[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7739-7758]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    FAA REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2007

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 2881, which the clerk will 
report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2881) to amend title 49, United States Code, 
     to authorize appropriations for the Federal Aviation 
     Administration for fiscal years 2008 to 2011, to improve 
     aviation

[[Page 7740]]

     safety and capacity, to provide stable funding for the 
     national aviation system, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Rockefeller amendment No. 4627, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Reid amendment No. 4628 (to amendment No. 4627), to change 
     the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 4629 (to amendment No. 4628), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment No. 4630 (to the language proposed to be 
     stricken by amendment No. 4627), to change the enactment 
     date.
       Reid amendment No. 4631 (to amendment No. 4630), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       Motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance, with 
     instructions to report back forthwith, with Reid amendment 
     No. 4636, to change the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 4637 (to amendment No. 4636), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       Rockefeller amendment No. 4642 (to amendment No. 4637), of 
     a perfecting nature.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, it is an interesting situation in 
which we find ourselves today.
  I guess I have to say last week was the most frustrating week I have 
spent in the Senate in my 24 years here. We are discussing an aviation 
bill which has highway provisions. We are discussing, for example, in 
the Presiding Officer's State, the need for essential air service, 
shown by its loss of Frontier Airlines, and my State there is a similar 
situation and other States are in similar situations.
  We are also talking about the fact that airlines are not being run in 
a safe enough manner. We are talking about the fact that we are just 
behind Mongolia in terms of our air traffic control system, in terms of 
its relevance to the modern age. It is a very scary situation.
  Last week, we did not hold a single vote. We were on the aviation 
bill all week, but we did not have a single vote on aviation. I find 
that interesting, and I find it profoundly depressing, and, to a 
certain extent, it defines what the American people find so inadequate 
about Congress or, in this case, the Senate.
  We have ideas, people work very hard, they work long hours, staff 
works particularly long hours, we negotiate, Members negotiate, we come 
to what we think is an agreement, and then days go by and nothing 
happens.
  I repeat, I have never been through a situation where we have been on 
a bill which is this important and where 1 billion passengers are going 
to be using this air traffic system in 2015 and they are going to be 
using it on basically a ``Polaroid camera'' technology system. We have 
not had crashes. We did have one in Kentucky, but it is a little bit 
similar to post-9/11: Unless you have crashes that attract lots of 
cameras, people begin to lose interest. If there is anything not to 
lose interest in, it is not only the war on terror, but it is also 
aviation safety.
  I repeat, we had all last week devoted to the aviation bill. We had 
one vote over the course of 5 days. That vote was a procedural vote--
not the kind of thing that raises you out of your seat with excitement. 
Other than that, we did not vote on one aviation issue for the entire 
week.
  When Senator Lott and I began this process a long time ago, we 
operated in a completely bipartisan manner. Senator Hutchison and 
myself were doing the same thing. We wanted to work together. We had 
worked together before on the aviation subcommittee. We had operated in 
a bipartisan manner. Senator Reid wanted to bring the FAA 
reauthorization bill to the floor. It was timely. It was important. I 
worked very hard, from my point of view, to compromise.
  I have a very large problem with the fact that high-end corporate 
jets and personal jets that may have one or two people on them, plus 
stacks of sandwiches and goodies, take the same amount of time for the 
air traffic controllers to navigate through the skies as some airplane 
that have 300 people aboard. A plane which is headed somewhere in 
America with people who have all kinds of work they have to do. Some 
are on vacation, because we are at that time of year, but most people 
are traveling because they have to travel--they have to go to a 
meeting, they have to be somewhere, they have to visit somebody sick in 
their family.
  What is interesting is the general aviation community is paying for 
about 3 percent of the entire cost of the air traffic control system--3 
percent, which means the commercial airlines are paying 97 percent. Yet 
the general aviation community dominates the skies at any given moment. 
There are an average of 36,000 planes in the skies during the day, and 
two-thirds of them are likely to be general aviation.
  Of course, as soon as I said that, every Senator got 1,500 telephone 
calls from high-end jet users. I was on the Commerce Committee. We had 
to work this out with the Finance Committee. I worked with the Finance 
Committee, and we came up with a system that didn't put that kind of 
burden on the general aviation system.
  My provision, which they said was really quite a horrendous thing to 
consider, was when a 737 or GV or GVIII takes off, they have to pay a 
$25 fee. If they flew to Bonn, which has this system already, 
obviously--all of Europe does--if they returned, they would have to pay 
another $25 fee. That would be a total of $50.
  They began to talk about the end of general aviation as we know it. I 
stood back, aghast, at the sense of perspective in all of this. What 
they very well know is in general aviation we excluded 90 percent of 
all general aviation aircraft from this provision--crop dusters in 
Montana up to King Airs, everything was excluded; everything. Single-
engine planes that doctors and lawyers fly to calm their nerves and get 
their heads in order--all those are excluded. Only the high-end jets--
rich people, big corporations, big planes getting the full attention of 
the air traffic control system would have had to pay the fee in my 
provision.
  I negotiated this provision with Senator Baucus, the chairman of the 
Finance Committee. He had a different perspective on this issue. 
Because he has superb staff and he himself is very good, I understood I 
was not going to get anywhere with my approach--which is a very small, 
little item in all of this. So I backed off from my approach and I 
eliminated this horrendous, Draconian, Attila the Hun-type $25 fee that 
it would actually take should the Presiding Officer own a G-8, that he 
wouldn't have to pay that. He simply would not have to pay that. He 
could just go right off and fly to Bonn and not pay that $25. So I 
backed off on that.
  Then everything began to come together, and I was really encouraged 
that the full Senate could reach an agreement once the Commerce and 
Finance Committee bills were reconciled, and this appeared to be 
happening. But, on the other hand, there were other issues, so I got 
together with Senator Hutchison, and our staffs got together.
  Actually, it was Leader Reid who came up with a very smart idea. The 
idea, Senator Hutchison told me, was of interest to her. She said that 
sounds pretty good. It was the following: All aviation taxes, keep them 
but raise nothing on commercial airlines. Why? Because you have to hold 
them harmless because they are broke--some are in chapter 11, some in 
chapter 7--whatever it is they are in a mess. Keep the highway funding 
provisions. There are those who believe it is pretty important. It 
creates a lot of jobs. But strike the tax increases to pay for the 
highway funding, to use general funds--revenues to pay for highway 
spending. Keep the bonds for New York. Keep railroad bonds. Strike tax 
increases to pay for bonds.
  We take sort of the extraneous financial parts of the aviation bill, 
which do not deal directly with aviation--and therefore you could say: 
What are we doing this for? You know you want money in the highway 
trust fund. I do. We do in West Virginia. The Presiding Officer's 
people do in Montana. We agreed to say, as we did with the alternative 
minimum tax--the Republicans voting along with that--that we would do 
these things, but we would not pay for them. That warmed my heart 
because it struck me that we were approaching a deal.
  Then we agreed--that is, between Senator Hutchison and myself--to 
strike the pension provision, which affected American Airlines and a 
couple

[[Page 7741]]

of others, on the basis that it was already settled law. It had been 
settled last year. It was the law of the land, and you don't just 
remove it.
  Then there was kind of a return offer. It started out with no New 
York bonds. The New York bonds are in the President's budget. They are 
part of the commitment the U.S. Government and the President of the 
United States made to the State of New York after the 9/11 attacks. So 
that seemed to be something that could be done. But a lot of people, 
evidently, don't like New York--it would appear to be that way--so they 
said we have to get rid of those New York things. They also wanted to 
change the railroad bonds from tax credit bonds to tax-exempt bonds. 
That is cheaper. Maybe we can live with that. Working with Finance, we 
could likely work out a deal on railroad bonds, though railroads are 
not aviation, but they are a serious matter. That would probably be 
worked out. However, New York bonds we were told are simply off the 
table. That will affect rather deeply one New York Senator I can think 
of, who has a way of expressing himself quite strongly on this issue. 
But other than that, it seemed to me that everything could get pretty 
well worked out.
  The problem was I had not heard from Senator Hutchison, and none of 
my staff had. We didn't really know, therefore, what she was thinking. 
She had said: That seems like a pretty good idea. Then we get back this 
other proposal, which complicates things.
  Now I understand that Senator Hutchison, the Republican leader, 
Senator McConnell, are in conversation. I pray--I earnestly pray that 
they are in conversation right now about what to do about this because 
I really don't want to spend the next week not voting, and I really 
don't want to come to a cloture vote this afternoon which cannot 
possibly pass because, in more or less uniform fashion, the other party 
votes against it.
  That is my sense of where we are at the moment. A number of people 
have come down and spoken about the bill. They have spoken usefully. 
But the important thing was that we chose not to act. We simply chose 
not to act. I reiterated that our aviation system is on the brink of 
collapse. Our air traffic system cannot handle the burdens of today, 
much less tomorrow.
  I repeat my oft-used example of landing at Washington National 
Airport the other day and it was just wall-to-wall people, from one end 
of the airport to the other. I really couldn't figure that out what it 
would look like in about 5 more years and when we were soon going to 
have 300 or 400 million more people using this airport. What would it 
look like? How could it expand? What do air traffic control people do? 
In the meantime, the commercial airline industry is losing billions of 
dollars, and the increasing cost of fuel could force additional 
bankruptcies, and that means even more widespread job losses. If we do 
not pass this bill, essential air service disappears. Airport 
improvement development programs, which all rural States depend on with 
every fiber in their body, will disappear. And our constituents whom, 
the last I heard, we represent, we would be saying to them: You go 
ahead and wait for 9 hours or 2 days, a lot of cancellations, and that 
is really OK because we can't agree as between the two sides.
  I am boggled by the concept of us ignoring a problem so huge for so 
long--just in the past week, much less in the last 10 to 15 years. 
Compromise is the essence of the Senate. I had hoped and I truly 
believed that we could make the necessary compromises to move this 
bill. I still hope that. I am always optimistic.
  I compromised, as I said, on what are to me a number of really basic 
core issues in order to move this important legislation forward. 
Senator Baucus and I had a number of serious policy differences over 
how to fund the modernization of our air traffic control system, but 
because of the urgency of the legislation and our good working 
relationship, we reached agreement. Why? Because we had to. I only wish 
our colleagues shared this sense of urgency.
  People sometimes have their particular parts of a bill which they 
raise to sort of a sainted status.
  They are called amendments. And if you are a floor manager of a bill, 
you are trying to pass a bill. On the other hand, if you are an 
individual Member of the Senate and you have a particular issue that 
you care about and you put it up as an amendment, and it becomes your 
bill. Actually, it is an amendment, but if that amendment passes and it 
is not agreeable to others, then the whole bill fails. That is not the 
way democracy is meant to work.
  Now, I have very high regard for Senator Hutchison, and I really do 
believe we can work out all of the aviation-related amendments to this 
bill in a bipartisan fashion. I will not give up on that. I never give 
up on anything.
  We cannot work out the disagreements over nonaviation issues but, 
then again, maybe we can. As I have indicated, I will come back to this 
bill at a moment's notice. It should not take a crisis or a major 
accident, a bankruptcy that strands tens of thousands of passengers, or 
a long hot summer for this bill to be considered.
  I will say also that Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens want to 
continue this as soon as we can. So I do urge my colleagues to take the 
long view. At the appropriate time I will urge them to vote for 
cloture. In the mean time, I stand here as manager of the bill without 
much going on. And I have gotten accustomed to that, but I have not 
gotten to like it any more.
  There are no amusing aspects to it nor, most importantly, for the 
airlines and the people who travel on them. So since I am here alone, 
and not challenged by any others, I will continue to make some other 
remarks, and I will talk about aviation safety because I haven't 
sufficiently had an opportunity to discuss this. It is a speech that I 
would either give this afternoon or this morning. So why not give it 
this morning when I am sure I can give it all.
  Aviation safety provisions are obviously at the core of our 
legislation to reauthorize the FAA and are fundamental to the public's 
faith in our aviation system. The FAA is responsible for overseeing the 
largest and most complex aviation system in the entire world.
  I am proud to say our country is a global leader in aviation safety. 
But as I have cautioned before over the last months, that reputation 
has come under serious doubt and there are always numbers to be looked 
at underneath--you know, a number of accidents, and the FAA's lax 
oversight of Southwest Airlines has cast a serious pall over the 
agency's ability to execute its core mission.
  Around that is the safety of the Nation's aviation system. 
Unfortunately, the agency's casual oversight of Southwest does not 
appear to be an isolated incident, despite the agency's claims to the 
contrary. Just the other day the front pages of our Nation's newspapers 
described another potential FAA coverup, this time on runway safety 
violations. And nobody has thought about that very much. That simply is 
airplanes taxiing on runways either to get to the terminal, or to get 
away from the terminal, and to get into the air. So air traffic 
controllers do not just look up in the sky, they have to look down on 
the runways. I know the FAA states it is working to address each new 
problem that becomes public. But with each new story, we have more 
questions than answers about the agency's commitment to the ability to 
address pressing safety issues.
  At an aviation subcommittee hearing several weeks ago on this issue, 
I called for the Secretary of Transportation and the White House to 
engage on this issue. And I would actually make a point here. I am not 
aware of any White House involvement on any of these issues about 
aviation at any point.
  I have not talked to anybody from the White House nor has any staff. 
They are just watching it happen. There is a pattern to this, but the 
pattern in this case is a cruel one because it is sort of deliberately 
condemning. I think it is fairly well understood that much of what 
happens on the Senate floor emanates from directions from the White 
House.
  So I call for the Secretary of Transportation and the White House to 
engage on the issue. The administration

[[Page 7742]]

issued a number of statements and committed to undertaking serious 
review of the FAA's safety oversight.
  I am still not convinced it appreciates the severity of the 
challenges facing the FAA. I get the distinct impression the changes 
the FAA implemented are in response to our actions in the Congress. I 
still need reassurances that the senior leadership at the FAA, the DOT, 
and the White House itself recognize the extent of the FAA's problems 
and are committed to rectifying them. I do not think that is 
unreasonable. This is a massive national problem which people take for 
granted, but they cannot anymore because the system is collapsing.
  I know many in the FAA and the industry cite the fact that there has 
not been a fatal airline accident in almost 2 years, and that 
statistically this is the safest time in the history of aviation to 
fly. That is the kind of statement, as soon as I hear it, I 
automatically start having darker thoughts because it is much too 
simplistic and optimistic a statement to make under any situation.
  They happen to be correct, statistically. I still want to believe and 
be certain that the United States has the safest and best air 
transportation system in the world. Although the United States has not 
experienced a tragic accident since August 2006, the fatal crash of a 
commuter carrier in Lexington, KY, our aviation nevertheless has 
experienced a disturbing number of significant safety lapses. Any 
safety lapse is either inches or feet or seconds away from becoming a 
tragedy.
  Although the FAA's oversight of airline maintenance has dominated the 
newspapers and the question of whether their maintenance should be done 
offshore, without particularly rigorous oversight, the number of 
serious runway incursions remains unacceptably high and, as the General 
Accountability Office has stated, they are trending in a troubling 
direction.
  I love that phrase, ``trending in a troubling direction,'' which, out 
of a Government agency, means that you are approaching catastrophe.
  As I have said, having the safest system in the world does not mean 
it is safe enough. I am deeply concerned that the risk of a 
catastrophic accident is increasing rather than decreasing. We have all 
read the stories of near misses at our Nation's airports. Let's be 
honest. Had it not been for the quick thinking and actions of a few 
controllers and pilots, our Nation would have had at least one if not 
several major accidents claiming the lives of hundreds of people.
  I do not mean to be overly dramatic or to scare the public, but I am 
growing increasingly concerned that our aviation system is operating on 
borrowed time. A National Transportation Safety Board member testified 
before our aviation subcommittee of the Commerce Committee earlier this 
month, and he stated he believed the next major aviation accident would 
not likely be in the sky, or some plane crashing into a mountain, it 
would take place on a runway. That would be the next major accident.
  Many, including myself, have criticized the agency for being too 
close to the industry it regulates. Now, that is an easy statement on 
my part to make, and not fair in its entirety because we have some very 
good inspectors. We have some very good people in the industry that are 
trying, and then there are probably weaknesses on both sides. There 
certainly are weaknesses on both sides.
  In 1996, to stave off efforts to privatize the FAA Congress accepted 
at that time a provision from both Democratic and Republican 
administrations so they could operate the FAA more like a business. We 
gave the agency special authority so it could run more like a private 
entity. The theory was that by running it like a business, it would 
cost less to operate. We must recognize that the FAA is not a business; 
it is a Government agency paid for by the people who it may or may not 
be protecting.
  The FAA does not provide commercial services, it provides public 
goods, and they are called air traffic control, aircraft certification, 
and safety oversight.
  We, that is the taxpayers of the United States, pay taxes for these 
services. This is not a private enterprise matter. We need to start 
thinking about this agency very differently. That is not meant to 
diminish the people who work for the FAA or run the agency. This is 
simply a challenge for policymakers.
  I believe it is a challenge that this bill begins to address. The 
Aviation Investment Modernization Act provides the FAA with additional 
needed resources to do a lot of things. First and foremost, we 
authorize 200 more safety inspectors. I do not know if that is enough; 
it probably is not, but the FAA has always been overlooked. It is like 
the Veterans' Administration which was overlooked until somebody wrote 
a story in the Washington Post that took this Congress and just shook 
it from head to toe.
  We will never be the same again with respect to veterans, at least I 
pray that we will not. I do not believe we will. So the Appropriations 
Committee has already substantially increased FAA funding for 
inspectors for this fiscal year. And this bill will give the ability to 
do more in subsequent years because it is a multiyear bill.
  I want to take a few minutes and outline the safety provisions in the 
bill that I believe will strengthen the FAA's oversight of airlines. It 
makes sure the FAA's voluntary disclosure reporting process requires 
that inspectors verify that the airlines actually took the corrective 
actions they stated they would. That is like a teacher correcting a 
math test. It is one thing to take a math test; it is another thing to 
have it looked at and graded. You find out whether you passed.
  It is very sensitive. It would evaluate if the air carrier had 
offered a comprehensive solution before accepting the disclosure and 
confirms that the corrective action is completed and adequately 
addresses the problem disclosed. That is sensible. That is in the bill. 
That is in the bill on which we did not have a single vote all last 
week, except for one procedural one.
  It implements a process or second-level supervisory review of self-
disclosures before they are accepted and closed. Acceptance would not 
rest solely with one inspector. This is an important statement. So you 
do not get coziness; inspectors change.
  It revises the FAA's postemployment guidance to require a cooling off 
period of 2 years before an FAA inspector is hired at an air carrier he 
or she had previously inspected. While we do that increasingly, I 
cannot think of a more important place to do it than in the FAA safety 
inspections. It implements a process to track field office inspectors 
and alert the local, regional, and headquarters offices to overdue 
inspections. One of the problems is people get way behind on 
inspections, the airlines do. The FAA does a lot of paperwork. All of 
the problems with an underfunded agency, which we in the Congress and 
administrations, both Republican and Democrat, have tended to put in a 
secondary category.
  The process must incorporate something called ATOS, the Air 
Transportation Oversight System, reviews to determine full compliance 
with air worthiness directives at a carrier over a 5-year period that 
incorporates physical inspection of the sample of their aircrafts.
  It establishes an independent review through the Government 
Accountability Office to review and investigate air safety issues 
identified by its employees. This develops a new review team under the 
supervision of the Department of Transportation inspector general; that 
is, the DOT IG who conducts periodic reviews of FAA oversight of air 
carriers.
  It requires a comprehensive review of the FAA Academy and facility 
training efforts to clarify responsibility and oversight of the program 
at the national level and establishes standards to identify the 
acceptable number of developmental controllers at each facility. That 
is not a Shakespearean paragraph, but I hope the Presiding Officer and 
the ranking member of the Finance Committee understand what I am 
saying.
  As a recent New York Times article said:


[[Page 7743]]

       One of the most critical challenges in aviation safety is 
     improving safety conditions on our nation's runways.

  I am back at them. Over the past year, we have seen a marked increase 
in the number of serious misses on our Nation's increasingly crowded 
runways. Again, this legislation includes provisions to reduce the 
number of runway incursions. It does so in the following manner:
  First, the bill requires that the FAA develop a plan for reduction of 
runway incursions through a review of all commercial airports and 
establishes a process for tracking and investigating both runway 
incursions and operational errors that includes random auditing of the 
oversight process. That is not Shakespearean either, but it is 
precisely accurate, and it is what needs to be done. It directs the FAA 
to create a plan for the deployment of an alert system designed to 
reduce near misses.
  This alert system must notify both air traffic controllers and flight 
crews about potential runway incursions. The establishment of this 
system is one of the NTSB's highest aviation safety priorities.
  In addition, the bill requires a number of other safety provisions, 
including a provision to reduce the flammability of airplane fuel 
tanks. This was identified as the direct cause of the TWA 800 crash 
which occurred over a decade ago. I know the issue is a priority for 
Senator Schumer.
  Improving the safety of our Nation's aviation system is one of the 
most paramount objectives of this bill. I believe we have made 
substantial progress with respect to this objective. I look forward to 
further debate on the safety provisions, as Senators come to the floor. 
I welcome any input that might improve these sections of the bill, but 
even more importantly, that might actually get us to a point where we 
can vote on a bill.
  I thank the Chair, yield the floor, and 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.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. 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. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next 
Republican speaker be Senator Vitter.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we are in a situation where a couple 
hours from now we will have a vote. I am sure people across the country 
watching this debate might be wondering what is going on, on this 
Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill. I would like to 
shed some light on where we are. As I shed some light, I wish to 
respond to some of the fiction that has taken the guise of debate.
  On Wednesday of last week, two Senators, one Republican and one 
Democrat--Senator Hutchison and Senator Durbin, respectively--offered 
an amendment to strike a provision in the substitute amendment then 
before the Senate. The substitute then pending was the product of 
extensive staff negotiations and Member discussions between two 
committees with jurisdiction over the Federal Aviation Administration 
program. The two committees were the Finance Committee, on which I 
serve, and the Commerce Committee, on which I do not serve.
  People who may not understand how the Senate works or does not may 
wonder what the situation is. I would like to explain there are certain 
elementary things about the Senate that are fundamental. First, nothing 
gets done in the Senate that is not somewhat bipartisan because of the 
benefit of debate for minorities to hold up legislation until things 
are accommodated--meaning compromise. It is often difficult to get one 
committee's Republicans and Democrats together to get agreement to 
bring something to the floor that can get passed. It is difficult to 
get Republicans and Democrats on one committee together, but then we 
have the added benefit of the Commerce Committee getting together for a 
compromise, and then working out compromises between the Finance 
Committee and the Commerce Committee makes it doubly or, in a triple 
manner, difficult to get things done on the Senate floor. So we have 
two committees that reach accommodation bringing a bill to the floor. 
After it gets here, then it runs into trouble.
  The Finance Committee's involvement in this is determining the 
aviation excise taxes, and it controls the airport and airway trust 
fund. We have to raise revenue. Without that money, there would not be 
much the Federal aviation program could ever accomplish. On the other 
hand, the Commerce Committee develops all the policy and all the 
programs that involve airports and aviation. So that is how you get two 
committees working together to get a bill to the floor. The Finance 
Committee works out its differences between Republicans and Democrats 
on financing. The Commerce Committee works out its differences between 
Democrats and Republicans on the policy of airports and aviation. Then 
you have to get these two committees together to move things to the 
floor of the Senate.
  Last year, the Commerce Committee acted first. The Finance Committee 
acted a few weeks later. The Finance Committee, as part of its 
compromises, addressed airline pensions. We have heard many arguments 
pro and con about the merits of the Finance Committee provision. I 
addressed the merits myself at length last week so I will not repeat 
them now. But in a few moments I wish to respond to some of the points 
made by opponents of the Finance Committee provision.
  As I said earlier, the substitute that was before the Senate until 
last Thursday was a product of a compromise between the Finance 
Committee and the Commerce Committee. Under that compromise, the 
Federal Aviation Subcommittee chairman and ranking Republican were 
managing the bill. They were, however, at a minimum, under the 
obligation to consult with the Finance Committee chairman who is 
Senator Baucus of Montana and the ranking member who happens to be this 
Senator with respect to Finance Committee matters in that substitute. 
That compromise and understanding was violated when the Democratic 
floor manager unilaterally modified the substitute. Under the rules of 
the Senate, he had that right. The modification was directly adverse to 
the interests of the Finance Committee members' compromise among 
themselves. So the managers breached that compromise, plain and simple. 
That compromise was breached.
  What matters worse is the Democratic leader backstopped the 
Democratic floor manager's violation of the Commerce-Finance Committee 
compromise by filling the amendment tree. Basically, for those 
watching, that means nothing is going to be brought to the Senate floor 
as an amendment without the unanimous consent of somebody who has that 
responsibility on the other side of the aisle. So with tremendous power 
in one person, what we call the amendment tree is filled.
  Now, we all know the proponent of the amendment, the Democratic whip, 
has a lot of power. That power was displayed when the offending narrow 
pension provision I have already referred to--the pension provision the 
Finance Committee was trying to correct--was airdropped into a 
conference report on Iraq spending last year. There were no hearings. 
There was no markup. There was no committee process. There was no 
transparency, just airdropped in a war supplemental conference 
committee report, something that everybody knew was going to pass and 
be signed by the President. So airdropped, wam, bam, here it is, take 
it or leave it, special interest provisions cooked up in the offices of 
leaders of the Democratic caucus. It is not the way we ought to 
legislate.
  We have been told that by people on the other side of the aisle many 
times. I wish to make reference to at least one of those times. I seem 
to recall a lot of outrage when these kinds of narrow provisions were 
airdropped into a conference report when we Republicans

[[Page 7744]]

were in the majority. No one was louder than the proponent of the 
amendment that was last week on the Senate floor than the Democratic 
whip. If we had a C-SPAN checker, you could roll the tape back a few 
years. But I will have to settle because I am not going to roll C-SPAN 
back to demonstrate the inconsistency of what is going on here, for a 
New York Times article I wish to refer to.
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the New York Times, Sept. 11, 1997]

           Senate Repeals Tax Break for the Tobacco Industry

                          (By Lizette Alvarez)

       In another resounding setback for the tobacco industry, the 
     Senate voted overwhelmingly today to repeal a $50 billion tax 
     break for the industry that was slipped into the tax cut 
     legislation just before it was passed in July.
       The repeal amendment, sponsored by Senators Susan Collins, 
     Republican of Maine, and Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of 
     Illinois, passed by a vote of 95 to 3. It would delete a one-
     sentence provision in the tax package that permitted tobacco 
     producers to subtract $50 billion from the amount they would 
     pay under a proposed legal settlement with a group of state 
     attorneys general.
       Senator Durbin hailed the vote as a sign that the tobacco 
     industry's sway was waning on Capitol Hill.
       ``The overwhelming vote sends a clear message, first to the 
     tobacco companies: Don't try this type of backroom deal and 
     deception in the future,'' Mr. Durbin said. ``It is really an 
     example of the old school of politics, the old style of 
     politics.''
       As the Senate was dealing a blow to cigarette makers, top 
     White House officials were engaged in a debate over how to 
     approach the proposed nationwide tobacco accord. Some of 
     President Clinton's closest advisers were pushing him to 
     issue a strong endorsement of the $368.5 billion tobacco 
     proposal, while others--including Vice President Al Gore and 
     top officials of the Department of Health and Human 
     Services--were urging a more moderate approach in which the 
     President would spell out his goals without embracing a 
     specific legislative plan for achieving them.
       Tension within the Administration over the agreement is not 
     likely to be resolved until next week, when Mr. Clinton is 
     expected to decide whether to back the proposed tobacco 
     agreement, which has powerful critics among public health 
     experts and Democrats in Congress.
       Today's vote on the $50 billion tax provision indicates 
     that whichever course the President adopts, a sweeping 
     settlement with the tobacco industry will not be enacted 
     until it faces months of scrutiny in Congress.
       Public health advocates began a last-ditch round of 
     lobbying to persuade Mr. Clinton to reject the settlement, 
     which was negotiated by state attorneys general, plaintiffs' 
     lawyers and tobacco industry representatives.
       Dr. David A. Kessler, former Commissioner of Food and 
     Drugs, met with top White House aides and members of Congress 
     today to urge them to reject the proposed settlement in favor 
     of a $1.50-a-pack tax on cigarettes.
       Dr. Kessler maintained that substantial price increases 
     were the only proven means of reducing smoking by teen-agers. 
     He was preparing to testify before a Senate committee on 
     Thursday that the proposed settlement amounted to a bailout 
     of the tobacco industry and would not significantly reduce 
     minors' use of tobacco.
       The tax provision repealed today in the Senate would have 
     effectively allowed tobacco companies to save $50 billion on 
     the proposed settlement by claiming a dollar-for-dollar 
     credit on a 15-cent cigarette tax increase. The tax was 
     approved in July by Congress to underwrite health care for 
     children.
       Although the Collins-Durbin amendment won near unanimous 
     support in the Senate today, its survival depends on two 
     things: passage of the massive appropriations bill, to which 
     the amendment is attached, and the House's agreement to go 
     along with the provision.
       But the support that the amendment received today, even 
     among senators from many tobacco-growing states, is likely to 
     force the issue in the House, Senator Durbin said.
       Representative Nita M. Lowey, Democrat of Westchester, has 
     offered a companion bill in the House. ``We're going to make 
     sure we prevail in one form or another form,'' she said.
       Today's vote is also a sign of the escalating frustration 
     and impatience with the tobacco industry's tactics at a time 
     when the industry is working to rehabilitate its image, 
     lawmakers said today. The provision was inserted in the tax 
     bill at the last minute, members said, to stave off 
     discussion and debate.
       The three Senators who voted against the amendment were 
     Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Lauch Faircloth and Jesse 
     Helms of North Carolina, all Republicans. Both Kentucky and 
     North Carolina are large tobacco-producing states.
       No one has yet stepped forward to claim authorship of the 
     tax provision that was repealed today.
       Senator Durbin, who characterized the tax provision as an 
     ``orphan,'' added that ``people said it appeared 
     mysteriously.'' and was still expressing astonishment over 
     how it materialized at the last minute.
       The Senate majority leader, Trent Lott of Mississippi; 
     Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia; the White House chief of 
     staff, Erskine B. Bowles, and the chief White House lobbyist, 
     John Hilley, all approved its insertion in the tax cut bill. 
     They were the last ones at the table in the final 
     negotiations over the balanced budget and tax-cutting 
     agreement.
       Today, Senator Lott voted to repeal the credit.
       Mr. Lott's press secretary, Susan Irby, said there was 
     never a secret conspiracy to keep the $50 billion credit 
     under wraps, noting that it was present in the tax cut bill 
     the weekend before it was voted on. ``This garbage about 
     something being slipped in and it being a one-sided agreement 
     is poppycock,'' Ms. Irby said.
       For the tobacco industry, today's vote was one of several 
     recent setbacks. Last week the Senate reversed an earlier 
     decision and agreed to earmark $34 million to pay for a 
     crackdown on illegal sales of cigarettes to underage youths.
       The pressure was also stepped up on Tuesday by Senators Tom 
     Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, and Connie Mack, Republican of 
     Florida. The two announced that they planned to introduce 
     legislation to prevent tobacco companies from writing off 
     one-third of the billions they would have to pay under the 
     settlement.
       The bill would funnel the money to the National Institutes 
     of Health to help pay for research on cancer, emphysema and 
     other diseases linked to smoking.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. It is dated September 11, 1997. That article deals with 
a very successful effort on the part of the present Senate Democratic 
whip to remove any extraneous matter that had been airdropped into a 
conference report on a popular tax relief bill by the then-Republican 
majority of the Senate. The offensive measure was a tax credit for 
payments made by tobacco companies in the tobacco court settlement. The 
Democratic whip successfully repealed that airdropped provision. I 
happened to think he did the right thing then because I supported his 
efforts. The Democratic whip noted his victory by saying, quoting from 
the New York Times article of September 11, 1997:

       Don't try this type of backroom deal and deception in the 
     future. It is really an example of the old school of 
     politics, the old style of politics.

  That is a quote from the very same person who is involved in this 
effort we are speaking about now and that we will be voting on this 
afternoon.
  The distrust of the public for the old school of politics, the old 
style of politics, is something the junior Senator--not the senior 
Senator but the junior Senator from Illinois has eloquently raised on 
the Presidential campaign trail.
  To be bipartisan, I might say, the senior Senator from Arizona, also 
a candidate for the Presidency, has also touched a nerve about the old 
school of politics and the old style of politics as well.
  The Democratic whip was right 12 years ago. I agreed with him 12 
years ago. I voted with him 12 years ago. Unfortunately, with respect 
to this airdrop pension provision, the old school of politics, the old 
style of politics was applied.
  Now, what do I mean? In this case, old school, old style power 
politics was at play. A powerful member of the Democratic leadership, a 
key member of the Appropriations Committee, did an end run around the 
Finance Committee and also the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
Committee.
  Forget about the nearly yearlong conference negotiations that went on 
to get a pension bill passed in 2006 as well. It was bipartisan and 
involved the work of two committees, which I have spoken to--that it is 
often difficult to get one committee together without getting two 
committees going in the same direction. Forget about the nearly 
yearlong conference negotiations on that pension bill. Forget about all 
the hearings the House and Senate tax-writing and labor committees held 
on

[[Page 7745]]

pension reform in the year 2006. Forget about the delicate compromise 
worked out on the way the funding rules affected airlines.
  All of a sudden none of that mattered. The Democratic whip noted his 
victory. None of that mattered. So, consequently, here we are: a person 
who 11 years ago found fault with the majority party airdropping 
something--in other words, stuffing something--in conference without 
debate, without hearings, without committee markup, doing the same 
thing 10 years later.
  What he was able to successfully correct in 1997, we are trying to 
correct now. We have obstacles put in the way: things such as having a 
very unusual compromise worked out, junked by the managers of the bill, 
and backed up by an amendment tree being filled so nobody can get a 
vote on issues that ought to be voted upon. Compromises that were 
worked out in 2006 ought to be maintained and backed up, as they 
overwhelmingly passed at that particular time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the FAA 
reauthorization bill and a crucial issue that affects not only the 
entire airline industry--and is, therefore, at the center of this 
effort--but also it dramatically affects every Louisiana family, every 
American family struggling to pay its bills; that is, sky-high energy 
prices, including dramatically increasing prices at the pump.
  I was very much looking forward to bringing up this issue with others 
and bringing up Vitter amendment No. 4648 to the FAA reauthorization 
bill to try to move forward in solving this issue. It is really a 
shame, in my opinion--and I think I am joined by many others in that 
conclusion--that the majority leader has filled up the amendment tree 
and shut down all amendments to this important bill.
  This is an important matter: FAA reauthorization, the health of the 
airline industry and aviation. This is an important issue: sky-high 
energy prices. Of course it affects the aviation industry, but it 
affects all of Americans' pocketbooks as well.
  In that context, I think it is particularly a shame the majority 
leader would shut down all amendments and shut down this important and 
healthy debate. But even though my amendment, and so many others 
germane to this topic, will not be able to be heard and voted upon, I 
did want to take the floor to outline those amendment ideas and to try 
to further the important discussion and debate.
  When we think about energy prices, how to stabilize them, how to 
lower them, I start with economics 101. I start with the very first 
rule of economics I ever learned, the very basic rule that all of us 
think of in economics; that is, the law of supply and demand. So as 
with the price of any other commodity, if you are talking about energy, 
a good way to try to stabilize prices and bring them down over time is 
to work on two things: decreasing demand and increasing supply.
  Again, economics 101 would tell you if you can do that--if you can 
shift both of those curves, shifting the demand curve by decreasing 
demand, shifting the supply curve in the opposite direction by 
increasing supply--you not only stabilize but you bring down prices.
  It seems to me we should all be coming together in a bipartisan 
spirit to do both. I am eager to do both. I support proposals to do 
both.
  There are at least three fundamental ways to help decrease demand on 
oil and gas specifically; that is, to conserve, to increase efficiency, 
and to move toward alternative fuels. Our energy picture is so dire, so 
challenging, we cannot pick one of the three. We need to do all three 
aggressively, just as we also need to work aggressively on the supply 
side.
  So I support and will continue to aggressively support measures that 
make sense in terms of conservation, in terms of increasing efficiency, 
and in terms of promoting, moving toward alternative fuels. Those all 
lessen the demand on oil and gas.
  But too often we get in this stale debate in the Congress, this stale 
deadlock, where one side of the political fence only wants to attack 
one side of the problem, and the other side of the political fence only 
wants to attack the other side of the problem, when our energy picture 
is so dire we clearly need to do both. So as we attack that demand 
side, let's not ignore the supply side either. As we move to a new 
alternative energy future, let's not ignore the fact that we will be 
dealing with oil and gas and depending on it significantly for many 
years to come. So let's turn to the supply side too, to increase our 
supply as we try to decrease demand to stabilize and bring down prices.
  My amendment, Vitter amendment No. 4648, would do just that. I will 
outline that in a minute.
  Before I do, though, let me express regret that so many of the 
suggestions, so much of the push, at least rhetorically in political 
debate and campaigning on the Democratic side, seems to ignore all 
these lessons, seems to not think or care about demand, not think or 
care about supply, not think or care about the issue and doing 
something about it. It just seems to be designed to go after the 
easiest and biggest political target in sight, which is the big oil 
companies, specifically by proposing dramatic tax increases on big oil.
  Now, if some dramatic tax increase on big oil would move us down the 
path of solving our energy challenge, I would look at it very 
seriously. The fundamental problem I have with it is that it does not 
solve anything and, in fact, it almost certainly makes the problem 
worse.
  There are two versions of this same political push to just attack the 
easiest and the biggest political target in sight. First of all, there 
is a proposal that we have actually voted on several times, and we have 
blocked several times, that would do away with certain incentives for 
oil companies to go into deep water, explore, and produce more energy. 
It would also do away with certain royalty relief designed to do the 
same thing.
  Now, make no mistake about it, these tax incentives are in place to 
push companies--small, medium, and large--to go into deeper water, more 
difficult terrain, and extract more energy from the ocean bed to supply 
us with more energy. It seems beyond debate, in my opinion, that doing 
away with those incentives and that royalty relief will heighten the 
bar, will make it more difficult for any company--small, medium, or 
large--to do just that. So as we are trying to increase supply, this 
would do just the opposite and decrease supply.
  Maybe it makes some people feel good because we are whipping up on 
some oil companies. Maybe it earns votes and earns favor with voters, 
particularly in an important primary election season. But I think 
around here we should perhaps ask the question: Does it do anything to 
solve our energy picture? And the answer is no. The answer is also no 
because there is nothing to prevent companies from passing on that tax 
increase to consumers. So just while we are trying to give consumers 
some relief at the pump, we would almost certainly be passing a tax 
increase that would be passed on to them in part or in whole and up the 
prices at the pump.
  Now, the other popular version of this same political attack is a 
very old idea, dusted off, and apparently given new life this election 
season; that is, the windfall profits tax. Oil companies make way too 
much money. They have exorbitant, outrageous profits, so the argument 
goes, so we are going to attack, we are going to tax that windfall 
profits.
  Just as an example, the leading Democratic candidate for President, 
our colleague, Senator Barack Obama, has such a proposal to tax the 
profits made based on a price of oil over $80 a barrel. So we figure 
what that is on the part of any oil producer. That affects a lot of 
companies, not just big oil but medium and smaller producers, and for 
any profit associated with the price of oil over $80 a barrel, we are 
going to stick a big tax on that and bring that into the Federal 
Treasury.

[[Page 7746]]

  Well, again, the fundamental problem with that, in my mind, is it 
does nothing to solve our energy problem and almost certainly makes 
that energy problem worse. It does nothing to increase supply. It 
almost certainly does something to decrease supply by making it less 
productive, less profitable for energy companies to go after more 
supply.
  There are other problems as well. The first problem is the misnomer, 
windfall profits tax. The reported profits of the major oil companies 
are enormous for a very simple and basic reason: the size of the 
companies and the size of their activity is enormous. But, of course, 
as any economist would tell you, if you want to analyze a level of 
profit, you need to define it as a percentage of sales, as a percentage 
of assets--some percentage number like that--not a gross number which, 
of course, is going to be very large if you are dealing with an entity 
or a set of activities that is very large.
  The fact is, when you look at that issue, when you look at oil and 
gas companies' profits as a percentage, it is very much in line with 
American business. The last figures we have are for the full calendar 
year 2007. In that calendar year 2007, oil and gas companies' profits 
were 8.3 percent.
  Now, how does that compare? Well, for all of the U.S. manufacturing 
sector--a sector we always decry as in decline and being outsourced and 
in decline historically--that profit was 7.3 percent for 2007. If you 
take out U.S. auto companies--which are hurting, which have a much 
lower figure--then U.S. manufacturing was 8.9 percent. So, in fact, oil 
and gas companies are almost exactly in between all U.S. manufacturing, 
and all U.S. manufacturing except auto. It is reasonable to take out 
auto because they are in such dire circumstances. So they are not 
windfall profits at all.
  Another important question to ask is, where these profits--whether 
they are normal or anything else--go because if we are going to stick a 
big tax on them, perhaps we should ask whom we are really taxing.
  There is some notion out there, fueled by these political attacks and 
this pandering in an election year, that, well, of course, the only 
folks we are affecting are the executives at the big oil companies. 
But, of course, the facts are fundamentally different.
  As this chart shows, profits of energy companies, oil and gas, go to 
a wide array of Americans, which today, thanks to the growth and 
vibrancy of our stock market and our investment opportunities, affects 
almost every single American. Yes, of course, corporate management owns 
some of their companies--about 2 percent. Most of the rest is owned by 
a wide array of Americans through IRAs, through other institutional 
investors, through mutual funds, and, perhaps most significantly, 
through pension funds--27 percent. That means about 129 million pension 
fund participants own these companies and would be taxed and attacked 
by these proposals. Those accounts are worth an average of $63,000. 
Twenty- eight million of those pension fund accounts are for public 
employees--that includes teachers and police and fire personnel, 
soldiers, government workers--and each of those accounts represents a 
public servant who owns part of that energy industry. A good example is 
the New York State Teachers' Retirement System. They report that 6.6 
percent of their domestic equity holdings were in energy companies in 
2004, the last year for which we could get figures. That includes $1.5 
billion in Exxon and $500 million in Chevron. That is in large part 27 
percent who own these big, bad companies that some would attack and try 
to tax into oblivion--average Americans all across America through 
pension funds, through mutual funds, through IRAs, through other 
institutionalized investment.
  Now, again, let me return to the basic point. If we want to try to 
really solve our energy picture, stabilize and bring down the price, 
including the price at the pump, maybe we should focus on that 
economics 101 lesson. Maybe we should decrease demand with a more 
sensible policy to conserve, to increase efficiency, to move to 
alternative fuels, and at the same time maybe we should increase 
supply. That is what my amendment, the Vitter amendment No. 4648, is 
all about--to attack that very important supply side. We need to do 
both. We need to do all of these things at the same time, but we cannot 
exclude one side of the equation or the other.
  The Vitter amendment to this FAA bill would pose a very simple 
solution to attack the supply side and increase supply domestically in 
a far more aggressive fashion. The amendment would establish a trigger 
in the law pegged at a certain level of the price of oil per barrel. 
That level would represent a 190-percent increase in the price per 
barrel since 2006. That comes out to just short of $126 per barrel. 
Now, unfortunately, of course, the price has been rising dramatically 
for many months, and we are not too shy of that right now. We are 
roughly at $120 per barrel. But at this trigger, under the Vitter 
amendment, if we reach and pass the trigger--about $126--then certain 
aspects of our Federal law would change.
  Specifically, we would allow exploration and production in Federal 
waters, the Outer Continental Shelf off any State that wants to get 
into that activity. I want to emphasize that last phrase because it is 
very important. We would allow that activity in the Outer Continental 
Shelf but only if the host State--the State off whose shores the 
activity would happen--wants that activity to happen. Then and only 
then, if the Governor, with the concurrence of the State legislature, 
says, yes, we want to allow this activity, we would allow energy 
production in those waters.
  We would also demand something else that is very important in terms 
of fairness and equity and good Federal policy. We would expand upon 
the revenue-sharing precedent we set about a year and a half ago when 
we opened new waters in the eastern gulf. That was a very important 
precedent, a very good energy policy, in my opinion, upon which we 
should build and expand.
  So under this Vitter amendment, if the trigger is pulled, if States 
say, yes, we want to allow this oil and gas activity, we would allow 
that to happen. But the host State would recoup a very significant 
percentage of the revenue to stay in that State's coffers; 
specifically, 37.5 percent. That is precisely the figure we passed into 
law for new areas of the gulf that are being developed now because of 
the action we took about a year and a half ago.
  In addition to that 37.5 percent, we would also have revenue sharing 
for the Federal fund for conservation--12.5 percent. That is an 
important part of the revenue-sharing precedent we set a year and a 
half ago as well.
  Finally, the Vitter amendment would allow host States to distinguish, 
if they would like, between exploration production activity for natural 
gas and exploration production activity for oil. Some States, 
particularly on the eastern seaboard, would probably act immediately to 
allow that activity for natural gas. But there is still concern about 
environmental issues with regard to oil. While I might disagree with 
them, while I might disagree with those concerns because I believe we 
have the technology in place to do all of that in a very careful, 
sensitive, and responsible way, we should leave that up to the States 
so those host States can, in fact, make the choice and they can choose 
natural gas or they can choose oil or they can choose both under the 
Vitter amendment.
  Now, unlike these other proposals--mostly tax proposals that have 
nothing but political motivation behind them and that do nothing at all 
to change the supply picture for the better, to change the demand 
picture, and to actually stabilize and bring down energy prices--this 
proposal would do something to improve that situation.
  Resource estimates in those areas of the Outer Continental Shelf that 
are now off limits, that the Vitter amendment could open up if the host 
State wants that activity to happen, those resource estimates are 
staggering: the Atlantic OCS, 3.82 billion barrels of oil and 36.99 
trillion cubic feet of natural

[[Page 7747]]

gas; the central and eastern Gulf of Mexico which is now off limits, 
3.65 billion barrels of oil and 21.46 trillion cubic feet of natural 
gas. That is not counting what we have recently put on the table. The 
Pacific Outer Continental Shelf, 10.37 billion barrels of oil and 18.02 
trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That is enormous total resources of 
almost 18 billion barrels of oil and 76.5 trillion cubic feet of 
natural gas. That is enough oil to power 40 million cars and to heat 2 
million households for 15 years. It is enough natural gas to heat 16 
million households for almost 20 years. Now, that would actually do 
something about our energy picture. That would actually expand supply 
and therefore help stabilize and bring down price.
  Is it the only thing we need to do? Absolutely not. As I said at the 
very beginning, our energy challenge is so great that we need to break 
out of this stale debate where one side of the political fence wants to 
do one set of things only--basically, to decrease demand--and the other 
side of the political fence wants to focus on one set of policies 
only--to increase supply. The simple fact is we need to do all of the 
above. We need to start immediately. We need to do it aggressively 
because it is only doing all of these things at once that will 
adequately address our energy challenges, that has a chance to 
stabilize and bring down prices, including the prices that rocked the 
airline industry and are a huge factor in aviation--we are talking 
about the FAA bill here on the floor now--and, of course, including the 
prices all Louisianans and all Americans pay at the pump.
  For once, let's come together as a Senate and do all of those things. 
Let's really think about what can actually have an impact on price. 
Let's move beyond the politics of the moment, which is always to beat 
up on an easy and big political target such as the oil companies, and 
let's ask the question: Does that have any impact for the consumer? 
Does that have any impact in terms of our energy future? Let's do the 
sorts of things, such as the Vitter amendment, that can actually help 
the consumer and increase our energy independence.
  Again, it is with great regret that I realize I am not able to 
actually call up this amendment to the FAA reauthorization bill right 
now. This is a vitally important topic. Whatever you think about it, 
whatever proposal you put out, certainly we can all agree that energy 
prices are enormously important for all Americans, for the country, and 
certainly we can all agree that it is an enormously important issue 
that goes to aviation as well as other sectors of our economy.
  In that light, I think it is particularly regrettable that Senator 
Reid, the majority leader, has filled the amendment tree and therefore 
shut down the entire amendment process before it even began on a major 
bill on the Senate floor. The Senate floor is supposed to be renowned 
for an open amendment process. Yet we have amendments about the key 
issue facing Americans today--energy prices--and we can't offer a 
single one. There is something wrong here. There is something out of 
kilter. That is not the Senate I was told about with an open amendment 
process, open debate, with great, virtually unlimited opportunity. That 
is not what the American people expect of Congress--to actually debate 
and act on real issues that they care about, and certainly that 
includes energy prices. So it is regrettable that we don't have a fair 
opportunity on the FAA bill to do just that. I hope we will have those 
opportunities very soon.
  I understand there may be an energy bill that is moved to the floor 
soon on the Senate side, perhaps as early as next week. I hope that 
will yield an open, fair opportunity for the sort of open debate and 
open amendment process that is supposed to be the hallmark of the 
Senate. If we are given that open, fair opportunity then, as it is 
being denied now, I will certainly bring this proposal forward again 
because, unlike a lot of the rhetoric flying around, unlike the tax 
increase proposals which I believe will increase the price at the pump 
and decrease supply, I believe these proposals I have presented could 
do just the opposite. They could be an important step forward in 
addressing our energy future and the more immediate need to stabilize 
and bring down energy prices for all Americans.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. 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. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 
10 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Eliminating Barriers to Cancer Research

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, yesterday, at the James Cancer Hospital at 
Ohio State University in Columbus, OH, our State capital, I announced 
legislation to eliminate needless barriers to cancer research.
  I was joined by Dr. William Carson, by Dr. James Thomas, by patients, 
and by nurses, who do the research and the clinical care for patients 
during these clinical trials. Many have worked on this issue with 
Congresswoman Deborah Pryce, a Congressional Republican.
  Merle Farnsworth, a lymphoma patient from Beverly, OH, shared an 
emotional story about cancer clinical trials meaning hope--and possibly 
a lifesaving cure--for him and millions of patients like him.
  The goal of both the House and Senate versions of this legislation is 
simple: to finally identify cures for this merciless killer.
  So many of us have been touched by cancer. We all know--all of us, I 
guess, in this room right now--someone with cancer and have lost 
someone to cancer or we know someone living with cancer.
  Focusing on cancer yesterday at James Cancer Hospital reminded me of 
what is at stake when we are fighting for broader access to health 
care. We are fighting to promote and enable early detection of 
childhood cancers, such as Hodgkin's Disease, leukemia, and bone 
cancer, and to ensure that every woman can receive mammograms and pap 
tests.
  We are fighting to diagnose cancers as soon as possible, which is the 
key to saving lives. We recognize everyone should be able to get these 
preventive measures, regardless of where they live or how much they 
earn.
  We recognize a woman with breast cancer without insurance is 40 
percent more likely to die than a woman with breast cancer with 
insurance.
  We need a health care system that is affordable and inclusive, where 
insurance companies follow through on providing coverage to those who 
need it.
  No American should be driven into bankruptcy by a catastrophic 
illness such as cancer. And no one should be denied access to clinical 
trials because insurance companies all too often try to drop them from 
coverage.
  Last year, Sheryl Freeman, a retired schoolteacher, and her husband 
Craig from Dayton visited my office in Washington. Sheryl had multiple 
myeloma. Sheryl and Craig brought to my attention the problems they 
were having with their insurance company.
  Sheryl was a retired schoolteacher and was covered under Craig's 
insurance plan. Craig has been a Federal employee for 20 years. When 
Sheryl enrolled in a clinical trial to save her life, her insurance 
company would not cover the routine costs of her care. If she had not 
enrolled in the clinical trial, they would have covered the costs of 
her care.
  She enrolled in the clinical trial. The insurance company, for all 
intents and purposes, dropped her from providing routine care for her.
  In addition to her clinical trial in Columbus, Sheryl needed to visit 
her oncologist in Dayton, about 1 hour 45 minutes away, at least once a 
week for standard cancer monitoring, which included blood tests and 
scans. But her insurance company would not cover these services if she 
enrolled in a clinical trial.

[[Page 7748]]

  Sheryl wanted to take part in a clinical trial because she hoped it 
would help her, that it might save her life, give her more time, and 
further cancer research. But rather than devoting her energy toward 
combating cancer and participating in a clinical trial, Sheryl spent 
the last months of her life haggling with her insurance company. The 
delays and the denials from her insurance company probably affected her 
treatment and her survival. Sheryl died on December 9, 2007.
  The story could have ended differently. Sheryl and Craig should not 
have had to sacrifice their precious time together trying to get the 
care she deserved, the care she paid for when she signed up for health 
insurance. People invest in insurance when they are healthy so they 
have financial protection when they are sick. It is meant to cover the 
costs of unanticipated health care needs.
  Whether a coverage exclusion such as this one, which denies payment 
for unanticipated health care needs, is written into an insurance 
contract, it is still a scam.
  Unfortunately, Sheryl and Craig are not alone. This is happening 
across Ohio. It is happening in the Presiding Officer's State of New 
Jersey, and it is happening in all 50 States. Some 20 percent of cancer 
patients who attempt to enroll in a clinical trial face the same 
problem with their insurance companies.
  It is because of stories such as these I am introducing the Access to 
Cancer Clinical Trials Act this week. Similar legislation is on its way 
to getting passed in the Ohio State Legislature. The Governor plans to 
sign that bill immediately.
  My bill and Congresswoman Pryce's bill in the House ensures this 
protection nationally. The bill simply obligates health plans to pay 
for routine care costs when a cancer patient enrolls in a clinical 
trial, something, frankly, we should not have to tell the insurance 
companies to do. But when they drop coverage for people who signed up 
for a clinical trial, it is what we have to do.
  These are costs, as I said, that would normally be covered if a 
cancer patient were not participating in a clinical trial.
  The legislation is specific in its definition of routine care costs 
and follows the Medicare definition.
  The bill will ensure that cancer patients and their caregivers can 
use their valuable time together to fight the disease instead of the 
redtape of insurance companies.
  In order to fight cancer and make progress, we need to further 
scientific advancement, not create barriers for patients who want to 
participate in lifesaving research.
  I am grateful to Merle Farnsworth for yesterday so courageously and 
passionately sharing his story with us and the public. I am grateful to 
the nurses who do their clinical care and practice their research for 
these patients in these clinical trials. I am grateful to Sheryl and 
Craig for their courage in sharing their story. Their two children 
joined us yesterday in bringing this issue to my attention.
  Sheryl was already very sick when she visited Washington, DC, and I 
imagine it was not easy for her to be traveling, but she did. She saw 
how important this issue was. I will keep the Freemans in mind as I 
advocate to get this bill passed. I will work hard on this legislation 
so no one has to go through the kind of experience the Freemans had and 
the kind of experience Mr. Farnsworth had.
  Instead of fighting their cancer, too many Americans are forced to 
fight their insurance company in the late stages of their disease. That 
has to stop. That is why this legislation is so very important.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Supplemental Funding

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, I came to the Senate floor 
to express my concern that Congress had yet to act on the President's 
fiscal year 2008 request for supplemental funding to support our troops 
and our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. At that time, I also expressed 
my displeasure with the majority's intention to bypass the 
Appropriations Committee in writing the supplemental appropriations 
bill.
  Two weeks later, little appears to have changed. Little has changed, 
except that we are 2 weeks deeper into the fiscal year, and we are 2 
weeks closer to the date when accounts that support our Armed Forces 
and our diplomatic corps begin to run dry.
  The majority leader is apparently sanguine about the status of the 
supplemental because last Thursday, he said:

       I think we'll do our best to finish this before the 
     Memorial Day break, but if we don't, it's no big deal. 
     There's money there.

  The leader then went on to say:

       I don't know why there is a rush to judgment. This is 
     moving along quite rapidly. We're not behind schedule. 
     Everything's fine.

  Exactly what is ``moving along quite rapidly''? No markup of the 
supplemental has been officially scheduled in either the House or the 
Senate. There are continued reports of imminent action in the other 
body, but no bill has been introduced. No bill or report has been 
circulated to Senate committee members in anticipation of a markup. 
There is nothing for Members to look at, nothing for Members to 
consider or to draft amendments to.
  A week ago, Republican members of the Appropriations Committee in the 
Senate wrote to Chairman Byrd to express our concern about the 
committee being bypassed entirely. I am pleased that the chairman 
concurred in the sentiments expressed in that letter and has stated his 
intention to hold a committee markup this week. I am certain that has 
been his preference all along.
  In my memory, I cannot think of any instance where the committee did 
not mark up a supplemental such as this. I think the chairman has been 
fighting valiantly to maintain some semblance of regular order, but it 
is apparent he is meeting resistance from the joint leadership.
  That is a shame. We should take advantage of the collective expertise 
and experience of the members of the Appropriations Committee and bring 
that knowledge to bear on the supplemental.
  I am sorry to say it remains uncertain whether a markup will take 
place, and if a markup does occur, it remains uncertain whether the 
committee's work product will be considered by the full Senate.
  In the House, it appears the committee will be bypassed altogether. 
Yet even with that step being skipped, there is still no definite 
schedule for House floor action. There apparently have been discussions 
by House and Senate staff in an effort to sort of ``precook'' 
agreements on the various chapters of the bill, but there has been 
little substantive involvement by the minority in those discussions. 
Very few Members have been involved at all, to my knowledge.
  The fact is the Appropriations Committee could have marked up the 
supplemental several weeks ago, and the Senate likely could have passed 
the bill by now. We should be in conference with the House already and 
be well on our way to negotiating a conference report to be sent to the 
President. But instead, we wait. We wait for more closed-door meetings 
between and among the Democratic leaders. We wait for more rumors about 
what extraneous legislative matter is or is not part of the draft being 
compiled by the majority. And all but a handful of Members wait for an 
opportunity to shape the bill.
  I am a member of the Committee on Agriculture and was appointed as a 
conferee on the farm bill. That conference has met at least seven times 
in recent weeks. There have been countless additional meetings among 
committee principals. It has been a grueling effort, it has been messy, 
and it remains uncertain whether the President will ultimately sign the 
conference report once it is presented to him. But

[[Page 7749]]

we can be fairly confident that the conference report will at least 
reflect the collective will of Congress and it will be the process of a 
reasonably transparent process.
  At this point, I cannot say that about the supplemental. Eventually, 
we will approve and the President will sign a supplemental bill. I am 
confident that ultimately we will not allow our Armed Forces and our 
diplomatic corps to go wanting for resources. My concern is that the 
majority's approach to the supplemental places political tactics and 
strategy ahead of the need for inclusive, timely, and transparent 
action.
  Contrary to the majority leader's assertion, it is a big deal if we 
do not get this bill done by Memorial Day. It is a big deal, not 
because the U.S. Army will run out of ammunition on June 1 but because 
our inaction will represent an unnecessary and completely avoidable 
process failure on the part of the Congress. It will say to our Armed 
Forces that we are willing to draw out this process as long as 
possible, even though we know the likely outcome. We are willing to 
force the Department of Defense to issue advance furlough notices, 
delay contract awards, and make inefficient funding transfers in order 
to keep the money flowing--all because congressional leaders spent 
these last several weeks devising artful parliamentary schemes rather 
than simply advancing the bill through the committees, onto the House 
floor, onto the Senate floor, and into conference.
  The April 28 edition of Roll Call included an article by Don 
Wolfensberger titled ``Have House-Senate Conferences Gone the Way of 
the Dodo?'' I commend that article to my colleagues and ask unanimous 
consent to have a copy printed in the Record at the conclusion of my 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. Wolfensberger reminds us of the promises made by the 
Senate leadership in 2006 as part of their ``honest leadership and open 
Government'' reform plank. Conference meetings were to be open to the 
public, and members of the conference committee were to have a public 
opportunity to vote on all amendments. Copies of conference reports 
were to be available to Members and posted publicly on the Internet 24 
hours before consideration. Bills were to be developed following full 
hearings and open subcommittee and committee markups and were to come 
to the floor under procedures that allow open, full, and fair debate.
  These practices have been followed in some cases. I mentioned the 
farm bill already as an example of a conference committee in action. 
But procedures governing the conference process and the markup process 
are only relevant if there actually is a conference committee or there 
actually is a committee markup.
  As noted in Mr. Wolfensberger's article, the number of instances in 
which major legislation has been dealt with outside the conference 
process has increased markedly in this Congress. The supplemental 
appears destined to become another example. I gather that we are to 
receive the bill from the House in the form of three amendments to a 
dormant version of the fiscal year 2008 Military Construction 
appropriations bill. As I have already noted, it is not certain whether 
the Senate Appropriations Committee will act on some, all, or none of 
these amendments or whether the leader intends for there to be an 
opportunity for Senators to offer amendments on the floor. A conference 
committee appears out of the question.
  It is not easy to be the Speaker of the House or the majority leader 
of the Senate. Individuals elected to those positions are subjected to 
enormous pressures. They are besieged constantly by colleagues, 
constituents, and outside interests with an array of often conflicting 
demands. In an effort to resolve those competing demands, it is 
tempting to centralize decisionmaking, construct processes that 
minimize uncertainty, and generally try to eliminate the untidiness of 
the legislative process.
  A handful of Members and staff are empowered at the expense of the 
rank and file in both bodies and, by extension, the people whom the 
rank and file represent. On occasion, such tactics are successful. But 
over time, these practices tend to become abusive and often result in a 
messier, more protracted process than would have been the case if more 
traditional procedures had been followed.
  For the sake of our men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan, I hope the 
process the majority has chosen for the supplemental does not put us 
any further behind than we already are. But in the 2 weeks since I last 
came to the floor to speak about the supplemental, little has occurred 
to inspire such hope.
  Our men and women in the field are waiting. We do need to finish this 
bill by the Memorial Day recess. It is a big deal.

                               Exhibit 1

                    [From Roll Call, Apr. 28, 2008]

        Have House-Senate Conferences Gone the Way of the Dodo?

                         (By Don Wolfensberger)

       In June 2006, House and Senate Democratic leaders rolled 
     out their ``New Direction for America,'' a campaign platform 
     to take back control of Congress. The ``Honest Leadership and 
     Open Government'' reform plank, at Page 22, included the 
     promise to require that ``all [House-Senate] conference 
     committee meetings be open to the public and that members of 
     the conference committee have a public opportunity to vote on 
     all amendments [in disagreement between the two houses].'' 
     Moreover, copies of conference reports would be posted ``on 
     the Internet 24 hours before consideration (unless waived by 
     a supermajority vote).''
       The minority Democrats' justifiable complaint was that 
     majority Republicans often shut them out of conference 
     committee deliberations after a single, perfunctory public 
     meeting was held to minimally satisfy House rules (aka ``the 
     photo op''). After that meeting, all that is necessary to 
     file a conference report is the signatures of a majority of 
     conferees from each house. No formal meeting or votes on 
     final approval are required; nor does the majority even need 
     to consult the minority before finalizing an agreement.
       Once they took over Congress in January 2007, House 
     Democrats abandoned their promises of public votes in 
     conference meetings on amendments in disagreement and of 24-
     hour advance Internet availability of conference reports. 
     Nevertheless, they did adopt some palliative House rules 
     changes on the opening day of the 110th Congress that at 
     least appear to move conference committees in the direction 
     of a more deliberative and participatory public process.
       The new rules require: (a) that all conferees be given 
     notice of any conference meeting for the resolution of 
     differences between the houses ``and a reasonable opportunity 
     to attend''; (b) that all provisions in disagreement be 
     ``considered as open to discussion at any meeting''; (c) that 
     all conferees be provided ``a unitary time and place with 
     access to at least one complete copy of the final conference 
     agreement for the purpose of recording their approval (or 
     not)'' by affixing their signatures; and (d) that no 
     substantive change in the agreement be made after conferees 
     have signed it.
       The Parliamentarian's footnotes to the rules for conference 
     reports indicate that the rules are not enforceable if all 
     points of order are waived against the reports, as is 
     routinely done by a special rule from the Rules Committee. 
     Nevertheless, conference committee chairmen (or vice 
     chairmen) could still be punished by the House adopting a 
     question of privilege resolution for willful disregard of 
     these modest requirements. This is because a blanket waiver 
     of the rules only protects the conference report. It is not a 
     retroactive pardon for malfeasance in the management of the 
     conference.
       Unfortunately, these well-intentioned new rules have no 
     relevance when the bicameral majority leadership decides to 
     bypass going to conference altogether, and instead negotiates 
     final agreements behind closed doors. And this is happening 
     with increasing frequency, sometimes even over the public 
     protests of committee chairmen who have been excluded from 
     leadership negotiations.
       To determine just how serious the practice of bypassing 
     conferences has become, I compared action on major bills 
     through March of the second session in both this Democratic 
     110th Congress and the preceding Republican-controlled 109th. 
     (A major bill is defined here as one originally considered 
     under a special rule in the House.)
       Of major bills approved by the House and Senate that 
     required some action to resolve differences between the two 
     versions, 11 out of 19 (58 percent) were settled by 
     conferences in the current Congress compared with 18 out of 
     19 (95 percent) in the previous Congress.
       Put another way, the current 110th Congress has been 
     negotiating eight times as many bills as the 109th Congress 
     outside the conference process. This is done by using the

[[Page 7750]]

     ``pingpong'' approach of bouncing amendments between the 
     houses until a final agreement is achieved.
       Among the major bills in this Congress that have bypassed 
     conference consideration are the energy independence bill, 
     State Children's Health Insurance Program, Iraq-Katrina 
     supplemental appropriations, terrorism insurance, the 
     consolidated appropriations act and the tax rebate/stimulus 
     legislation.
       While the conference bypass approach is just as legitimate 
     under the rules as going to conference (and sometimes 
     advisable when there are only minor differences to iron out), 
     the procedure is more suspect when used on major bills on 
     which numerous substantive disagreements exist between the 
     houses. That is when House and Senate leaders are more likely 
     to directly intervene, rendering committee chairmen less 
     relevant to the process.
       Senate minority Republicans are not entirely blameless in 
     this development. At times they have brought pressures to 
     avoid conferences, under threat of filibuster, in order to 
     better ensure the retention of provisions in which they have 
     a vested interest. However, House and Senate Democratic 
     leaders have been just as culpable in wanting to skip 
     conferences to produce outcomes most beneficial to their 
     party.
       While it is too early to declare House-Senate conferences 
     as extinct as the dodo, it is not too early to move them onto 
     the parliamentary endangered-species list. It is one more 
     sign of the decline of the committee system and its 
     attributes of deliberation and expertise. It is especially 
     troubling because the lack of conference deliberations shuts 
     out majority and minority Members alike from having a final 
     say on important policy decisions. Party governance must be 
     better balanced against participatory lawmaking. Both parties 
     need to recognize this.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I come to the floor today in my 
capacity as the ranking member of the Senate aviation subcommittee. I 
would like to take a few minutes to discuss the Senate FAA 
reauthorization bill and the substitute on which we will be voting 
later this afternoon and respond to some of the recent remarks that 
have been made on this process.
  The lack of progress last week and the parliamentary action of 
filling the amendment tree are very disappointing to me. Today, for the 
19th time this session, we will be asked to vote on cloture on a bill 
we have not even had open to amendment. In the present situation, we 
are being asked to vote on cloture before we have cast a single vote on 
an amendment. What the leader is doing is blocking amendments, 
preventing debate, forcing a cloture vote, and hoping the Republicans 
vote against it. Then press releases will be sent out blaming 
Republicans for obstructionism. But I have to say, what is obstruction? 
I don't think most Americans would define obstruction as insisting that 
an FAA bill; that is, the Federal Aviation Administration, not include 
unnecessary and imprudent tax increases, even worse retroactive tax 
increases, unrelated to aviation.
  I have suggested several options in an attempt to produce an FAA 
reauthorization package upon which most Members could agree. But those 
suggestions have been turned down by the other side. Unfortunately, 
this bill is being bogged down by trying to make it an omnibus tax and 
special projects package.
  It is so important that we pass an aviation bill. That is why I have 
introduced S. 2972, which is currently at the desk.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Ted Stevens be added as a 
cosponsor of S. 2972.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the text of S. 2972 is identical to 
the substitute we worked on last week. It is the bill that came out of 
the Commerce Committee with complete bipartisanship, but it does not 
include the unrelated and extraneous tax provisions. It does have 
aviation taxes that came out of the Finance Committee to which all of 
us agreed. It does not have all of the other tax provisions that have 
nothing to do with aviation--some of which are retroactive--and have 
nothing to do with FAA.
  I have also conveyed to my friends and colleagues on the Finance 
Committee that I am supportive of moving forward on a bill that would 
replenish the highway trust fund. I think we could all agree on that. 
But this is a workable FAA reauthorization bill, and it is very 
important to me because of the important role of aviation in our 
country and in my home State.
  In Texas alone, aviation accounts for nearly 60,000 jobs and over $8 
billion in total economic output. In addition, we are also home to 2 of 
the top 10 busiest airports in the Nation. We have 23 commercial 
service airports and over 300 general aviation airports. Beyond 
infrastructure, we are also the proud home of two legacy airlines, 
American and Continental, and the home State of the predominant low-
cost carrier Southwest. My State has a dynamic aviation footprint and a 
substantial interest in the future of this challenged industry.
  Since the year 2000, the U.S. airline industry has gone through its 
most fundamental restructuring since Congress deregulated the industry 
in the late 1970s. We all know so well the horrific impact of 9/11 and 
what happened to the industry after that, and that is still affecting 
it today. Put on top of that the high fuel prices which are affecting 
aviation even more than regular gasoline at the pump and you have a 
situation in which we have an industry that is really teetering on the 
brink of disaster.
  Since taking over as leader of the aviation subcommittee earlier this 
year, I have worked closely with my friend and colleague Senator Jay 
Rockefeller. We have developed a bill upon which all of us agreed, with 
the complete support of Senator Inouye, the chairman of the 
subcommittee, and Senator Stevens, the vice chairman. We have worked 
hard to develop a package that would foster air traffic modernization, 
doing it without doing damage to the commercial airline industry and 
with the complete support of the general aviation community. We 
produced a bill that was bipartisan with the support of our committee.
  Here are some of the important provisions in the bill we produced:
  It has important safety and passenger protections. The U.S. 
commercial aviation industry is experiencing the safest year in our 
history. However, recent high-profile aviation safety incidents have 
given the public some concern. In response, the committee has crafted 
several new safety initiatives in the substitute, based on the 
recommendation of the Department of Transportation inspector general.
  The new package ensures the FAA's voluntary disclosure reporting 
process requires inspectors to verify that the airlines actually took 
the corrective actions they stated they would, evaluate if an air 
carrier has offered a comprehensive solution before accepting the 
disclosure, and confirm that the corrective action is completed and 
adequately addresses the problem disclosed.
  The bill implements a process for second-level supervisory review of 
self-disclosures before they are accepted and closed. Acceptance would 
not rest solely with one inspector.
  It revises post-employment guidance to require a ``cooling off'' 
period of 2 years before an FAA inspector is hired at an air carrier he 
or she previously inspected. I personally would like to see that 
extended beyond 2 years to 3 or 4 years. If we had an amendment 
process, that would have been one of my amendments.
  The bill implements a process to track field office inspectors and 
alert the local, regional, and headquarters offices to overdue 
inspections.
  It establishes an independent review through the Government 
Accountability Office, the GAO, to review and investigate air safety 
issues identified by its employees.
  It develops a national review team under the supervision of the 
Department of Transportation inspector general to conduct periodic 
reviews of FAA's oversight of air carriers.
  It develops a plan for the reduction of runway incursions through a 
review of all commercial airports and establishes a process for 
tracking and investigating both runway incursions and operational 
errors that includes random auditing of the oversight process.
  I am a former Vice Chairman of the National Transportation Safety 
Board. I understand the crucial mission of the

[[Page 7751]]

FAA in overseeing the Nation's airlines and aviation system.
  Aviation safety and the public trust that goes along with it is the 
bedrock of our national aviation policy. We cannot allow the 
degradation of service to the flying public.
  I believe the bill we crafted in the Commerce Committee that is part 
of the substitute that I would agree with today, and all that is in the 
bill I have introduced but without the extraneous provisions that have 
nothing to do with aviation.
  The other part of the bill that is in what the Commerce Committee 
produced and is in my substitute as well is the timely issue of 
consumer protections or a passenger bill of rights. The substitute 
includes several crucial reforms directed at making the airlines more 
accountable and responsive to passengers.
  The managers' amendment would incorporate several additional 
protections to strengthen airline service requirements. The DOT would 
review and approve the contingency service plans of every air carrier. 
The Secretary could disapprove an airline's plan and return it to the 
carrier with the option for modification and resubmittal, and the DOT 
then would be authorized to establish minimum standards for such 
contingency plans. It would require a mandate that such contingency 
plans are to apply to aircraft that are delayed, whether on departure 
or arrival.
  Now, we have all heard stories about people who have been stranded on 
airplanes for 5 hours without any food service, without the opportunity 
to use the facilities.
  That is cruel and unusual punishment. I myself have been on airplanes 
that have been delayed 2 hours and more, and I know it is very 
uncomfortable for passengers. That is why we included in this bill 
requirements that airlines either have a plan that is approved by the 
Department of Transportation or there would be a 3-hour maximum or the 
passengers could get off; the establishment of an Advisory Committee 
for Aviation Consumer Protection would also be put in this bill.
  It would advise the Department of Transportation on carrying out air 
service improvements and what would be necessary to make them better. 
The committee would be comprised of four members to be appointed by the 
Secretary with a requirement to report to Congress annually over a 2-
year period on its recommendations to the Department of Transportation 
to improve this service and an explanation of the Department's action 
on each of the recommendations.
  So these are some of the important provisions in the Commerce 
Committee bill. They are in the bill that would be before us, and they 
would be in the bill I would like to see us pass that I have introduced 
and is being held at the desk.
  The substitute also addresses rural air service funding challenges by 
including additional funding for the Essential Air Service Program for 
our smaller underserved communities at $175 million annually. These 
funds would go a long way toward improving access for our most rural 
communities, communities that had air service, commercial air service, 
in the past but lost that after deregulation.
  As I stated last week, I hope my colleagues will appreciate the 
months of stalled negotiations that took place in trying to move this 
legislation forward. There is a very good balance in the Senate bill 
regarding FAA financing and labor-related provisions. If the Senate 
wants a final bill, we need to preserve that balance without including 
highly controversial unrelated provisions that many people would agree 
do not belong in an FAA bill dealing with aviation.
  We have an opportunity to pass FAA legislation this week. The bill I 
have introduced with Senator Stevens would be everything the Commerce 
Committee passed on a bipartisan basis and the provisions of the 
Finance Committee report on aviation taxes that would go toward 
modernization.
  It does not include the controversial pension provision that changes 
the previous law this Congress has passed and affects some of our 
airlines in a way that could be so destructive as to possibly bring 
that air carrier down. It does not include all the taxes that were put 
in, all the projects, all the earmarks that have nothing to do with 
aviation.
  It is simply the Senate bipartisan bill on aviation and the Finance 
Committee package that deals with aviation. We could pass this bill and 
send it to the President and the President would sign this bill. He 
would sign the bill Senator Stevens and I have put forward. He will not 
sign the bill that would be put forward by my distinguished colleague, 
Senator Rockefeller.
  There are provisions of that bill that would not allow this bill to 
go forward at all, period, because there are policy matters unrelated 
to aviation that more than 41 people in this Senate will object to 
putting on an aviation bill.
  So I think we have a way forward. I have introduced a bill that I 
believe could get the majority of the votes in the Senate. It would be 
signed by the President, and it would do all that I have mentioned 
relating to aviation safety improvements, passenger bill of rights, it 
would modernize our air traffic control system, it would keep the 
balance in the system we all agree we should have between air carriers 
and commercial airports, general aviation and general aviation 
airports.
  It is a good bill. We have a way forward. We have made agreements we 
can all agree would push the bill forward. But the substitute we are 
going to vote cloture on without the process of amendments being open 
is not that bill. There is no reason for the Commerce Committee bill on 
aviation to take on all these taxes and special interest projects that 
have nothing to do with aviation.
  If those projects can stand on their own, let's vote on those 
projects alone. The Finance Committee has many vehicles on which they 
can put their legislation. But to try to put nonaviation taxes on an 
aviation bill is going to bring this bill down.
  I hope we will not allow that to happen. We will vote no on cloture. 
Cloture probably will not be given because it is not an aviation bill 
we are going to be voting on. But we have an aviation bill. Let's vote 
on that one. Let's vote on the bipartisan bill from the Commerce 
Committee and the taxes from the Finance Committee that relate to 
aviation and let's move forward. I think we can do it.
  This is the Senate. We can work on a bipartisan basis. My colleagues, 
Senator Rockefeller and I and Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens and 
the members of our committee have done an incredibly good job of 
bringing that balance together. So I hope we will not waste that effort 
and that we will be able to put up as one of the accomplishments of 
this session of Congress an FAA reauthorization bill that modernized 
our system, that created a passenger bill of rights, that created a 
safety program that further enhanced a good program, that included war 
risk insurance, a bill that balances all the aviation interests of our 
country, which are so important to our economic viability.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. What is the situation parliamentarywise?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. H.R. 2881 is pending, with amendments.
  Mr. STEVENS. Is there any time agreement at the present time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a vote scheduled at 2:30.
  Mr. STEVENS. Are we still in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are on the bill, not in morning business.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair.


                      Tribute to Lew Williams, Jr.

  Our young State, Alaska, this past weekend lost one of our greatest 
20th century pioneers when Lew Williams, Jr., the publisher emeritus of 
the Ketchikan Daily News, died while vacationing in Scottsdale, AZ.

[[Page 7752]]

  Through his six decades in Alaska journalism, Lew brought news to 
much of southeast Alaska through a series of newspapers which he edited 
and owned. Five southeast Alaska towns were home to Lew Williams. 
Juneau was the first, when, as an 11-year-old boy, he delivered the 
Empire, the paper on which his dad was a reporter. Wrangell was next. 
His dad was the new editor-owner of the Wrangell Sentinel, and Lew 
became his 15-year-old apprentice. Later, after Navy service in World 
War II, Lew bought the paper from his father. Next the beautiful town 
of Petersburg, AK, claimed Lew when he and his bride Dorothy bought the 
Petersburg Press. From that time on, Dorothy remained his partner in 
newspapering, along with helping Lew to set the path that has been 
followed by his own three children.
  In 1966, Lew took over the editorship of the Ketchikan Daily News 
and, a decade later, he and Dorothy bought that paper, settling in for 
the long run and spending the rest of his life in Ketchikan.
  When the Daily Sitka Sentinel fell on hard times after major 
mechanical problems and a fire in 1969, Lew offered assistance to the 
beleaguered owners. That assistance turned into ownership of that paper 
also. But in 1975, he sold the Sentinel to the Poulsons, a young couple 
who had been hired to be editors. Thad Poulson was a former reporter in 
Juneau and an AP representative in Juneau. He remains with the Sitka 
paper today.
  Despite his close ties to these five towns in our State's beautiful 
southeastern panhandle, Lew was truly a man for all of Alaska.
  He was one of my close friends, and I mourn his passing.
  Early in the 1950s, when the larger southeast daily newspapers were 
against Alaska statehood, Lew Williams joined the small weeklies in our 
fight to become the 49th State. The concerns that faced Alaska as a 
territory, and later as a State, Lew adopted as his concerns. No matter 
where the problem was in our 586,000 square miles, Lew Williams became 
acquainted with it and tried to do something about the problem. Whether 
the issue was minerals or timber, fisheries or lands, hundreds of other 
matters, Lew wrote clearly and forcefully in his paper, as editor, to 
help his readers understand the solutions he believed were best for all 
Alaska and Alaskans.
  Critics who may have disagreed with his stand on any issue were 
unanimous in their praise for his writings. His columns were carried in 
papers throughout our State and many throughout the Nation, and they 
have continued to run, until a few weeks ago, in what we call 
Anchorage's Voice of the Times which is printed as an op-ed in the 
Anchorage Daily News.
  Although Lew's paper, the Ketchikan Daily News, is the smallest daily 
in Alaska, with a weekend edition also, Lew was in the forefront when 
it came to technology. He beat out what we call ``the big boys'' in the 
larger towns when he was the first to offer offset printing and color 
and among the first with newsroom computers. Along the way, Lew 
collected dozens of honors for his papers throughout the Nation and for 
his community service. He served on boards ranging from the chambers of 
commerce to fish and game advisory boards, school boards, and the 
Rotary. He was appointed to the board of regents of our University of 
Alaska. He was a member of the blue ribbon task force for the Alaska 
National Interest Public Lands Act--we call it ANILCA--which was passed 
in 1908, and he served on the Alaska Judicial Council and the board of 
governors of the Alaska Bar Association, although he was not a lawyer.
  And ``there's more,'' as the television commercial says. Lew founded 
the Alaska Newspaper Association. He was named businessman of the year 
for Alaska a few years ago. He founded the Southeast Alaska Conference 
and for 29 years was an adult leader of Boy Scouts.
  These honors pale beside Lew's greatest gift to our State, and that 
is his three children who grew up in newspaper offices. What a tribute 
to their dad that they adopted his profession and are carrying it on. 
Lew III, Tena, and Kathy, his children, accepted the reins from their 
dad in 1990. But he still remained in that office and he gave his time 
to finish writing and editing a 700-page book called ``Bent Pins and 
Chains,'' a history of Alaska through its newspapers. He had begun this 
with the late historian wife of the publisher of the Anchorage Times, 
Evangeline Atwood, for anyone who is interested in Alaska. Alaskans are 
fortunate that the vibrant Williams younger generation carries on Lew 
Williams' commitment to good reporting, fine writing, dedication to 
community service, and making Alaska the greatest place in the United 
States to live.
  Those of us who knew Lew Williams, who shared opinions and laughs and 
disappointments and triumphs and many wonderful days, are among the 
luckiest of Alaskans. I always looked up Lew Williams when I was in 
Ketchikan, and he always had some news and advice for me. I usually 
followed it.
  We do have the knowledge we could not have had delivered to us 
through a better, more loyal friend. I have to say, it is tough to lose 
a friend like Lew. The joy he brought to my life and to my family's 
life and to so many others cannot be measured in a statement of this 
kind. I tell the Senate that everyone makes a statement like this. Not 
often do we make a statement pertaining to someone who had so much to 
do with our lives and what we have done. When I first decided to run 
for the Senate, I went to Ketchikan to talk to Lew Williams to see if 
he agreed. That was back in 1962. I have known Lew Williams and Dorothy 
and the children for a long time. Catherine and I send our love and 
deepest sympathy. We know our friend and their loved one is gone, but 
he will not be forgotten by any of us.
  I ask unanimous consent that recent editorials and comments about my 
friend Lew Williams be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  Newsman Lew Williams Jr. Dies at 83

       Ketchikan.--Ketchikan Daily News publisher emeritus 
     Llewellyn ``Lew'' M. Williams, Jr., 83, died Saturday in 
     Scottsdale, Ariz.
       Williams was a pioneer Alaska journalist, active in 
     newspaper, state and local affairs for more than 60 years. He 
     died while vacationing in Arizona, four days after he had 
     been due to return home to Ketchikan.
       He and his wife, Dorothy, published newspapers in Wrangell, 
     Petersburg, Sitka and Ketchikan.
       They were the first to switch an Alaska newspaper from the 
     hot-type method of printing to photo offset, which later 
     became used universally in the industry.
       They were the first to switch an Alaska afternoon daily 
     newspaper to morning publication. They created a successful 
     weekend edition for the Ketchikan Daily News while other 
     small dailies in Alaska remained five-day publications. The 
     Williamses were Alaska pioneers in adapting electronics to 
     newspaper production.
       In 1965, Lew Williams was a founder of the Alaska Newspaper 
     Publishers' Association, forerunner to today's Alaska 
     Newspaper Association. He served terms as president of each 
     organization and served a term as director of the regional 
     Allied Daily Newspaper Association.
       The Williamses purchased the Ketchikan Daily News from the 
     Paul S. Charles family in 1976, after managing the newspaper 
     for 10 years. They sold their interest to their children, Lew 
     III, Kathy and Tena Williams, after Williams retired as 
     publisher in 1990.
       Williams was born in Spokane, Wash., Nov. 26, 1924, to Lew 
     M. Williams Sr. and Winifred (Dow) Williams, who met while 
     both were reporters for Tacoma newspapers. The Williams 
     family moved to Juneau in 1935, where the elder Williams 
     worked for the Juneau Empire. In 1939, the senior Williamses 
     purchased the Wrangell Sentinel.
       After serving as a sergeant in the paratroops in World War 
     II, Lew Jr. ran the Sentinel for the family. He married 
     Dorothy M. Baum in Mitchell, Neb., on July 2, 1954.
       The couple purchased the Petersburg Press and acquired the 
     Wrangell Sentinel from the senior Williamses when they 
     retired.
       They sold both newspapers to Alaska Airlines President 
     Charles Willis, and bought the Daily Sitka Sentinel and an 
     interest in the Ketchikan Daily News. They sold the Sitka 
     paper to Thad and Sandy Paulson to concentrate on publishing 
     the Ketchikan paper when they bought out the Charleses. 
     Although the Petersburg Press was suspended after he sold it, 
     Lew Williams helped the Petersburg Pilot get started. All 
     newspapers he and his wife ran were successful businesses and 
     community leaders.
       Williams was a lifetime member of Petersburg Elks Lodge No. 
     1615, the American Legion and Pioneers of Alaska.

[[Page 7753]]

       Williams served on the Wrangell School Board, as mayor of 
     Petersburg and on numerous state boards, among them the 
     Alaska Judicial Council, the Board of Governors of the Alaska 
     Bar Association and the Board of Regents of the University of 
     Alaska. He served on boards under every state governor 
     through 1999. He served three years as the first secretary of 
     the Petersburg Fish and Game Advisory Board when Alaska took 
     control of fish and game with statehood.
       He was a past president of Rotary, served 29 years as an 
     adult leader in the Boy Scout program, and was active in 
     Democratic Party politics when Bill Egan was governor. For 
     his public service, he was awarded an honorary doctorate of 
     humanities by the University of Alaska Southeast.
       As a writer, Williams was noted for his strong editorials 
     and weekly columns. He continued writing his column, ``End of 
     the Week,'' up until his death, and occasionally contributed 
     editorials. He continued to provide background material to 
     Daily News editorial writers, because of his lengthy service 
     in and extensive knowledge of public affairs. His advice was 
     sought not only by reporters and editors at the newspaper, 
     but also by municipal and state leaders.
       In 2006, he published ``Bent Pins to Chains: Alaska and its 
     newspapers,'' a book he wrote with the late Evangeline Atwood 
     that is described on its dust jacket as ``a journalism 
     course, including a history of Alaska under the American 
     flag.''
       He believed the editorial was the heart and strength of any 
     newspaper. He editorialized for Alaska statehood, for 
     creation of the state ferry system, for the trans-Alaska 
     pipeline, for power development, in support of the timber and 
     fishing industries, and for airports, harbors and roads.
       As a community booster, he was active in chambers of 
     commerce and was a founder and first secretary of the 
     regional Southeast Conference. He was named Citizen of the 
     Year by both the state chamber and the Greater Ketchikan 
     Chamber of Commerce in the early 1980s, and named Alaskan of 
     the Year in 1991 by the nonprofit Alaskan of the Year 
     organization, based in Anchorage.
       Williams was a dedicated family man, who in his early days 
     enjoyed hunting and fishing on the Stikine River. After 
     retirement, he liked to vacation with family in Arizona.
       He is survived by his wife, Dorothy; daughters, Christena 
     and Kathryn; son, Lew III and daughter-in-law, Vicki; 
     granddaughters, Kristie, Jodi and Melissa Williams; and 
     great-grandson, Milan Browne, all of Ketchikan; sisters, 
     Susan Pagenkopf of Juneau and Jane Ferguson of California; 
     and by cousins in Alaska and Washington.
       At his request, no service is scheduled. Messinger 
     Mortuaries of Scottsdale is in charge of cremation.
       The family suggests memorials to the First City Council on 
     Cancer.
                                  ____


                 An Alaskan Original Dies in Scottsdale

       The Voice of The Times lost a great friend and favorite 
     columnist on Saturday when Ketchikan newsman Lew M. Williams 
     Jr., died at 83 in Scottsdale, Ariz., his vacation home.
       Lew was the retired publisher of the Ketchikan Daily News 
     and active in journalism and Alaska's civic life for more 
     than 60 years. He worked on various newspaper jobs as a youth 
     and began his journalism career on a full-time basis after 
     service as a paratrooper sergeant in World War II.
       He first ran the Wrangell Sentinel for his family, worked 
     at the Sitka Sentinel and the old Petersburg Press, and 
     managed the Ketchikan Daily News for 10 years before buying 
     it in 1976. His daughter, Tena, is now the Ketchikan 
     publisher, taking over when he retired.
       He was a principal author of ``Bent Pins to Chains,'' a 
     comprehensive history of the newspaper business in Alaska. He 
     researched and wrote the book after taking over the original 
     research done by the late Evangeline Atwood, who was an 
     Alaska historian and widow of Robert B. Atwood, publisher of 
     The Anchorage Times and another giant of Alaska journalism.
       Most long-time Alaska journalists knew him and many can 
     recount personal experiences with him. Most will testify to 
     the friendly and helpful attitude he had toward others in the 
     profession.
       Lew's death was unexpected and came after sending an e-mail 
     in late April saying he wouldn't be writing columns for a 
     while because he had the flu. His wife, Dorothy, insisted he 
     see a doctor and they learned just a week before his death 
     that it was cancer.
       His family gathered in Scottsdale and he was apparently 
     comfortable until the end. By one account he was still 
     tracking the stock market during his last week. With his 
     inquiring and untiring mind, that would be no surprise.
       Lew's list of good friends includes Sen. Ted Stevens, who 
     is preparing a tribute to him for delivery on the floor of 
     the U.S. Senate on Tuesday.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. It is my understanding that the Federal Aviation 
Administration reauthorization is the pending business before the 
Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, this is a bipartisan bill that Senator Rockefeller of 
West Virginia, Senator Hutchison of Texas, and many others worked on 
very long and hard. We voted unanimously to go forward with this bill 
last week. This is long overdue. It is to modernize the air traffic 
control system, to establish a basic set of rights for airline 
passengers, and so many other things that are included in this bill, to 
move the technology of air traffic control forward so America can be on 
the same page as many other developed nations that have found more 
efficient, safer ways to guide aircraft. You would think that sort of 
thing would be nonpartisan when it came to the floor of the Senate. I 
am sorry to say we haven't had much luck.
  If Senators were paid by the vote, last week we would have been on 
short rations. We had one vote last week. We all came out and 
ceremoniously showed up one time on the floor of the Senate to vote and 
leave.
  I kind of thought when I ran for the Senate there was something 
involved such as debate, deliberation, that Senators would come forward 
and offer amendments, and other Senators who disagreed might debate 
those amendments and maybe even offer an amendment of their own. It is 
like the Senate was once portrayed in the movies. That is the Senate of 
``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington'' and so many other great depictions of 
Senate activity. But not this Senate; we are in a different mode. We 
are in the filibuster mode, imposed on us by the Republican minority.
  In the history of the Senate, looking back over 200 years, the 
maximum number of filibusters in any 2-year period is 57. That is an 
easy number to remember. Now, unfortunately, in this Senate session, as 
we go into the second year, the Republican minority has broken that 
record. We have now had 69 filibusters, and we are not even halfway 
through this year. Some speculate there will be over 100 filibusters 
before this session comes to an end.
  That is unfortunate because a filibuster basically means the Senate 
stops. Any Member can stand up, object, and stop the Senate. Then it 
takes a motion to be filed and some 30 hours to pass before you vote on 
that motion and start up again, if you are lucky enough to get 60 
votes. The Republican minority knows this. So time and time and time 
again they have started filibusters and caused us to file motions for 
cloture to try to get to an issue.
  Now, for an outsider watching the Senate, they might say: What 
difference does it make? Why don't you all get over it and try to get 
something done? Well, unfortunately, we are not having any luck at 
that. The Republican minority has now reached new heights--or new 
depths--depending on your point of view when it comes to applying the 
filibuster.
  We have a technical corrections bill that comes around once in a 
while when we have drafting errors in bills, and we have to change the 
spelling and grammar. We had a big highway bill. It was a huge bill. 
Then, over time, people looked at it and said: Wait a minute, that 
shouldn't have said ``road,'' it should have said ``avenue.'' The 
spelling is wrong or the punctuation. Let's put these technical 
corrections in. The Republicans filibustered the bill--a bill such as 
that they filibustered.
  One of the Republican Senators got up on the floor and said: Well, 
there were some things in there we objected to. Well, the way it 
works--at least by most tradition in the Senate--is if you object to 
something, you file a motion to strike that section. You debate it. 
There is a vote. The Senate moves to the next consideration. That is 
the orderly process but not the approach being used by the Republican 
minority. Their approach: Initiate a filibuster. Tie up the Senate. 
Make us burn 30 hours doing nothing, with as few votes, as few 
amendments, as few bills as possible. Why? Well, several reasons.
  First, they like the world as it currently exists. They do not 
believe improving aviation safety is worth the effort on the floor to 
try to work together. Time and again, they have stopped efforts in 
progress because

[[Page 7754]]

they do not want us to have, I guess, a record to point to that shows 
we have achieved something.
  Finally, they are afraid of controversial votes. I had the good 
fortune, many years ago, to serve with a Congressman from Oklahoma 
named Mike Synar. Mike Synar was a real character. He was a throwback. 
He invited controversy. He welcomed it, and it eventually did him in. 
He lost a Democratic primary. He managed to anger enough people that it 
did not work. But he was a character. He used to say: If you don't want 
to fight fire, don't be a firefighter. If you don't want to vote on 
controversial issues, don't run for the House or, I might add, the 
Senate.
  Unfortunately, on the Republican side, they do not want to vote on 
anything, and they do not want to face anything that might be 
controversial. So they file filibuster after filibuster.
  So we had hoped last week this bill, the Federal Aviation 
Administration bill, would be different--modernizing air traffic 
control, making our skies safer, making sure our planes are well 
inspected. That seems to me to be an issue that is not a Republican or 
Democratic issue.
  So last week, the majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, came to the 
floor and said to the Republican side: If you have amendments, let's 
see them and let's get going. Let's start dealing with those 
amendments. If they relate to the Federal Aviation Administration, 
let's bring them up, let's debate them, let's vote on them.
  We had hoped, since we had this ``exhausting'' week last week, where 
we voted one time, that maybe the Republicans would have time to come 
up with a list of amendments they wanted to come forward with. But I am 
afraid the majority leader's invitation to offer amendments was 
declined by the other side, and here we are stuck in the middle of 
another filibuster.
  They tell us what is haunting them is a project in this bill that 
relates to the city of New York. My colleague and friend, Senator Chuck 
Schumer, and Senator Clinton, are pushing for something in New York 
which they feel the President has promised. In fact, the President 
included it in his budget.
  Some Republican Senators do not like it. They do not want it in 
there. Well, they certainly have the right to offer to strike it. We 
give them that opportunity. But because this lingering resistance to 
the bill is there, they will not let us move forward.
  I was optimistic that maybe after a long weekend we could finally 
make some progress, that the Republican Members would come forward, 
offer some amendments, and start to debate the bill. Well, the weekend 
is over and we are in Tuesday of this week and nothing is happening. 
That is regrettable.
  There is a portion of this bill that was in the original substitute 
which has now been removed, which I thought we put behind us last week. 
It was a measure related to airline pensions. I assumed at some point 
we would revisit it. I was surprised when my good friend, the ranking 
member of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Grassley of Iowa, took 
to the floor earlier today to reopen the debate.
  Senator Grassley said a provision in the original substitute 
amendment last week would have in some way corrected a provision I had 
supposedly, in his words, ``airdropped'' into a conference report last 
year, as a result of smoky, backroom dealing and that the Finance 
Committee was trying to right a wrong.
  I would like to set the record straight. I do like Chuck Grassley. I 
respect him. We have worked on things together. We come from adjoining 
States. We have been traveling on airplanes together for 20 years-plus. 
There are times when we do see eye to eye and work very closely. His 
leadership on a bipartisan basis on the Children's Health Insurance 
Program was one of the better moments in this Congress. But on this 
particular one, I have to say I think Senator Grassley is wrong.
  Why would we be debating airline pensions or why should people care? 
If you work for an airline, of course you care. But when you take a 
look at, overall, what is going on here in America, I think everybody 
can understand what we are up against.
  On this chart is a list of airlines which declared bankruptcy 
recently: Frontier, 6,000 employees out of work; ATA, 2,230 employees 
out of work; Skybus, 450 employees; Aloha, 1,900 employees; EOS, 450 
employees.
  This is an alarming trend, as more airlines declare bankruptcy and 
people lose their jobs.
  Also, many of these people have lost at least some measure of 
security when it comes to their retirement. So when we talk about 
airline pensions in today's climate, where our economy has slowed to a 
crawl, we can understand why this is an issue which we should handle 
very carefully.
  In considering the Pension Protection Act of 2005, the original 
Senate bill provided near parity for airlines. What we were trying to 
do in this country was to say to companies all across the board: You 
promised your employees when they came to work for you, if they worked 
long enough, they could retire and have a pension. Keep your word. Make 
sure there are enough funds set aside so you can fund their pensions 
when they retire.
  So we got into this debate and realized for most companies in America 
certain standards would work, but in one industry--the airline 
industry--it was a little more difficult because they were struggling. 
After 9/11, many airlines went into bankruptcy, many were on the edge 
of bankruptcy, and most were barely getting by. So we created a 
provision in the bill in how we dealt with airlines when we talked 
about this Pension Protection Act.
  The original bill provided near parity for all airlines, giving all 
carriers 14 years to catch up in underfunding in their defined benefit 
pensions. The Senate passed an amendment by voice vote--Senator Isakson 
offered it--that would have provided even more benefits to the airline 
industry in the way they funded their pensions--again maintaining 
something close to parity among airlines. We knew we had an industry 
that was in a delicate situation. We wanted to protect their employees. 
We did not want to go too far, too fast. The Isakson amendment gave us 
a way most of us felt was reasonable.
  When the conference report for the bill was finalized, the near 
equality for the airlines was destroyed. In its place, there was a huge 
disparity in the funding rules for some airlines compared to the rules 
that even the airlines they competed against had to follow. The 
conference committee had changed the will and decision of the Senate 
and decided to pick winners and losers among airlines.
  It was interesting, as soon as that came back, there was a lot of 
floor activity and floor debate and colloquy among Senators about that 
provision. For example, Senator Kennedy came to the floor and said:

       Quite frankly, I was disappointed that we didn't treat 
     American and Continental Airlines more fairly in the final 
     recommendations. Without moving ahead at this time on the 
     pension legislation, we have the prospects of one of the 
     major airlines dropping their pension program, with more than 
     150,000 workers losing their pensions.

  You see, that is what the issue came down to. As airlines were facing 
tough times, some went into bankruptcy, and the first casualty in the 
bankruptcy was their pension plan. Historically, many companies in 
America offered a defined benefit pension plan, which meant if you 
worked a certain number of years and contributed, when you retired, you 
knew what you would receive in a pension. It was defined: how much each 
month, whether a cost of living adjustment would apply.
  As airlines went into bankruptcy, that was one of the first 
casualties. They said: We can no longer accept that responsibility for 
future retirees. We are going to go into a defined contribution plan, 
known as 401(k)s and similar tax models in order to fund their future 
pensions. That limited the contribution of the company and left some 
uncertainty for the employee in retirement. But that was what happened. 
As airlines went into bankruptcy, the defined benefit pension plans 
fell by the wayside and the defined contribution plans took their 
place.

[[Page 7755]]

  When all the smoke had cleared, there were five airlines that 
maintained their original basic defined benefit pension plans: American 
Airlines; Continental; Hawaiian; Alaskan; and Piedmont, which was 
assumed by US Airways. So these were companies that avoided bankruptcy 
and said: We are going to try to keep our airlines competitive. We are 
not going to dump the pension plans of our employees, and we are going 
to try to hang on. I think those companies did a brave thing and the 
right thing and the best thing for their employees.
  Unfortunately, when it came to the law being passed by Congress, we 
gave better treatment to those airlines that went into bankruptcy and 
basically froze their pension plans and would not allow others to come 
into them. So it was a decision in that conference report which favored 
some airlines over others.
  Senator Enzi spoke to this provision when he said on the floor:

       I am a little disappointed in the language from the House 
     bill because it fails to treat all the legacy airlines 
     equally. . . . The Senate bill gave amortization extensions 
     to all four legacy airlines . . . but under the House bill, 
     frozen plans receive 17 years to amortize their plan debt and 
     an interest rate of 8.85 percent. . . . I prefer the language 
     of the Senate passed bill. . . . I am very sorry that the 
     House did not see fit to accept the Senate language, as it 
     was the result of many and long negotiations.

  I had made a statement on the floor as well.
  Senator Hutchison of Texas addressed the then-majority leader, Bill 
Frist, a Republican of Tennessee, and said: I hope you know we are 
going to basically return to this. We can't leave it where some 
airlines are treated more favorably than others. It creates a 
competitive advantage in a very competitive marketplace. Senator 
Hutchison spoke for many of us when she said that.
  Before the majority leader could even respond to her, other Senators, 
such as Senators Voinovich, Cornyn, and Inhofe, joined in, in support 
of Senator Hutchison.
  Senator Frist, the then-Republican majority leader, said:

       . . . I can promise the Senators that I will continue to 
     work with them on this issue after we return from the August 
     recess.

  Now fast forward to the middle of 2007 and nothing had been done. So 
Senator Hutchison and I took a small step to improve the situation by 
adding language to a supplemental appropriations bill that gave the 
airlines left behind in the original bill a bit more fairness in the 
rules.
  I am troubled when my friend, Senator Grassley, characterizes this as 
``dark of the night activity.'' There was fair warning that the 
original pension bill did not solve the problem and created some real 
fundamental unfairness, fair warning that many Senators on both sides 
of the aisle wanted to revisit this issue. So it does not strike me as 
some underhanded or backroom deal. We let Senator Grassley and all 
other Senators know this was an unresolved issue. Well, they came back 
this year and wanted to change the rules again, penalizing even more 
airlines, such as American Airlines that had avoided bankruptcy, was 
paying into their defined benefit plans, and had funded their pension 
plans well beyond 100 percent. American Airlines, for example, has 
funded their pension plan to the level of 115 percent. So even in a 
tough economy they are able to do this.
  Now, we have warned Senator Grassley and others if they are not 
careful, we could find other airlines facing bankruptcy. It is pretty 
common knowledge what is going on. This chart shows what has happened 
to airline losses in the first quarter of this year. Delta has lost 
$274 million; American Airlines, $328 million; and United, $537 
million. United, my hometown airline in Chicago, announced they may 
have to lay off 1,000 people because of its losses.
  Where do these losses come from? Well, it comes from the cost of jet 
fuel, as this chart shows. Airlines struggling with fierce competition 
now have jet fuel costs spiking, as we can see, at a time when they are 
struggling to survive, and these jet fuel costs are coming right off 
the bottom line. So as motorists are angry about gasoline prices and 
truckers are angry about diesel costs, airlines facing jet fuel costs 
are showing record losses as we go into this.
  I make this part of the Record because it is fair warning to all of 
us to be very careful when we are changing the law as related to 
airlines. It might not take much to push some over the edge into 
bankruptcy. I don't think America and its economy will be stronger if 
we have fewer airlines. I think it is far better for us to move toward 
equitable treatment of all airlines and some sensitivity to the 
economic realities they face.
  As of last week, we removed this contentious provision from the bill. 
As I said, I was a little surprised that Senator Grassley wanted to 
revisit this issue again today, but I feel just as strongly this week 
as I did last week. I think what the committee had proposed would have 
been fundamentally unfair and would have created a hardship on many of 
these airlines that are struggling to survive.
  In just a short time now the Senate will vote on a cloture vote as a 
result of the 69th Republican Senate filibuster of this session, a 
recordbreaking number of efforts to slow down and stop legislation--
even this bill, a bill to reauthorize the Federal Aviation 
Administration. One would think this bill would rise above the partisan 
divisions in this Chamber. But last week, or the week before, we even 
had a filibuster--a Republican filibuster--of a veterans health 
benefits program. So it appears they are going to filibuster everything 
that is moving or everything that tries to move on the floor of the 
Senate.
  I see Senator Rockefeller has returned. As chairman of the aviation 
subcommittee, he has done a great job on this bill. I am certainly 
going to support his efforts. I think they will move us forward in the 
world of airline safety.
  If there is no one else seeking recognition at this point, I suggest 
the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. 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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, as I think everyone on this side of the 
aisle has made perfectly clear, we do not oppose moving forward with an 
FAA modernization bill. In fact, we would be more than happy to move 
forward on the aviation provisions of the Commerce Committee and 
Finance Committee titles of the bill that are on the Senate floor.
  The ranking member of the Aviation Subcommittee, Senator Hutchison, 
has been on the Senate floor for a week flagging the extraneous, 
nonaviation-related provisions in the Finance Committee package as a 
problem. She has called repeatedly on the majority bill manager to join 
her in seeking to remove these extraneous controversial provisions and 
move forward with a clean FAA bill. Unfortunately, the majority has not 
accepted her offer to date, and so we find ourselves in a stalemate. I 
think this is unfortunate and unnecessary. But there is a way to pass 
this bill in a bipartisan way if our colleagues will only take yes for 
an answer.
  So bearing that in mind, I have indicated to the other side that I 
would propose a unanimous consent agreement.
  I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration of S. 2972, a bill to reauthorize and modernize the 
Federal Aviation Administration. 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 related to the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I 
would ask the Senator to modify his request and include an amendment 
which includes all of the provisions of my pending amendment.

[[Page 7756]]


  Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object, I assume that would put 
us right back in the same place we are now. I will not restate what I 
said earlier. But it was my hope, following the advice of the senior 
Senator from Texas, and our expert on this issue, that we would simply 
take up and pass those portions of the bill that seemed to be 
noncontroversial.
  The proposal of the Senator from West Virginia puts the controversial 
measure back before us, upon which we will have the cloture vote 
shortly. Therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the minority leader yield for a question?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, at the risk of asking someone on the 
Republican side, isn't there such a thing as a motion to strike? Could 
we not bring this bill up and you could move to strike the provisions 
you don't like, and we could have a debate on the floor and actually 
have a vote and actually get this bill moving forward? Isn't that where 
we were last week when this ground to a halt and nothing has changed? 
What is wrong with, if you don't like a provision of the bill, moving 
to strike it? I ask that question through the Chair if any Republican 
is willing to respond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is to proceed to a vote at 2:30.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am happy to go to the vote. But the 
problem is we don't have the opportunity to amend and strike. That has 
been taken away from us by the majority. The bottom line is we should 
go to a vote, reject this bill, and we should go back to the drawing 
board with the Commerce Committee, to a bipartisan bill for FAA 
reauthorization.
  Thank you.


                             cloture motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule 
XXII, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the substitute 
     amendment No. 4627 to H.R. 2881, the FAA reauthorization.
         Harry Reid, Jay Rockefeller, Barbara Boxer, Kent Conrad, 
           Patrick J. Leahy, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Mark Pryor, 
           Sherrod Brown, Patty Murray, Ken Salazar, Max Baucus, 
           Tom Carper, Amy Klobuchar, Sheldon Whitehouse, E. 
           Benjamin Nelson, Dick Durbin, Blanche L. Lincoln, 
           Daniel K. Inouye.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call is waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 
amendment No. 4627 to H.R. 2881, the FAA reauthorization bill, shall be 
brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Bayh), the 
Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. 
Landrieu), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily 
absent.
   Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Craig), the 
Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Inhofe), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 49, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 115 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--42

     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Bunning
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Reid
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bayh
     Burr
     Clinton
     Craig
     Hagel
     Inhofe
     Landrieu
     McCain
     Obama
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 49, the nays are 
42. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by 
which cloture was not invoked on the Rockefeller substitute amendment 
No. 4627.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous that the cloture motion on 
H.R. 2881 be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I wish today to urge my colleagues to 
support the Rockefeller substitute to H.R. 2881, the Aviation 
Investment and Modernization Act. Aviation is a central element of our 
globalized economy. The United States is the world's leader in 
aviation, and if we are to maintain this position, we must invest the 
proper resources.
  I wish to congratulate Senator Rockefeller for bringing together 
diverse interests and crafting a measure that will bolster oversight of 
the Federal Aviation Administration's, FAA, safety system, provide 
guaranteed funding to modernize the air traffic control system, 
strengthen passenger protections, and fund air service to small 
communities throughout the Nation.
  I am very proud of the efforts of Senator Rockefeller and the members 
of the Senate Commerce Committee. The Commerce Committee provisions in 
the substitute before us represent a well-crafted effort that enjoys 
bipartisan support.
  The substitute before us represents a rare opportunity to 
significantly shape the future of the national air transportation 
system, and therefore, ensure our standing will remain at the forefront 
of the aviation industry.
  The actions we take to reauthorize the FAA will affect the public for 
decades to come. Legislation to reauthorize the FAA is long overdue, 
and it is vital that we pass this bill that addresses the challenges 
facing our Nation's aviation system. We must ensure that the national 
airspace system continues to serve the public effectively, and at the 
same time, we must move forward aggressively with modernization to make 
certain we do not inhibit our economic growth.
  The Nation's existing air transportation system is already stretched 
to its limits. Current passenger traffic has exceeded all previous 
records and is expected to exceed 1 billion passengers per year within 
the next decade.
  To accommodate this growth in a safe and cost-effective manner, we 
must increase capacity by expanding our airports, modernizing our air 
traffic control, ATC, system, and most importantly, ensuring the FAA 
has the resources and staffing required to provide effective oversight 
of the most complicated airspace system in the world.
  Recent events highlight the cracks developing in our air 
transportation system. Domestic air carriers are being crippled by the 
high price of fuel. Seven airlines have declared bankruptcy since the 
beginning of the year, and early reports indicate the industry has lost 
billions of dollars in the first quarter of this year alone.
  Most disturbing, however, are the lapses in the FAA's safety 
oversight system that have been recently highlighted. Over the past few 
months, air

[[Page 7757]]

carriers cancelled thousands of flights, leaving passengers stranded 
after the FAA belatedly discovered air carriers had not performed 
required safety inspections. Congress must take the necessary steps to 
ensure that the safety of the U.S. aviation system is never 
compromised.
  With our Nation's aviation system at a critical juncture, I urge my 
fellow Members to close debate on the Rockefeller substitute and adopt 
this important legislation.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, as one of the Senate's commercially 
licensed pilots, I wish to talk about an issue near to my heart--
flying. As many in this Chamber know, I have flown thousands of hours, 
I attend the well-known AirVenture aviation event in Oshkosh, WI, every 
year, and I have even recreated Wiley Post's trip around the world.
  Today, I am here to acknowledge a group of people who share my love 
of flying--volunteer pilots and nonprofit, charitable associations 
called Volunteer Pilot Organizations, VPOs, that provide resources to 
help these self-sacrificing pilots serve people in need. I have 
introduced an amendment, S.A. 4606, to provide much needed liability 
protection to these pilots and nonprofit organizations. My legislation 
is supported by the American Red Cross, the General Aviation 
Manufacturers Association, and many volunteer pilot organizations 
throughout the Nation.
  Unfortunately, the majority has used a procedural tactic to restrict 
my ability to offer this amendment to the bill we are currently 
debating, the FAA Reauthorization Act. However, I would like to take 
this opportunity to discuss my amendment and to encourage my colleagues 
to join me in seeking to pass basic liability protection for volunteer 
pilots into law at the first opportunity.
  There are approximately 40 to 50 VPOs in the United States--ranging 
from small, local groups to large, national associations. Air Charity 
Network, ACN, is the Nation's largest VPO and has seven member 
organizations that collectively serve the entire country and perform 
about 90 percent of all charitable aviation missions in the United 
States. ACN's volunteer pilots provide free air transportation for 
people in need of specialized medical treatment at distant locations. 
They also step in when commercial air service is not available with 
middle-of-the-night organ transplant patient flights, disaster response 
missions evacuating special needs patients, and transport of blood or 
blood products in emergencies.
  ACN and its more than 8,000 volunteer pilots use their own planes, 
pay for their own fuel, and even take time from their ``day'' jobs to 
serve people in need. These Good Samaritans provided charitable flights 
for an estimated 24,000 patients in 2007 and their safety record is 
phenomenal. In more than 30 years of service, the pilots of ACN have 
flown over 250,000 missions covering over 80 million miles and have 
never had a fatal accident.
  Following the September 11 terrorist attacks, ACN aircraft were the 
first to be approved to fly in disaster-response teams and supplies. 
Similarly, in 2005, ACN pilots flew over 2,600 missions after 
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, reuniting families torn apart by the 
disaster and relocating them to safe housing. Their service was 
invaluable to thousands of people.
  My own State of Oklahoma is served well by a number of volunteer 
pilot organizations, including Angel Flight South Central and Angel 
Flight Oklahoma. On a daily basis, they selflessly serve my 
constituents by flying individuals to get surgeries and treatments.
  I would like to share comments from two of my constituents with you. 
Angela Looney, from Norman, OK, says that, ``I could not have received 
the care I've gotten without Angel Flight. No one in Norman or anywhere 
in Oklahoma could perform my surgery. I had to get to M.D. Anderson.'' 
Tonya Dawson, from Broken Arrow, OK, travels with Angel Flight to 
treatment at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN. She reports, ``The 
pilots are great. I can't say enough good things.''
  Despite this goodwill, there is a loophole in the law that subjects 
these heroes and charitable organizations to frivolous, costly 
lawsuits. Currently, although volunteer pilots are required to carry 
liability insurance, if they have an accident, the injured party can 
sue for any amount of money. It would be up to a jury to decide on an 
amount. If that amount is higher than the liability limit on a pilot's 
insurance, then the pilot risks being held personally responsible, 
potentially bringing him or her financial ruin.
  Additionally, the cost of insurance and lack of available nonowned 
aircraft liability insurance for organizations since the terrorist 
attacks of September 11 prevents VPOs from acquiring liability 
protection for their organizations, boards, and staff. Without this 
insurance, if a volunteer pilot were to have an accident using his or 
her own aircraft, everyone connected to the organization could be 
subject to a costly lawsuit, despite the fact that none of those people 
were directly involved with the dispatch of the flight, the pilot's 
decisions, or the aircraft itself.
  Exposure to this type of risk makes it difficult for these 
organizations to recruit and retain volunteer pilots and professional 
staff. It also makes referring medical professionals and disaster 
agencies like the American Red Cross less likely to tell patients or 
evacuees that charitable medical air transportation is available for 
fear of a liability suit against them. Instead of focusing on serving 
people with medical needs, these organizations are spending time and 
resources averting a lawsuit and recruiting volunteers.
  In order to close this costly loophole, I have introduced Senate 
amendment 4606. My amendment expands the Volunteer Protection Act of 
1997, which was passed into law to increase volunteerism in the United 
States, to protect from liability volunteer pilot organizations, their 
boards, paid staff, nonflying volunteers, and referring agencies, 
should there be an accident. It also provides liability protection for 
individual volunteer pilots over and above the liability insurance that 
they are currently required to carry.
  My amendment will go a long way to help eliminate unnecessary 
liability risk and allow volunteer pilots and the charitable 
organizations for which they fly to concentrate on what they do best--
save lives.
  I ask unanimous consent to have Senate amendment No. 4606 printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. LIABILITY PROTECTION FOR VOLUNTEER PILOT NONPROFIT 
                   ORGANIZATIONS THAT FLY FOR PUBLIC BENEFIT AND 
                   TO PILOTS AND STAFF OF SUCH NONPROFIT 
                   ORGANIZATIONS.

       Section 4 of the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997 (42 
     U.S.C. 14503) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(4)--
       (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses 
     (i) and (ii), respectively;
       (B) by striking ``the harm'' and inserting ``(A) except in 
     the case of subparagraph (B), the harm'';
       (C) in subparagraph (A)(ii), as redesignated by this 
     paragraph, by striking the period at the end and inserting 
     ``; or''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) the volunteer--
       ``(i) was operating an aircraft in furtherance of the 
     purpose of a volunteer pilot nonprofit organization that 
     flies for public benefit; and
       ``(ii) was properly licensed and insured for the operation 
     of such aircraft.''; and
       (2) in subsection (c)--
       (A) by striking ``Nothing in this section'' and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     nothing in this section''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Exception.--A volunteer pilot nonprofit organization 
     that flies for public benefit, the staff, mission 
     coordinators, officers, and directors (whether volunteer or 
     otherwise) of such nonprofit organization, and a referring 
     agency of such nonprofit organization shall not be liable for 
     harm caused to any person by a volunteer of such nonprofit 
     organization while such volunteer--
       ``(A) is operating an aircraft in furtherance of the 
     purpose of such nonprofit organization;
       ``(B) is properly licensed for the operation of such 
     aircraft; and
       ``(C) has certified to such nonprofit organization that 
     such volunteer has insurance covering the volunteer's 
     operation of such aircraft.''.


[[Page 7758]]

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to explain my vote 
against the motion to invoke cloture on the Rockefeller substitute 
amendment No. 4627 to H.R. 2881, the Federal Aviation Administration 
Reauthorization Act.
  There are many aviation-related provisions in the substitute 
amendment which are of critical importance to both the Nation and my 
State, including: $290 million per year to modernize the air traffic 
control system; a $15.8 billion authorization of funds for the Airport 
Improvement Program; a requirement that airlines post the on-time 
performance of chronically delayed flights on their Web sites; a $175 
million authorization of funds for Essential Air Service, EAS, to rural 
areas; and an extension of EAS eligibility for Lancaster, PA; and 
safety improvements related to the FAA's oversight of aircraft 
inspections. The legislation also includes nonaviation provisions to 
restore the solvency of the highway trust fund, which is a matter of 
critical importance, and to provide tax credit bonds for high-speed 
rail service, a measure that I helped put together. For these and other 
reasons, I believe it is imperative that the Senate act on this bill.
  However, I do not believe it would be appropriate to act on it 
without necessary and proper debate, and that is precisely what a vote 
for cloture on the substitute amendment would have represented. The 
Senate was precluded from having any meaningful or traditional debate 
on this legislation due to a decision to fill the so-called ``amendment 
tree'' so that no other amendments could be freely debated and 
considered. I filed two amendments to this bill, one attempting to 
address overscheduling of airline flights and one prohibiting 
unnecessary flights over residential areas, which I was precluded from 
offering. I believe my amendments address critically important issues 
that deserve the attention and consideration of the Senate, and I am 
told that other Senators hold similar sentiments with respect to 
amendments they intended to pursue.
  On February 15, 2007, I introduced a resolution which would prohibit 
this abhorrent practice of filling the ``amendment tree'' so that the 
Senate can conduct its business. In the absence of this much-needed 
reform, I voted against cloture on the substitute amendment, not 
because I fail to recognize the importance of the provisions contained 
therein, but because the Senate was effectively blocked from offering 
and debating any amendments to improve it.
  It is my hope that the chairman and ranking members of the relevant 
committees can work out an agreement that will allow this bill to come 
back before the Senate, and with it a process for its consideration 
that will allow for the kind of meaningful and traditional debate 
fitting of the Senate.

                          ____________________