, the Administrator shall
determine whether the airport sponsor's request should be
granted. The Administrator may not unreasonably deny an
application under this subsection.
(f) Rulemaking.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall promulgate
regulations to carry out this section.
AMENDMENT NO. 59
(Purpose: To require a report on the use of explosive pest control
devices)
At the end of subtitle A of title V, add the following:
SEC. 523. USE OF EXPLOSIVE PEST CONTROL DEVICES.
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
shall submit to Congress a report that--
(1) describes the use throughout the United States of
explosive pest control devices in mitigating bird strikes in
flight operations;
(2) evaluates the utility, cost-effectiveness, and safety
of using explosive pest control devices in wildlife
management; and
(3) evaluates the potential impact on flight safety and
operations if explosive pest control devices were made
unavailable or more costly during subsequent calendar years.
AMENDMENT NO. 65
(Purpose: To accelerate the implementation of required navigation
performance procedures)
On page 80, beginning with line 8 strike through line 25 on
page 83 and insert the following:
(a) OEP Airport Procedures.--
(1) In general.--Within 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration shall publish a report, after
consultation with representatives of appropriate
Administration employee groups, airport operators, air
carriers, general aviation representatives, aircraft and
avionics manufacturers, and third parties that have received
letters of qualification from the Administration to design
and validate required navigation performance flight paths for
public use (in this section referred to as ``qualified third
parties'') that includes the following:
(A) RNP operations.--A list of required navigation
performance procedures (as defined in FAA order 8260.52(d))
to be developed, certified, and published, and the air
traffic control operational changes, to maximize the
efficiency and capacity of NextGen commercial operations at
the 137 small, medium, and large hub airports. The
Administrator shall clearly identify each required navigation
performance operation that is an overlay of an existing
instrument flight procedure.
(B) Coordination and implementation activities.--A
description of the activities and operational changes and
approvals required to coordinate and to utilize those
procedures at each of the airports in subparagraph (A).
(C) Implementation plan.--A plan for implementation of
those procedures that establishes--
(i) clearly defined budget, schedule, project organization,
environmental, and leadership requirements;
(ii) specific implementation and transition steps;
(iii) coordination and communications mechanisms with
qualified third parties;
(iv) specific procedures for engaging the appropriate
Administration employee groups to ensure that human factors,
training and other issues surrounding the adoption of
required navigation performance procedures in the en route
and terminal environments are addressed;
(v) baseline and performance metrics for measuring the
Administration's progress in implementing the plan, including
the percentage utilization of required navigation performance
in the National Airspace System;
(vi) outcome-based performance metrics to measure progress
in implementing RNP procedures that reduce fuel burn and
emissions;
(vii) a description of the software and database
information, such as a current version of the Noise
Integrated Routing System or the Integrated Noise Model that
the Administration will need to make available to qualified
third parties to enable those third parties to design
procedures that will meet the broad range of requirements of
the Administration;
(viii) lifecycle management for RNP procedures; and
(ix) an expedited validation process that allows an air
carrier using a RNP procedure validated by the Administrator
at an airport for a specific model of aircraft and equipage
to transfer all of the information associated with the use of
that procedure to another air carrier for use at the same
airport for the same model of aircraft and equipage.
(2) Implementation schedule.--The Administrator shall
certify, publish, and implement--
(A) 30 percent of the required procedures within 18 months
after the date of enactment of this Act;
(B) 60 percent of the procedures within 30 months after the
date of enactment of this Act; and
(C) 100 percent of the procedures before January 1, 2014.
(b) Other Airports.--
(1) In general.--Within one year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administration shall publish a
report, after consultation with representatives of
appropriate Administration employee groups, airport
operators, air carriers, general aviation representatives,
aircraft and avionics manufacturers, and qualified third
parties, that includes a plan for applying the procedures,
requirements, criteria, and metrics described in subsection
(a)(1) to other airports across the Nation, with priority
given to those airports where procedures developed,
certified, and published under this section will provide the
greatest benefits in terms of safety, capacity, fuel burn,
and emissions.
(2) Surveying obstacles surrounding regional airports.--Not
later than 1 year after the date of enactment of that Act,
the Administrator, in consultation with the State secretaries
of transportation and state, shall identify options and
funding mechanisms for surveying obstacles in areas around
airports such that can be used as an input to future RNP
procedures.
(3) Implementation schedule.--The Administration shall
certify, publish, and implement--
(A) 25 percent of the required procedures at such other
airports within 18 months after the date of enactment of this
Act;
(B) 50 percent of the procedures at such other airports
within 30 months after the date of enactment of this Act;
(C) 75 percent of the procedures at such other airports
within 42 months after the date of enactment of this Act; and
(D) 100 percent of the procedures before January 1, 2016.
(c) Establishment of Priorities.--The Administration shall
extend the charter of the Performance Based Navigation
Aviation Rulemaking Committee as necessary to authorize and
request it to establish priorities for the development,
certification, publication, and implementation of the
navigation performance procedures based on their potential
safety, efficiency, and congestion benefits.
(d) Coordinated and Expedited Review.--Required Navigation
Performance and other performance-based navigation procedures
developed, certified, published, and implemented under this
section that will measurably reduce aircraft emissions and
result in an absolute reduction or no net increase in noise
levels shall be presumed to have no significant environmental
impact and the Administrator shall issue and file a
categorical exclusion for such procedures.
AMENDMENT NO. 86
(Purpose: To provide for use of model aircraft for recreational and
other purposes)
On page 245, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
(g) Special Rule for Model Aircraft.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law
relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems
into FAA plans and policies,, including this section, the
Administrator shall not promulgate any rules or regulations
regarding model aircraft or aircraft being developed as model
aircraft if such aircraft is--
(A) flown strictly for recreational, sport, competition, or
academic purposes;
(B) operated in accordance with a community-based set of
safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide
community-based organization; and
(C) limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise
certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight
test, and operational safety program currently administered
by a community-based organization.
(2) Model aircraft defined.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term ``model aircraft'' means a nonhuman-
carrying (unmanned) radio-controlled aircraft capable of
sustained flight in the atmosphere, navigating the airspace
and flown within visual line-of-sight of the operator for the
exclusive and intended use for sport, recreation,
competition, or academic purposes.
amendment no. 94
(Purpose: To require the disclosure of the dimensions of seats on
aircraft to enable parents to determine if their child safety seats
will fit in those seats)
On page 128, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
SEC. 408. DISCLOSURE OF SEAT DIMENSIONS TO FACILITATE THE USE
OF CHILD SAFETY SEATS ON AIRCRAFT.
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration shall prescribe regulations requiring
[[Page S833]]
each air carrier operating under part 121 of title 14, Code
of Federal Regulations, to post on the website of the air
carrier the maximum dimensions of a child safety seat that
can be used on each aircraft operated by the air carrier to
enable passengers to determine which child safety seats can
be used on those aircraft.
through the fence agreements
Mr. WYDEN. I want to thank Chairman Rockefeller for the opportunity
to have this colloquy with him today on the topic of through the fence
agreements. Now, most folks don't know this, but there are a few
different developments throughout the country that have houses with
plane hangars near airports, and they have what is called a through the
fence agreement to use the airway runway. Is the Senator familiar with
these agreements?
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I am aware of these agreements.
Mr. WYDEN. As the Senator might know, one place that has had a
residential airpark for many decades is in my home State, in a town
called Independence, OR. Since 1974, folks at the Independence Airpark
have had an agreement with the Independence airport to taxi their
planes up to the runway and use it for recreation and travel purposes.
But recently, the FAA decided to change the rules on all through the
fence agreements and the folks at Independence Airpark and elsewhere
may not be able to continue an arrangement they have had nearly 40
years with no significant safety issues and no significant noise
complaints.
That just doesn't seem fair. So I have introduced an amendment I
believe will safely provide a path forward for places like the
Independence Airpark to continue to exist. Is the Senator aware of the
amendment I filed?
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I am aware that the Senator has filed an amendment
on this issue, and I understand his concerns about this issue and its
effect on his constituents.
Mr. WYDEN. While I understand we may not have an opportunity to vote
on my amendment, Mr. Chairman, as we moved forward on this FAA
reauthorization bill, can the Senator commit to working with me to find
a solution so folks who have never gone afoul of the law or regulations
are treated fairly?
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I would be glad to continue working with the Senator
on this issue, and I appreciate his work to ensure that there is
fairness in this regard.
Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Senator, both for his important work on this
larger FAA bill, and for his willingness to work with me in addressing
this issue.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will vote in support of S. 223, of the
FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act and I
urge its adoption and enactment.
The Senate is already on record in support of the contents of this
bill. This is because the bill we are voting on today is almost
identical to the FAA authorization bill that passed the Senate 93-0 in
March of 2010. The last reauthorization bill expired at the end of
fiscal year 2007 and since then we have passed 17 short-term
extensions. We are well overdue to enact a long-term reauthorization of
FAA's programs in order to provide important funding increases and
program improvements that will enhance the safety and efficiency of our
Nation's aviation system. In so doing we will make key investments in
our nation's aviation infrastructure as well as create good jobs in the
process.
Our global economy depends on the smooth and efficient movement of
goods, services and people from city to city and across international
borders. A safe and efficient aviation system goes hand in hand with a
strong economy. We are fortunate to have the best aviation system in
the world and we must continue to make the necessary investments and
upgrades to retain that high standard. The FAA reauthorization bill
helps us to do this by addressing problems of capacity, congestion and
delays. This will ensure our aviation system can handle the projected
growth in airlines passengers.
The FAA reauthorization bill being considered by the Senate today
will create much needed jobs by providing the funding and directives
for safety improvements at our airports and in the aviation industry.
For instance, in Michigan the FAA is building two new air traffic
control towers, at Kalamazoo and Traverse City. The FAA is also
repaving numerous runways and taxiways, including at Detroit
Metropolitan Wayne County Airport, Alpena County Regional Airport,
Bishop International Airport, Sawyer International Airport and at other
airports around the state. The FAA is also constructing new terminal
buildings at Kalamazoo/Battle Creek International Airport and at MBS
International Airport in Freeland, Michigan. Additionally, FAA funds
are paying for the design of a new building for aircraft rescue and
firefighting and snow removal equipment at Pellston Regional Airport in
Emmet County. These are much needed upgrades to Michigan airports and
will make flying into and around Michigan safer and easier. These are
the kinds of improvements this bill will continue to make possible in
the future.
A key component of S. 223 will modernize our air traffic control
system by building the Next Generation Air Transportation System--
NextGen--of satellite-based navigation. The NextGen system will be more
accurate and more efficient than the current radar-based air traffic
control system. It will also result in significant fuel efficiencies
and time savings by allowing aircraft to fly more direct routes. This
is good for the environment, good for air carriers and good for the
flying public. The bill also provides flexibility to airports in using
Airport Improvement Program funds as well as studying ways to raise
revenue for airport projects through a pilot program.
This bill also includes important passenger rights protections. It
requires airlines to plan for delays and protect passengers while they
are on an aircraft, including how airlines will provide adequate food,
water and access to restrooms. It also requires that passengers be
allowed to deplane after 3 hours on the tarmac.
And this bill makes important improvements to the Essential Air
Service Program, which provides rural communities with access to the
national air transportation system. The EAS program is important to
Michigan because we have eight communities that rely on EAS subsidies
to help provide them with daily commercial air service. This bill
increases EAS program funding by $73 million a year to $200 million
annually. I joined my colleagues in defeating a McCain amendment that
would have eliminated the Essential Air Service Program. I strongly
oppose attempts to deprive Michiganians living in the less populated
areas of our State of commercial air service. For businesses in the
affected communities, this service is an economic lifeline that
connects them to the web of both national and international commerce.
At a time when we're doing everything we can to compete and to increase
the number of jobs, cutting off that access makes no sense.
Again, I am pleased to vote yes on final passage of the FAA Air
Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act and I hope the
House of Representatives will also act quickly to adopt a bill.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I believe this bill is fundamental to
our Nation's long-term economic competitiveness. It will create good-
paying jobs across the country. It will improve the safety and
efficiency of our Nation's air transportation system. And it will help
to make sure the United States remains the global leader in aviation.
As we approach a final vote on the FAA reauthorization, I want to
close by touching briefly on why this is so important--and why we have
spent 3 weeks working on this bill.
This FAA reauthorization is about more than aviation, it is about
stimulating the economy and securing jobs and retaining jobs.
The aviation sector supports over $1 trillion in economic activity
and over 11 million jobs in the United States. This bill will support
hundreds of thousands of aviation jobs annually. Moreover, it is
critical to the businesses that rely on aviation and will provide a
base for financial success in an increasingly global economy.
This bill is about improving commercial airline service to small and
rural communities, making sure all areas of the country have adequate
access to the Nation's air transportation network.
[[Page S834]]
It also establishes better consumer rights protections for travelers,
giving passengers a more consistent and improved air travel experience.
Ultimately, it is about improving safety and modernizing our system.
In other words, it is about people's lives every day--the safety of
our skies for passengers and their families is critical and we must get
this right.
Statistically, the United States has the safest air transportation
system in the world. But statistics do not always tell the whole story.
It has been just over 2 years since the crash of Flight 3407 in
Buffalo, NY, took the lives of 50 people. This tragedy reminds us that
we must remain vigilant in making the national airspace system as safe
as possible.
Although we were able to take important steps last August to improve
pilot training and fatigue, this bill still has several critical
provisions that will further improve the safety of our skies.
Modernizing the air traffic control system will not just make our
skies more efficient, it represents a quantum leap forward for aviation
safety by providing our air traffic controllers and pilots' real-time
traffic and weather information.
The bill also takes steps to strengthen inspections of airline
operations, require better oversight of foreign repair stations, and
improve helicopter emergency service operations.
This bill is also about equality and economic stability. It will
provide needed resources to airports large and small, urban and rural.
Although the U.S. airline industry has begun to recover from the
recent economic downturn, hundreds of rural communities across our
country continue to struggle.
The future of small communities' economic standing depends on access
to air service.
I have witnessed firsthand the positive impact that aviation has made
on my home State of West Virginia, and I have seen time and time again
how important a lifeline it is for local communities.
The Federal Government must continue the commitment it made when the
industry deregulated to provide the resources and tools small
communities need to attract adequate air service.
Our legislation accomplishes this by building on existing programs
and strengthening them with appropriate reforms.
This bill also strengthens passenger protections by incorporating a
passenger bill of rights to deal with the most serious flight delays
and cancellations.
Passengers have had it with endless delays--especially when they are
stuck on the tarmac. They have had it with being overlooked and
dismissed by the aviation system.
The Department of Transportation, DOT, has already begun implementing
similar measures and seen great success--this legislation makes certain
the Federal Government continues to focus on passengers' rights.
Our air traffic control system is outdated and strained beyond its
capacity.
America's air traffic control network is still using WWII-era
technology. We are behind Mongolia, and that is unacceptable.
The Next Generation Air Transportation System, NextGen, will save our
economy billions by creating additional capacity and more direct
routes. This will allow aircraft to move more efficiently and
effectively.
Drastic reductions in fuel consumption will reduce carbon and noise
emissions in the aviation sector.
And as I noted before, NextGen will dramatically improve safety.
A modern air traffic control system will provide pilots and air
traffic controllers with better situational awareness--giving them the
tools to see other aircraft and detailed weather maps in real time.
But achieving a modernized air transportation system requires
sustained focus and substantial resources.
This reauthorization bill takes concrete steps to accelerate
implementation of a modern, satellite based air traffic control system
so we can begin to reap these benefits now.
We must move boldly or risk losing our leadership in the world. Over
the 3 weeks, I have spoken about the primary goals we set out to
achieve with this bill: 1, to address critical safety concerns; 2, to
establish a clear roadmap for the implementation of NextGen and
accelerate the FAA's key modernization programs; 3, to invest in
airport infrastructure; and 4, to continue improving small communities'
access to the Nation's aviation system.
I am proud of how far we have come. I also want to thank Senator
Hutchison, the ranking member of the Commerce Committee and my able
partner, for her work on this bill. It is truly a bipartisan bill that
reflects a shared vision and goal of making sure the United States
continues to have the safest, most efficient, and most modern aviation
system possible.
This bill passed 93 to 0 last year. I know a few of my colleagues
have had substantial differences over the issue of slots at National
Airport. But this issue is minor compared to the benefits provided by
the larger bill.
Flights at National Airport should not bring down a bill that is
critical to so many Americans and supports so many jobs.
I urge my colleagues to move forward and give the FAA the tools, the
resources, the direction, and the deadlines to make sure the agency can
provide effective oversight of the aviation industry.
I urge my colleagues to support reauthorization and advance our
system now. We cannot afford to wait any longer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read
the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on passage of the bill, as
amended.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons),
the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from
Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Tennessee (Mr. Corker) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
Corker) would have voted ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 87, nays 8, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 25 Leg.]
YEAS--87
Akaka
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Kirk
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Manchin
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Rubio
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--8
Crapo
DeMint
Johnson (WI)
Lee
Paul
Risch
Toomey
Vitter
NOT VOTING--5
Coons
Corker
Kerry
McCain
Sanders
The bill (S. 223), as amended, was passed.
The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to
reconsider is considered made and laid on the table, and the measure
will be held at the desk.
The Senator from Alaska.
Change of Vote
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 24, I voted
``nay.'' It was my intention to vote ``yea.'' Therefore, I ask
unanimous consent I be permitted to change my vote since it will not
affect the outcome.
[[Page S835]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The aforementioned tally has been changed to reflect the above
order.)
vote explanation
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for the following
votes: (1) vote in relation to Coburn amendment No. 91 to decrease the
Federal share of project costs under airport improvement program for
nonprimary airports; (2) vote in relation to Coburn amendment No. 80 to
limit essential air service to locations that are 100 or more miles
away from the nearest medium or large hub airport; (3) vote in relation
to Coburn amendment No. 81 to limit essential air service to locations
that average 10 or more enplanements per day; (4) vote on Leahy-Inhofe
amendment No. 50 to amend title 1 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 to include nonprofits 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 benefits; and (5) final passage of the FAA reauthorization act,
S. 223.
Had I attended today's session, I would have voted (1) to oppose
Coburn amendment No. 91 or to support any motion to lay that amendment
on the table; (2) to oppose Coburn amendment No. 80 or to support any
motion to lay that amendment on the table; (3) to oppose Coburn
amendment No. 81 or to support any motion to lay that amendment on the
table; (4) to support Leahy-Inhofe amendment No. 50; and (5) to support
final passage of the FAA reauthorization act, S. 223.
____________________