[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4480-4501]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          TAX ON BONUSES RECEIVED FROM CERTAIN TARP RECIPIENTS

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 1586, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1586) to impose an additional tax on bonuses 
     received from certain TARP recipients.

  Pending:

       Rockefeller amendment No. 3452, in the nature of a 
     substitute.

[[Page 4481]]

       McCain amendment No. 3527 (to amendment No. 3452), to 
     require the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration to develop a financing proposal for fully 
     funding the development and implementation of technology for 
     the Next Generation Air Transportation System.
       McCain amendment No. 3528 (to amendment No. 3452), to 
     provide standards for determining whether the substantial 
     restoration of the natural quiet and experience of the Grand 
     Canyon National Park has been achieved and to clarify 
     regulatory authority with respect to commercial air tours 
     operating over the park.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 4:30 p.m. will be for debate only, with the time equally divided 
and controlled between the Senator from West Virginia and the Senator 
from Texas.
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous 
consent that the time be divided equally.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, this evening, there is a vote scheduled on 
the Ensign amendment, which would amend an archaic regulation, called 
the DCA perimeter rule, that has limited competition and travel options 
for those who fly in and out of Ronald Reagan Washington National 
Airport or DCA, as it is called.
  More specifically, the DCA perimeter rule restricts the departure or 
arrival of nonstop flights to or from airports that are beyond 1,250 
miles from DCA. This restriction effectively forces passengers who are 
coming from the Western States or going to the Western States to use 
Dulles International Airport or to connect in some other city and then 
come on in. Obviously, this is inconvenient and discriminatory.
  The rule was first codified as a Federal statute in 1985. But 
actually it goes back to 1962. It first had existed as a Federal rule 
in its various iterations since the 1960s when Dulles was first built. 
The original purpose of the DCA perimeter rule was to establish Dulles 
as the long-haul airport serving the Washington area, and that has 
worked.
  In 1962, Dulles only served about 52,000 passengers. But today Dulles 
is thriving. In 2009, the airport served approximately 23 million 
passengers. According to the Metropolitan Washington Airports 
Authority:

       Dulles has emerged as one of the fastest growing airports 
     in the world and a major East Coat gateway for domestic and 
     international travelers as well as cargo activities.

  Given the success of Dulles and the improvement in technology, 
including quieter jet engines, over the years, Congress has granted a 
limited number of exemptions to the DCA perimeter rule because the 
traveling public is eager for air travel options. Yet, today, there are 
only a dozen nonstop flights between Ronald Reagan National Airport and 
the entire Western United States. There are four to Denver, three to 
Phoenix, two to Seattle, one to Las Vegas, one to Los Angeles, and one 
to Salt Lake City. That is it.
  To put that number in perspective, that is 12 flights beyond the 
perimeter at DCA out of approximately 400 flights daily. The beyond-
the-perimeter flights represent 3 percent of all daily domestic 
operations at DCA. Just 3 percent of all flights out of DCA serve our 
Nation's largest cities such as Phoenix, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, and 
San Antonio.
  A 1999 study by the Transportation Research Board found that 
perimeter rules ``no longer serve their original purpose and have 
produced too many adverse side effects, including barriers to 
competition.'' The study found, further, that such rules ``arbitrarily 
prevent some airlines from extending their networks to these airports'' 
and that ``they discourage competition among the airports in the region 
and among the airlines that use these airports.''
  There is also recent legislative precedent that supports the argument 
that the DCA perimeter rule should be repealed. The Wright Amendment of 
1979 was a Federal law restricting flights at Dallas's Love Field 
Airport. It originally limited most nonstop flights from Love Field to 
destinations within Texas and neighboring States. In 2006, Congress 
passed the Wright Amendment Reform Act, which issued a full repeal of 
the Love Field perimeter rule with certain conditions. Lifting the 
restrictions at Love Field gave the traveling public more flight 
options. It also cut prices and made traveling more efficient.
  The Ensign amendment would amend the DCA perimeter rule by allowing 
any carrier which currently holds slots at DCA to convert those 
flights--flights now serving large hub airports inside the perimeter--
to flights serving any airport outside the perimeter. This is referred 
to as ``the slot conversion provision;'' in other words, no more 
flights simply converting a flight that exists to go to a different 
city. The Ensign amendment would cap the number of flights that could 
be converted to 15 roundtrip flights per carrier.
  The slot conversion provision ensures that service to small and 
medium hub airports within the perimeter would not be affected. There 
is no restriction, however, on converting a flight that currently 
serves a large hub airport within the perimeter to a small or medium 
hub airport beyond the perimeter. So presumably the Ensign amendment 
could expand service to small and medium hub airports beyond the 
perimeter. Indeed, I know some of the airlines do intend to use some of 
these conversion slots to go to their hubs outside the perimeter.
  It is also important to note that the amendment would not alter the 
slot regulations at DCA or increase the number of allowable flight 
operations at the airport. The number of flights currently serving DCA 
would remain the same. Residents around the airport would not hear an 
increase in noise from takeoffs or landings and would not see larger 
planes operating at DCA. The only change is that a few of the planes 
would have a different destination.
  Let me speak to how this amendment would or would not affect Dulles. 
As I mentioned, the conversion provision is capped at 15 roundtrip 
flights per carrier. It is expected that only 5 carriers could take 
advantage of this provision, making the total maximum number of new 
flights that could go beyond the perimeter to 75. But not all of the 5 
airlines will make full use of all 15 slots. It is estimated that the 5 
eligible airlines would only convert to perhaps 30 flights.
  So how could flights, say, 30, at DCA that go beyond the perimeter 
affect Dulles? Well, according to the latest figures from the 
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, Dulles has 401 daily 
flights. So 30 additional beyond the perimeter would have a negligible 
effect on the operations at or demand for service at Dulles.
  According to a recent GAO study:

       GAO did not find evidence in passengers or fare data that 
     would indicate that the new service between Reagan National 
     and the six beyond perimeter cities----

  The current 12 exemptions that exist----

     had substantially affected service from Dulles or Baltimore-
     Washington International airports to these cities.

  There is no reason to believe that 30 additional beyond the perimeter 
flights would be any more consequential to Dulles Airport.
  The bottom line is, the Ensign amendment is not about changing the 
character of Dulles International Airport as to the long-haul airport 
for the region or increasing the amount of flights at DCA. It simply 
would allow a limited number of direct flights out of DCA to reach the 
Western States so that passengers have more choice. It would also allow 
more tourists and business travelers from around the country another 
option for visiting the Nation's capital and its surrounding States, 
such as the State of Virginia.
  My colleagues realize a lot has changed in 50 years, and they realize 
the need that has previously existed to protect Dulles Airport has 
lessened due

[[Page 4482]]

to its own success. Thanks to a recognition of this fact, and some 
assurances that have been made by Senators Dorgan and the Acting 
President pro tempore, the Senator from Virginia, a vote on the Ensign 
amendment may not be needed tonight. Instead, it is my understanding 
that Senator Dorgan and other conferees will make a good-faith effort 
to modify the DCA perimeter rule when the FAA reauthorization bill is 
conferenced with the House. I know my friend from North Dakota intends 
to pursue this matter in conference, and I appreciate what he has said 
on this matter.
  I also very much appreciate the spirit by which the Acting President 
pro tempore has approached this issue. As his predecessors have done, 
he has very much acted out of concern both for the traveling public and 
also the airports in his State of Virginia, and I would expect him to 
do nothing less. But I appreciate the open mind he has in trying to 
deal with an issue that we out West have that, hopefully, could be 
worked out in such a way that it would be a win-win and recognize the 
fact that times have changed since the early 1960s.
  Mr. President, unless the Senator from West Virginia has anything, I 
will suggest the absence of a quorum, and I do.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 5 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


     in praise of mary klutts, donna scheeder, and ronald o'rourke

  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I rise to share the stories, once again, 
of some of our Nation's great Federal employees.
  All throughout March, libraries across America have been celebrating 
National Reading Month. Children from coast to coast have been learning 
about the importance of books, and schools have been promoting literacy 
as a tool for academic advancement.
  This month-long celebration of reading--from Dr. Seuss's classic 
``The Cat in the Hat'' to Joyce's ``Ulysses''--reminds us not only of 
the joy found in the written word but also of the critical role 
libraries play in all our communities.
  Libraries have long been a staple of American life, dating back even 
to our early colonial days. In the decades before the Revolution, 
America's first libraries enabled the dissemination of the very ideas 
that inspired our founding patriots. In the eighteenth century, the 
athenaeums of New England and the shareholder libraries of Benjamin 
Franklin served as precursors to our robust, modern network of free 
public libraries.
  In 1800, our predecessors in the Sixth Congress established a 
research library to help those in government carry out their work with 
access to scholarly volumes on every subject. Today, the Library of 
Congress is the largest library in the world, and its ornate reading 
room remains an awe-inspiring cathedral of learning.
  I have chosen today to honor three public servants who work at the 
Library of Congress.
  Mary Klutts began her Federal career as a U.S. Marine. In 1990, she 
came to the Library of Congress as a budget analyst, and in her 20 
years there she has become an expert in every aspect of the Library's 
operating budget.
  Since 2007, when Mary was named budget officer, she has set out to 
transform the way the Library's budget proposals and funding 
justifications are formulated. Her work has helped make the Library's 
budget and operations more transparent, and its funding proposals are 
more concise. Now Library of Congress budget proposals are often cited 
as the model for the legislative branch. As a result of Mary's efforts, 
the Library received strong support from Congress in appropriations for 
the last two fiscal years.
  During this time of economic challenges, Mary has helped demonstrate 
where every dollar of taxpayer money for the Library goes and why.
  Another outstanding Library of Congress employee is Donna Scheeder, 
who has worked there for over 40 years. Having worked in a number of 
roles throughout her career at the Library, Donna was an early champion 
of integrating computers into libraries, and she introduced the idea of 
electronic briefing books for Congress.
  She is recognized as a leader in the information management field, 
and she has guest-lectured around the world on the topic of legislative 
library management. Donna is also a former president of the Special 
Libraries Association.
  Until recently, Donna was serving as the Acting Law Librarian of 
Congress, and she was awarded the Federal Librarians Achievement Award 
in 2009.
  An active member of the Washington, DC, community, she serves as 
Chair of the Eastern Market Community Advisory Committee and on the 
Board of the Old Naval Hospital Foundation. When not spearheading 
innovative initiatives at the Library, Donna spends time relaxing at 
her home on the Delaware shore.
  One of the branches of the Library of Congress most familiar to those 
of us who serve in this chamber is the Congressional Research Service, 
or CRS. This nonpartisan office houses scholars who prepare reports on 
every policy issue and the effects of proposed and enacted legislation. 
They are our ``go-to guys'' for information on every topic, and they 
are truly great at their jobs.
  The third person I am honoring today has been an analyst with the CRS 
since 1984.
  When Ronald O'Rourke joined the CRS as a naval analyst, he arrived 
with an impressive background as a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the Johns 
Hopkins University. He was also valedictorian of his class at the Nitze 
School of Advanced International Studies, where he obtained his 
master's degree.
  At CRS, Ronald quickly distinguished himself as a leading expert on 
naval strategic and budgetary issues, and he frequently briefs members 
of Congress and their staffs on defense programs and appropriations. He 
has even been called to testify as an expert at congressional hearings.
  Though he already had a busy schedule as a specialist in naval 
affairs, he stepped in when the CRS's expert in military aviation 
passed away suddenly last year. Ronald took responsibility for that 
portfolio in addition to his own, and his reports on high-profile 
aviation programs proved invaluable during the congressional debates on 
defense spending in the 2010 budget.
  Mary Klutts, Donna Scheeder, and Ronald O'Rourke continue their work 
in public service at the Library of Congress to this day. They are just 
three of the many talented and dedicated men and women whose work 
benefits not only those of us in Congress but also the tens of millions 
who access resources from community libraries throughout our Nation.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing the important 
contribution made by the employees of the Library of Congress.
  They are all truly Great Federal Employees.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3528

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the McCain 
amendment No. 3528. I understand we are scheduled to consider that 
amendment in a series of votes beginning at 5:30 p.m. The amendment 
deals with commercial air tours over Grand Canyon National Park. I wish 
to take a few minutes to explain the reasons for my opposition.

[[Page 4483]]

  The Grand Canyon, of course, is one of the crown jewels of the 
National Park System. It is one of the earliest areas that was set 
aside for conservation purposes--originally in 1893 as a forest 
reserve; later designated as a national monument by President Theodore 
Roosevelt in 1908; and in 1919, it was designated by Congress as a 
national park. The Colorado River winds its way over 275 miles through 
the park, forming one of the most spectacular series of canyons 
anywhere in the world.
  The park is one of the most heavily visited sites in our country, 
with just under 4.4 million visitors last year. Visitors come not only 
to see the awe-inspiring views or to float down the Colorado River but 
also to experience the quiet and the solitude that much of the park 
offers.
  In recent years, however, experiencing the natural quiet has become 
more difficult as noise associated with aircraft flights over the park 
has resulted in increased noise on the ground in the park.
  Recognizing this fact, in 1987 Congress enacted the National Parks 
Overflight Act. This law included a finding that ``noise associated 
with aircraft overflights at Grand Canyon National Park is causing a 
significant adverse effect on the natural quiet and experience of the 
park . . .'' The 1987 Park Overflight Act directed the Secretary of the 
Interior to submit to the Federal Aviation Administration 
``recommendations regarding actions necessary for the protection of 
resources in the Grand Canyon from adverse impacts associated with 
aircraft overflights.''
  It also went on to say:

     . . . and shall provide for substantial restoration of the 
     natural quiet and experience of the park and protection of 
     the public health and safety from adverse effects associated 
     with aircraft overflight.

  Importantly, the act also directed the FAA to implement the 
Secretary's recommendations unless the FAA Administrator determined 
doing so would adversely affect aviation safety.
  In response to the 1987 law, the National Park Service developed 
recommendations which were implemented by the FAA and which remained in 
place for several years. However, by 1996, both the Park Service and 
the FAA concluded that the policies in place were not achieving the 
goal of restoring the natural quiet in the Grand Canyon. In addition, 
the projected increase in commercial air tours over the park would 
result in even more noise at the park.
  Since then, the agencies attempted to finalize new rules to improve 
noise conditions in the park, but those rules were challenged in court, 
both by air tour operators who thought the rules were too restrictive 
and by environmental groups who thought the rules did not go far enough 
to limit aircraft noise. The challenges went to the court of appeals on 
two separate occasions. This is in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
  Following clarification of the law from the court in its most recent 
decision in 2002, the agencies refined key definitions and have worked 
with affected stakeholders to be able to finally implement a rule that 
will achieve the congressional directive to restore the natural quiet 
in the Grand Canyon. I am told that currently the National Park Service 
and the FAA expect to have the draft environmental impact statement for 
the proposed rule ready this summer and the final environmental impact 
statement completed and a record of decision implemented sometime next 
year.
  That is a lot of history. It has been 23 years since the National 
Parks Overflight Act was enacted. I appreciate the frustration all 
parties have with the fact that a final rule is still not in place that 
meets the goals and requirements of the 1987 law. However, as evidenced 
by the history of the process I have described, the delays are not the 
result of inaction or of inattention to the law; rather, they are the 
result of the difficulty establishing accurate models for acceptable 
noise standards, as well as the multiple legal challenges that have 
occurred.
  I have several concerns with the amendment Senator McCain has 
proposed. My principal objection is, however, that I do not believe it 
makes sense to legislatively enact new standards when the National Park 
Service is close to putting out its new recommendations, especially 
since it has taken so long to get to this point. I believe the better 
action would be for us to wait and see what the agencies actually 
propose. Then, if there is disagreement with the new proposed rule, we 
can enact legislation to correct it.
  Besides the fact that I believe the timing of the amendment is 
premature, I also have concerns about many of the specific provisions 
the amendment would legislate. Some of these get somewhat detailed.
  Let me indicate that there is a concern I have with the definition in 
this legislation for ``substantial restoration of the natural quiet.'' 
What does that mean? The legislation would establish a certain 
definition of that which is significantly different from what has been 
assumed and worked with for a long time by a great many people.
  The amendment also prohibits the National Park Service from 
considering aircraft sound from sources other than commercial tour 
operators, which will significantly limit the ability to control 
aircraft noise over the park.
  The amendment prohibits the allocation for commercial air tours over 
the Grand Canyon from being reduced, notwithstanding any other 
provision of law, regardless of the noise effects over the park. It 
goes even further and directs that the FAA begin a rulemaking to 
increase the flight allocations over the park.
  Because the proposal has not been through a standard committee 
process--as, to my knowledge, there have not been hearings on this 
proposal--and input from affected agencies and stakeholders have not 
been solicited, the potential impact of several other provisions in the 
amendment remain unclear, at least to this Senator. For all these 
reasons, I believe we should not proceed with this amendment, and I 
would urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  Let me mention also a very good editorial on this issue that appeared 
in the Arizona Republic yesterday. It is entitled ``Congress Should Not 
Foil Process,'' and its first couple of sentences say:

       The plan to reduce aircraft noise at the Grand Canyon is 
     finally wrapping up. Suddenly, there's an attempt in Congress 
     to make a last-minute end-run around the process. This makes 
     no sense. The draft environmental document is weeks away from 
     being released. Multiple stakeholders have weighed in. After 
     years of work, we are on the verge of a plan to restore 
     natural quiet to one of the most majestic places on Earth.

  Then it goes on to discuss, in very substantial detail, what the 
amendment of Senator McCain would try to do. It ends by saying:

       Congress should hold off. A plan to restore quiet at the 
     Grand Canyon is so close to completion. Let the process go 
     forward.

  That sums up my sentiments exactly. I hope we will heed the good 
advice contained in the editorial, and I ask unanimous consent to have 
printed in the Record the article from the Arizona Republic.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Arizona Republic, Mar. 21, 2010]

                    Congress Should Not Foil Process

       The plan to reduce aircraft noise at the Grand Canyon is 
     finally wrapping up. Suddenly, there's an attempt in Congress 
     to make a last-minute endrun around the process. This makes 
     no sense. The draft environmental document is weeks away from 
     being released. Multiple stakeholders have weighed in. After 
     years of work, we're on the verge of a plan to restore 
     natural quiet to one of the most majestic places on Earth.
       But last week, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., introduced 
     legislation that would unilaterally set out rules for air-
     tour operations at the Grand Canyon.
       The measure, an amendment to another bill, was co-sponsored 
     by his fellow Arizona Republican, Jon Kyl, and Nevada's 
     senators, Democrat Harry Reid and Republican John Ensign.
       McCain has been a longtime champion of park tranquillity. 
     He helped pass the National Park Overflights Act in 1987, 
     which directed the Federal Aviation Administration and the 
     National Park Service to reduce noise from low-flying 
     aircraft at the Grand Canyon.

[[Page 4484]]

       Since then, the process of adopting a noise-management plan 
     often seemed to move at the same geological pace as the 
     forces shaping the Canyon. As 23 years rolled by, McCain 
     repeatedly expressed impatience. And we agreed.
       But now is not the time for Congress to step in. The draft 
     environmental-impact statement, which will identify a 
     preferred noise-reduction strategy, is expected to be out by 
     the beginning of May. It will address such issues as the 
     number of flights, requirements for quieter aircraft and 
     hours of operation.
       The public will have a chance to comment before a final 
     choice is made. The Federal Aviation Administration will then 
     adopt rules, which should be in place by early 2011.
       We must achieve a delicate balancing act at the Grand 
     Canyon: giving visitors access, including by air, while 
     preserving as much of its wild solitude as possible.
       Many groups and individuals from all sides have contributed 
     countless hours to the process, hunting for the best balance.
       The amendment would ignore their efforts and set into law 
     such issues as operating hours, air-corridor routes and 
     flight allocations.
       It would prohibit reducing the number of flights currently 
     allowed. It would exclude any consideration of noise from 
     regular commercial air traffic. It would decree that natural 
     quiet is restored if for at least 75 percent of the day, 50 
     percent of the park is free of sound from authorized air 
     tours.
       Years of work on the environmental review may indicate that 
     different rules or more flexibility are in order. But if the 
     amendment passes, anything that doesn't conform to it will go 
     into the waste basket.
       In his floor statement in the Senate, McCain said the 
     amendment reduces excessive aircraft noise ``without waiting 
     another 23 years for progress.''
       But we don't have years to wait anymore. We'll see a noise-
     management proposal within weeks.
       Why the rush? Are air-tour operators--with a heavy presence 
     in Las Vegas--pushing to get rules to their liking in place, 
     trumping whatever is in the environmental-impact statement?
       Congress should hold off. A plan to restore quiet at the 
     Grand Canyon is so close to completion. Let the process go 
     forward.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaufman). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as we approach a final vote on the 
FAA reauthorization, which we are doing slowly--that will take place at 
about 5:30--I wish to talk briefly about why I think this is so 
important. I see my distinguished colleague from Texas is here, whom I 
am going to praise so much in my final comments, but she will have to 
wait for that. I wish to discuss why we have spent so much precious 
time in the middle of a national debate on health care and jobs and the 
economy to work on this bill, which we have been doing now for several 
years. As I have often pointed out, it was sort of pushed forward 11 
times without a final resolve. We want a final resolve this evening, 
and we believe we are going to get one.
  We are here today because FAA reauthorization is about so much more 
than aviation. It has everything to do with safety for our people, it 
is about jobs, it is about our economy, it is about, frankly, our self-
esteem as a nation in the world of aviation. Fifty percent of all the 
flights that take place in the world are American planes, but we are 
behind, in some ways, and we shouldn't be. The Congress has allowed us 
to be behind because we haven't been able to put attention on this 
because time is hard to get on the floor. So I appreciate Leader Reid's 
willingness to give us this time, even as these momentous matters are 
going on.
  To me, this is all about improving commercial aviation air service to 
small and rural counties, communities. You would expect that from me. I 
represent my State. But as chairman of the committee, I represent the 
country, too, as does my distinguished ranking member. It is also very 
much about establishing better consumer rights protections for the 
people who fly, whom we call passengers and whom we also call 
consumers. But ultimately it is about improving safety and about 
modernizing our system, which I have taken very seriously for years and 
about which we have done precious little. In other words, it is about 
people's lives every day.
  I can remember years ago I could say a relatively few percentage of 
the folks from my State flew. They just didn't fly. I mean a lot did 
but most didn't. That has changed now. You can't do business in West 
Virginia, and West Virginians can't do anything without getting on an 
airplane, if you can find one to get on and if you cram yourself into 
one--which would be a problem for the Presiding Officer as well as the 
present speaker. In other words, our utmost priority always has to be 
safety in the skies and for the passengers and their families. They 
have to trust us to get this right.
  There is a lot that goes wrong. There is a lot that isn't noticed 
that goes wrong, but we do notice and we haven't corrected it and we 
have a moral obligation to correct it. So let me say a word about 
safety.
  Statistically, as everybody says, we have the safest air 
transportation system in the world. I always bridal a little bit when I 
hear that. It is true. Our airlines talk about it, politicians talk 
about it. But it is so much less safe than it could easily be if we 
were to be a bit more farsighted and energetic. We have done that in 
the Commerce Committee, and we have put forward a bill which does that 
and creates a much more wholesome story and I will get into that.
  It has been a little more than a year since the tragic crash in 
Buffalo, NY, of flight 3407 that took the lives of 50 people. It is 
clear we need to take serious steps to improve pilot training, to 
address flight crew fatigue, which seems to be an esoteric subject 
until you look at it. Senator Byron Dorgan, who is the chairman of our 
subcommittee, had some charts which brilliantly showed what pilots in 
some of these commuter airlines have to go through to get to work and 
sometimes then go two nights with no sleep before they fly. Well, it 
doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that is dangerous. And 
then you have chatter in the cockpits. We have even had one instance of 
an 8- or 11-year-old kid helping to land a plane. I mean it is 
ridiculous. It is pathetic. It exists. We are trying to get rid of all 
that.
  Our bill does a lot to address these problems. We need to have 
resources for all our airports, both large and small. This legislation 
is about equality among airports and economic stability among airports. 
We have to provide adequate resources to airports, both large and 
small, both urban and rural. When people think of California, they 
think of San Francisco and Los Angeles, but they don't think of the 
dozens of places in between and above and below that are rural or the 
inner part of California, where people need air transportation but have 
a hard time.
  The continuing economic crisis has hit the U.S. airline industry very 
hard. That is easy to say, but it has been devastating for our legacy 
airlines. They have been in and out of bankruptcy, mergers have taken 
place, and they are always on the edge. I remember at one point they 
were showing how they were going to move the seats about an inch closer 
to each other and there was an uproar. So the pillows disappeared and 
the pretzels and the potato chips disappeared and we have come to 
understand that. They are not doing that because they want to treat us 
badly. They are doing that because every penny is desperate for them, 
and they have overwhelming problems with the recession. Even before the 
recession, they were having overwhelming problems.
  That is the whole question with the deregulation of airlines. A lot 
of things happened, not all of them good. I can remember--and I hope my 
ranking member will indulge me--when I went to West Virginia in 1964, 
and I drove there, actually, but there were Eastern Airlines jets, 
there were United Airlines jets, there were American Airlines jets, and 
all the big jets at that time. Within 3 weeks of deregulation, they 
were all gone. Now I take my 6 feet 6\1/2\ inches and pray I get an 
exit row. I am a master at working the exit

[[Page 4485]]

system, should that ever be necessary, but I have to have that exit 
row, which is always No. 7, or else I am in big trouble.
  The continuing economic crisis has hit the U.S. airline industry 
extremely hard and this affects the future of hundreds of our 
communities and particularly rural communities because the rural 
communities are always at the end of the food chain. When you are at 
the end of the food chain, it is akin to being at the end of the line. 
You are the one who is cut out. No more seats in the house, you are cut 
out, cut off. I have witnessed that a lot in West Virginia and it 
hurts. It hurts. I have seen, time and time again, how important a 
lifeline it is for local communities, and therefore it continues to 
hurt.
  The Federal Government needs to provide additional resources and 
tools for small communities to attract adequate airline service. That 
is possible. It is not just a matter of the Federal Government 
supplying a certain amount of money or the essential air service, it is 
a matter of the local airports taking themselves very seriously as a 
product. We discovered that in West Virginia. Others have discovered 
it, perhaps before us or after us, but it makes no difference, you have 
to market yourself. An airport is not just a place where planes land, 
it is a consumer product and it has to be marketed.
  It used to be that lots of our people drove to Cincinnati and took 
Southwest, and there was nothing we could do about it. Of course, there 
was something we could do about it, and that was to market our airport 
in Charleston, WV, and we did that. They marketed on the air, in the 
newspapers, and they marketed it in every way possible. Gradually, the 
people who had been going to Cincinnati stopped going to Cincinnati 
because they discovered they didn't have to spend the money on gasoline 
and the overnight motel rooms. They could simply go to Charleston, to 
Yeager Airport, and get to Huntington or Parkersburg or wherever it 
was.
  So it is a tough fight for local communities. It is easy if you are 
in a big city. It is hard if you are in a small State, and the 
Presiding Officer is familiar with that. So our legislation 
accomplishes this business of new resources by building on the existing 
programs and strengthening them.
  There are some very good programs. I will not go into all of them 
now, but there are some very good programs. The Airport Improvement 
Program was started a number of years ago. It is absolutely superb at 
what it does. It allows airports to expand, to build parking garages, 
to expand runways, and build those sort of off-ramp safety places, as 
they do for trucks, so that when they are speeding too much and 
suddenly there is something which shoots up the hill. Airports have 
something called EMASS, which is the same thing. At the end of a 
runway, if the plane lands on a short runway--because most of our 
airports are on the tops of hills--and they overshoot a little bit, 
they can end up in an EMASS and they are safe. It is soft concrete 
blocks. We had 34 lives saved in the last month and a half because of 
that EMASS system which happened to be there, and that has to be 
utilized all over the country.
  Consumer rights. This bill also strengthens passenger protections by 
incorporating elements of the Passenger Bill of Rights to deal with the 
most egregious flight delays and cancellations. We are rather specific 
about that. You never know exactly how things work out, but we have set 
some rules. We have said nobody can wait more than 3 hours without 
food, without medical attention, without bathroom facilities. They have 
to take the passengers back, get them to unload so you don't have these 
9-hour, 8-hour, 7-hour waits that always become national stories 
whenever they happen. That is not a question of being practical, it is 
a question of being humane. It makes sense. It takes away people's 
anger, and it makes them more likely to want to fly.
  Passengers, frankly, have really had it with endless delays--they 
really have had it. They do not like the way they are being treated, 
especially when they are stuck on a tarmac in the summertime. People 
feel bad sometimes when they are just in an airplane--the white-knuckle 
syndrome even if they are not flying, just being in an airplane. The 
air is not always so good. People can come close to a point of panic. 
You don't want that. We deal with that in this legislation. We do have 
a responsibility to bring their rights back into the equation and take 
them seriously.
  Modernization. Our system is outdated. It is strained beyond its 
capacity. I feel very passionate about this one and I have for years. 
America's air traffic control system is literally using a World War II 
technology. We are the only ones in the industrialized world who do 
that. It is embarrassing beyond belief, it is costly beyond belief, it 
is climate-unfriendly beyond belief, and it is dangerous beyond belief 
because everything is based on radar. It is ancient, World War II. We 
have not changed. Everybody else has. Mongolia has done it. We have 
not.
  On the committee, we decided we were going to get into it in a very 
big way. The Next Generation Air Transportation System, called 
NextGen--that is what we call it--will save our economy billions by 
creating additional capacity and more direct routes, allowing aircraft 
to move more efficiently. Why? Because it will be GPS, it will be 
digitalized, and it will be real-time streaming of where airplanes are. 
It will help the ground controllers. They will have to put equipage in 
the airlines themselves so the pilots and the ground-control people 
will know exactly where they are at all times. That means maybe they 
will be able to bring planes closer together and can land more often or 
fly a little closer together--things that cause the whole system to 
purge itself of inefficiencies, but not unsafely but safely because you 
are using a digitalized system which the rest of the world is already 
using.
  It has the further advantage, which I have indicated, of reducing 
carbon emissions and noise emissions. Noise emissions are very 
important. The noise emissions can be overestimated by some; 
nevertheless, if people feel strongly about it, they feel strongly 
about it, and people do feel strongly about it. You see that in our 
local area here. So we want to be helpful on that.
  A modern air traffic control system will provide pilots and their air 
traffic controllers with a better situational awareness--I have said 
that, but it is so important--giving them the tools to see other 
aircraft, both at the same time, both streaming information real time. 
Also, the weather maps, so they have precise knowledge--not just visual 
knowledge of where there might be a thunderstorm but precise knowledge.
  This kind of modernization requires sustained focus and substantial 
resources. We have worked that out in our bill, and we will have a 
nationwide system by, I believe it is, 2025. It seems like a long way 
off, but considering where we are starting--we only have one in place, 
in the gulf, which is working. We have to do the whole system. It costs 
money, both by the Federal Government and by airlines--which are not 
going to love that, but it is part of the deal. This authorization 
takes steps to make sure we begin all of this now.
  In closing, we have to move boldly. This is a huge subject. It is a 
huge part of our economy. I guess 700 million people fly today, each 
year. In the next 10 years, it will go over 1 billion, maybe 1.2 
billion people in the air over the course of a year. At any given 
moment, there are 36,000 planes in the skies. How do you keep track of 
them all? How can you be sure that they are safe, that they are not 
going? How do you shut off the chatter business where pilots are just 
talking to each other about things. How far do you go on that without 
invading privacy rights? On the other hand, if you don't go far enough, 
you are invading consumer and passenger safety, and I lean in that 
direction.
  Last week, I spoke a little on the floor about the main four goals we 
set out to achieve with this bill. No. 1 is to address critical safety 
concerns. No. 2 is to establish a roadmap to implement NextGen, that 
is, the modern system, so we can catch up with Mongolia and

[[Page 4486]]

accelerate the FAA's key modernization programs. No. 3 is to invest in 
airport infrastructure. It is so important. If you look at what is 
happening at Dulles Airport--that is sort of an extreme example because 
that is preparing for the 23rd century, not for the 21st or 22nd. But 
they have it right, they have all the land out there, they have bonding 
authority, and they can do what they want. They have a good board. It 
works very well for them. It needs to work for other airports, also, in 
small communities as well. No. 4 is to continue improving small 
communities' access to the nation's aviation system. You know I will 
never deviate from that, coming from the State of West Virginia.
  Frankly, I am proud of how far we have come and prouder still that we 
got here in a truly bipartisan fashion. It is refreshing. It was quite 
wonderful, working with Senators--obviously Senator Hutchison being the 
key; Senator Dorgan, a terrific chairman of the aviation subcommittee, 
absolutely terrific; also, Senator DeMint--toward a vibrant, strong 
aviation system so fundamental to our country.
  I urge my colleagues to give the FAA the tools, the resources, the 
direction, and the deadlines to make sure the agency can provide 
effective oversight of the aviation industry. This is a big-ticket item 
that appears not so dramatic as events of the recent days, but over the 
course of our country, it is extraordinarily dramatic.
  I will at the proper time urge my colleagues to support 
reauthorization. As I say, we have put this off now 11 different times. 
This will last for 2 years after conference--it may be 3 years. I would 
take more than that, myself. But we cannot afford to wait any longer.
  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.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Amendment No. 3528, Withdrawn

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Arizona, 
Mr. McCain, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 3528 be 
withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, let me say that I know Senator 
Rockefeller and I will have a little time toward the vote to do a 
summation of the bill. But while we are at this stage, I do wish to say 
that I think we have taken a major step forward in FAA reauthorization. 
As many who have worked on this project know, we have had 11 extensions 
of FAA reauthorization since 2007--short-term extensions because we 
have not been able to get the agreements that are necessary to propel 
this bill from the floor.
  There are some very important provisions of this bill that I hope we 
will eventually have final passage and that we can all support. 
However, we are not there yet. We are at the stage of getting it from 
the Senate floor, but there are still some issues that will have to be 
resolved even before we go to conference.
  I think before we appoint conferees there will have to be some 
agreements that have not yet been clearly reached. One of those is the 
perimeter rule. I am going to talk a little bit more about that when my 
colleague, Senator Ensign, comes because his amendment is the pending 
amendment on that on the bill. But besides the perimeter rule, there 
are issues that are addressed in this bill that are so important, that 
will take us a major step forward for the traveling public in our 
country.
  There are safety provisions in this bill addressing issues throughout 
all sectors of the aviation community. I think they are major 
improvements in our airline safety, although we know we have the safest 
system we have ever had. There are very few accidents. But I do think 
the accidents we have had are still teaching us what can be done in the 
area of fatigue of pilots and human factors, which has always been the 
hardest part of the aviation system to address. We do have some 
standards and a way forward that I think will improve aviation safety 
because none of us wants to have anything less than 100 percent 
aviation safety. That is what we are striving for.
  The bill will also modernize our air traffic control system. Our air 
traffic control system is using technology that is probably based back 
in the 1960s. It is time for us to have a satellite-based system. This 
is going to be expensive. Having the startup of this NextGen system is 
essential for our country to stay in the forefront of efficient use of 
our air traffic control system, and also eventually, hopefully, when it 
is all in place, we will also be able to open more airspace so we can 
better utilize our air traffic control system.
  The bill will provide infrastructure funds for our airports. That is 
one of the reasons we need to get this bill from the floor and assure 
our airports that the airport trust fund money is available, it is 
stable, and they can count on the funds flowing from the airport trust 
fund in an orderly way so that the improvements to our airports can be 
done.
  The bill will improve rural access to aviation through the Essential 
Air Service Program. This is a very important part of our whole system. 
Not only do we have a great general aviation community, which does so 
much for capabilities for volunteers and recreational pilots to use our 
airspace, but also the business aviation--the smaller aviation 
facilities that are private but also very important. And then, of 
course, our regional airlines are a very important part of our overall 
air service, and we will have improvements in those sectors.
  The bill will improve passenger and consumer protections. There is no 
doubt that the Passenger Bill of Rights is long overdue, and I think we 
have come to a good place to protect passengers from sitting on the 
tarmac for 5 hours without the ability to get off an airplane. Issues 
such as that that have cropped up are being addressed in our new 
Passenger Bill of Rights. It will strengthen aeronautics and aviation 
research as well.
  There is a lot that is good in this bill, and we still have a long 
way to go to finish it, but I do look forward to working through 
tonight, getting the bill passed from the Senate, and then working on 
these issues that are not yet completely agreed to before we go to 
conference. Then, from there, I hope we can take the next step, which 
is not going to be an easy one, and that is resolving the differences 
between the House and Senate bills. The differences are pretty big, so 
I think we are going to have our jobs cut out for us. It means we are 
not anywhere close to being finished yet, but we are certainly in a 
better place than we have ever been since 2007 when FAA 
reauthorization, the previous bill, lapsed, and we have been doing 
short-term extensions since then.
  I look forward to more after wrap-up and more of a discussion of the 
perimeter rule as soon as Senator Ensign arrives.
  I yield the floor.


                 Boise Terminal Radar Approach Control

  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I appreciate the fact that the chairman and 
ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee have created an Air 
Traffic Control Modernization Board and tasked it with reviewing and 
evaluating the Federal Aviation Administration facility and service 
realignment proposals.
  The Idaho delegation has been raising serious concerns with the FAA's 
proposed transfer of the Boise Terminal Radar Approach Control, TRACON, 
for several years. Despite the years of requests for transparency and 
detailed cost and safety data, the agency has failed to clearly 
demonstrate that the radar transfer would result in improved air 
traffic control services for Boise air traffic users. In fact, the 
evidence that the Idaho delegation has seen continues to indicate that 
services would be diminished and efficiency and operational costs could 
also be impacted.
  The Idaho delegation requested the Department of Transportation's 
Office

[[Page 4487]]

of the Inspector General to initiate a study of the costs associated 
with this radar transfer. In addition we have asked the Air Traffic 
Safety Oversight Service, AOV, to determine whether FAA safety risk 
management procedures have been followed in the proposed move.
  The Idaho delegation remains unconvinced that physically relocating 
the radar would be cost effective and question the assumptions that 
have driven the FAA's proposal. Because these concerns have not been 
adequately addressed, we believe the consolidation should be halted 
until the new Air Traffic Control Modernization Oversight Board 
completes its recommendations for realignment.
  As I read the new section 308 language, the bill will halt the 
consolidation of the Boise TRACON into the Salt Lake City TRACON until 
after the board completes its recommendations for realignment even 
though the FAA has sent an article 46 notification to move the Boise 
TRACON to Salt Lake City. At this point, I ask to have printed in the 
Record a letter from the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, 
NATCA, that agrees with this position.
  The letter follows.

                                              National Air Traffic


                             Controllers Association, AFL-CIO,

                                   Washington, DC, March 18. 2010.
       Dear Senators Crapo and Risch: We write today to thank you 
     for your continued leadership in the U.S. Senate on behalf of 
     the air traffic controllers in Idaho.
       As you know, the National Air Traffic Controllers 
     Association has a strong track record of support of 
     consolidations that do not compromise safety. Unfortunately, 
     the FAA has failed to collaborate with the controller 
     workforce during its most recent round of facility and 
     service realignments, including the agency's intentions to 
     remove local radar services from Boise. Your support for the 
     controllers in Idaho during this dispute has been critical 
     and has not gone unnoticed.
       The language in Section 308 of the substitute amendment to 
     H.R. 1586, legislation to reauthorize the Federal Aviation 
     Administration, will protect the Boise TRACON and the city's 
     air traffic control facilities from the FAA's current plans 
     to transfer these services to Salt Lake City despite the 
     FAA's Article 46 notification of its intent to move forward 
     with the proposed transfer.
       This language will ensure the local radar services will 
     remain at Boise until the Air Traffic Control Modernization 
     Oversight Board's recommendations are complete, or with the 
     full participation of and collaboration with the air traffic 
     controllers at Boise. Similarly, we at NATCA will not move 
     forward with negotiations with the FAA on the Boise TRACON 
     transfer without full cooperation with the Idaho 
     Congressional Delegation and other key stakeholders. Full 
     collaboration will ensure that this and all future ATC 
     facility and service realignments will only be considered if 
     the proposals serve the public good by improving safety, 
     efficiency and service.
       The inclusion of this provision in the substitute amendment 
     is a direct product of your tireless efforts to compel the 
     FAA to work collaboratively with the air traffic controllers 
     and other vital aviation stakeholders in Boise. On behalf of 
     the air traffic controllers in Boise and throughout the 
     country, we want to thank you for your continued leadership 
     on this issue.
           Sincerely,
     Patricia Gilbert,
       National Executive Vice President.
     Mark Griffin,
       President, Boise NATCA Local.
  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I completely agree with the distinguished 
senior Senator from Idaho, and I associate myself with his statements 
fully. Senator Crapo and I want to confirm with the chairman and 
ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee that section 308 
prohibits the FAA from proceeding with the consolidation of the Boise 
TRACON into the Salt Lake City TRACON until after the board completes 
its recommendations concerning all air traffic control facility 
realignments and consolidations nationwide. From where we stand, it is 
necessary to have a thorough review of the Boise consolidation and an 
independent determination of the cost effectiveness of transferring the 
Boise TRACON to Salt Lake City.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Yes, that is correct. The FAA article 46 
notification of its intent to move forward with the proposed transfer 
would be stopped if section 308 is enacted into law, unless the 
affected employees execute a written agreement regarding the proposed 
realignment.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I concur with the Senator from West Virginia. No 
realignments will be allowed to continue before the completion of the 
board's recommendations, unless the affected employees and the FAA 
agree in writing to do so.
  Mr. CRAPO. Per this colloquy, Senator Risch and I will follow up with 
the FAA that it is the clear intent of the Senate for the FAA to halt 
its consolidation of the Boise TRACON until after the new board 
completes its recommendations for realignment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, FAA authorization expired in Octobeer of 
2007.
  For more than 2 years, we have been operating on short-term 
extensions.
  I thank Chairman Rockefeller and Senators Hutchison, Dorgan and 
DeMint for working together to bring this bill to the floor.
  The bill before us will improve the safety of air travel, modernize 
our air traffic control system, boost the economy and create thousands 
of jobs.
  Senator Dorgan and Senator Rockefeller have had many hearings over 
the last few years on aviation but each hearing had one theme: safety.
  This bill will improve safety by creating an Aviation Safety 
Whistleblower Investigation Office that can catch problems before they 
result in serious accidents.
  The bill also requires the FAA Administrator to re-evaluate flight 
crew training and certification.
  We also require FAA to establish safety standards for training 
programs for flight crew members and aircraft dispatchers.
  Another key component of this bill is NextGen.
  NextGen is the term we use to describe our transition to a more 
modern, satellite-based air traffic control system.
  NextGen will give pilots and air traffic controllers the ability to 
ccurately pinpoint aircraft in the sky--to avoid problems, to monitor 
traffic, to move things more smoothly, safely and efficiently.
  The FAA released its aviation forecast study last Tuesday.
  Last year, we saw 704 million passengers carried on U.S. airlines. 
Soon, hose numbers will increase significantly. The FAA reports we will 
see more than 1 billion air passengers by 2023 and more than 1.2 
billion passengers by 2030. We just do not have the capacity with our 
current air traffic control sstem to handle this increase in traffic. 
But with NextGen, we hope to triple the capacity of our national 
aviation system.
  This technology will allow planes to fly the straightest, quickest 
route from point A to point B. And with more precise information and 
better communication between the ground and the cockpit, we can fit 
more planes safely in our airspace. Doing so will save airlines at 
least 3.3 billion gallons of fuel a year or more than $10 billion 
annually by 2025. NextGen should also reduce airport delays 
significantly.
  Chicago's Midway Airport was ranked dead last in January for on-time 
departures among the nation's 29 busiest airports. Chicago's O'Hare 
airport has won that dubious distinction more than once. One of the 
main reasons for these delays is the lack of capacity in airspace. 
Fully implementing NextGen should reduce delays by half.
  This is a great investment. This bill will help airports and air 
travelers in Illinois and nationwide save time and money.
  In Illinois, we are in the middle of the largest airport expansion 
project in U.S. history at O'Hare airport.
  This $6.6 billion project will completely reconfigure the runways at 
O'Hare to make sure we can move more traffic in and out of Chicago more 
efficiently. Moving this project along means a lot to the people of 
Chicago and Illinois. O'Hare already generates 450,000 jobs and $38 
billion in economic activity for the Chicago region and the State of 
Illinois. The O'Hare modernization project will create 195,000 more 
jobs, and another $18 billion in annual economic activity. This bill 
will allow O'Hare to keep moving forward by streamlining the passenger 
facility charge application process.

[[Page 4488]]

  And it isn't just O'Hare. Airports in Illinois will benefits from 
more than $4 billion per year for the airport improvement program, AIP.
  Last year, airports in the Quad Cities, Rockford, Decatur and 
Springfield all used AIP funds to make critical improvements to their 
airfields.
  Keeping this funding flowing will allow these airports to handle the 
traffic of today and the future increases of tomorrow.
  The bill helps rural areas keep the commercial air service they have 
now and attract new service in the future. For a long time, the 
Essential Air Service, EAS, program was relegated to the back bench at 
the Department of Transportation.
  In Illinois, two air carriers provided subpar service for too long.
  In 2007, the EAS carrier providing service from Quincy, Decatur and 
Marion, IL, to St. Louis was shut down by the FAA. The next carrier 
promised each community four round-trips each day and codeshare 
agreement with a major airline. That carrier broke those promises and 
left town as soon as they could. This administration is taking a 
different approach and so is this Congress.
  This bill fully funds the EAS program and puts in place important 
reforms so the Department of Transportation works with businesses, 
local communities and the airline industry to start and retain quality 
air service to rural communities.
  Without a robust EAS program, many rural communities would have no 
commercial air service at all, and residents of smaller cities would 
have to travel significant distances for flights. But with reliable and 
safe commercial air service, communities can retain and attract 
businesses.
  The bill also helps smaller airports gain new commercial air service 
by increasing funding for the Small Community Air Service Grant 
program.
  This program has helped airports in Illinois, including Rockford and 
Springfield, bring new routes to their cities.
  I want to thank Senator Rockefeller for including the Essential Air 
Service and Small Community provisions in this bill and for creating an 
Office of Rural Aviation within DOT to make sure rural areas are not 
forgotten.
  Safety, efficiency, capacity and even the connectivity in smaller 
communities--all of these aspects of the FAA reauthorization also 
generate jobs.
  The FAA estimates commercial aviation is responsible for 5.2 percent 
of gross domestic product and generates $1.142 trillion in economic 
activity.
  The aviation industry provides $346 billion in earnings and 10.2 
million jobs.
  And this bill will help grow those numbers. In 2010, DOT estimates 
this legislation will support 150,000 jobs. The economist Mark Zandi 
said, ``Aviation is the glue that keeps the global economy together.''
  This bill will boost our economy now and lay the foundation to keep 
the United States competitive in the global marketplace moving forward.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise in support of this legislation to 
modernize our Nation's aviation system and I am especially pleased that 
it includes Senate Amendment No. 3534 to protect the pristine beauty 
and quiet of Crater Lake National Park.
  This amendment offered by Senator Merkley and I would bring an end to 
the bureaucratic stalemate that exists between the Federal Aviation 
Administration and the National Park Service over implementation of the 
National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000.
  That act required the FAA and the Park Service to work together in 
regulating air tours over national parks. Unfortunately, that is not 
happening. After nearly a decade, these two agencies have yet to 
complete a single required air tour management plan for those parks 
with air tours.
  Meanwhile, parks where air tours applications are pending are in 
limbo over whether tours will operate and where. Efforts to provide 
adequate safeguards to protect the parks' resources have stalled, 
leaving places such as Oregon's Crater Lake National Park--the 6th 
oldest national park in the Nation--lingering in needless uncertainty. 
In short, the law is not working as it was intended and providing no 
benefit to anyone.
  When an air tour company applied last year for permission to fly 
tours over Crater Lake National Park, the public outcry in my state and 
elsewhere was swift and dramatic--and for good reason. Anyone familiar 
with Crater Lake knows that it is one of the crown jewels of the 
Nation's system of national parks. It is a place that my constituents 
care deeply about. It is visited by countless Oregonians and tourists 
alike every year who come to see its deep-blue lake, dramatic lava 
flows, towering trees and, perhaps most of all, to experience its 
quiet.
  While we cannot agree on what to do about air tours over every single 
national park, we can agree that if we are going to ban them anywhere 
it should be Crater Lake. Such a ban will guarantee future generations 
the same pristine solitude that exists today.
  Since Crater Lake represents one of the few places to escape the din 
of everyday life, I and many others have serious concerns over what the 
proposed helicopter over flights would do to that tranquility.
  Yet that concern isn't able to be considered by the FAA and the Park 
Service under the requirements found in the current National Park Air 
Tour Management Act of 2000. Parks such as Crater Lake must go through 
the costly and time-consuming process of attempting to craft an air 
tour management plan before being able to deny an application for air 
tours. As no such plans have been completed for any park in 10 years, 
there is little prospect of getting any certainty any time in the near 
future. This is uncertainty for air tour operators and for parks 
visitors alike. Will there be over flights or won't there? The way 
things work now, we'll never know and our treasured parks don't get the 
certain protection they need.
  My amendment would provide needed clarity regarding the 
responsibilities of the FAA and the National Park Service so that air 
tour management plans can finally be completed. It will speed 
implementation of the act by ensuring that air tour management plans 
are not required at Crater Lake, where it is clear that having them 
would be unacceptable to park resources or visitor experiences.
  I am pleased that Senator Rockefeller has worked with me to include 
this amendment in the managers' package. I thank my colleagues Senator 
Merkley who cosponsored this amendment and Senator Alexander who also 
lent his support. This amendment will help ensure that our parks' 
resources are protected.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate will vote on final 
passage of the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety 
Improvement Act. This 2-year reauthorization of FAA's programs provides 
important funding increases and program improvements that will enhance 
the safety and efficiency of our Nation's aviation system. In so doing, 
it makes key investments in our Nation's aviation infrastructure and 
creates jobs with these investments.
  Our global economy depends on the smooth and efficient movement of 
goods, services, and people from city to city and across international 
borders. A safe and efficient aviation system goes hand in hand with a 
strong economy. We are fortunate to have the best aviation system in 
the world, and we must continue to make the necessary investments and 
upgrades to keep it as such. The FAA reauthorization bill helps us to 
do this by addressing problems of capacity, congestion, and delays that 
have emerged to ensure our aviation system can adequately handle the 
projected growth in airlines passengers.
  The FAA reauthorization bill will create much needed jobs by 
providing the funding and directives for safety improvements at our 
airports and in the aviation industry. For instance, the FAA is 
building two new air traffic control towers in Michigan: at Kalamazoo 
and Traverse City. The FAA is also repaving two runways and various

[[Page 4489]]

taxiways at Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport. The FAA is also 
constructing a new terminal building at Kalamazoo/Battle Creek 
International Airport, and it is designing a new building for aircraft 
rescue and firefighting and snow removal equipment at Pellston Regional 
Airport in Emmet County. These are much needed upgrades and will make 
flying into and around Michigan safer and easier.
  A key component of this bill is to modernize our air traffic control 
system by building the Next Generation Air Transportation System, 
NextGen, of satellite-based navigation. The NextGen system will be more 
accurate and more efficient than the current radar based air traffic 
control system. It will also result in significant fuel efficiencies 
and time savings by allowing aircraft to fly more direct routes. This 
is good for the environment, good for air carrier's bottom line, and 
good for the flying public. This bill accelerates the process and moves 
the NextGen modernization process forward. The bill also provides 
flexibility to airports regarding how Airport Improvement Program funds 
can be utilized as well as studying ways to raise revenue for airport 
projects through a pilot program.
  I will vote in support of the FAA reauthorization bill, and I urge 
its quick adoption and enactment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                              Health Care

  Mr. VITTER. I stand to talk about health care on this significant 
day, the day after the House passed the ObamaCare bill and the day 
before the reconciliation bill comes here to the Senate.
  Needless to say, I am deeply disappointed by the House's action for 
all of the reasons I and so many others have raised, the concerns we 
have raised previously on the Senate floor.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, could I ask the Senator to yield for a 
parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. VITTER. Yes, I will yield.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I wanted to ask my colleague from Virginia, because 
he has been on the floor, I think seeking recognition, and I wanted to 
make sure that we ask him--that we protect his place following Senator 
Vitter--how much time does the Senator from Virginia want to use?
  Mr. WEBB. I thank the Senator for inquiring. I wish to speak for up 
to 10 minutes about the Ensign amendment.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks by 
the Senator from Louisiana, the Senator from Virginia be recognized for 
up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, it was my understanding that the Ensign 
amendment was going to be called up at 4:30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. WEBB. Would that not be the proper topic of discussion on the 
floor? I have been waiting since 4:15 when I was slated to speak.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would be happy to call up the Ensign 
amendment, after which Senator Vitter had had the floor, and did give 
me the right to protect you. So, if possible, I wish to call up the 
amendment, ask that Senator Vitter be allowed to speak up to 10 
minutes, and then, following that, I wish to protect the Senator from 
Virginia's time.
  Mr. WEBB. May I ask for a courtesy from the Senator from Texas and 
the Senator from Louisiana? I have a commitment I cannot break back in 
my office that was supposed to begin at this moment. Would you feel it 
appropriate if I were to ask that my statement be printed in the Record 
at this point with respect to the Ensign amendment, once you called it 
up?
  Mr. VITTER. I have no objection.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Let me ask the Senator from Louisiana, would he be 
able to allow the Senator from Virginia to go forward?
  Mr. VITTER. I am afraid I cannot for exactly the same reason. I am 
late for a meeting in my office. But I certainly would have no 
objection to placing his comments in the Record and regaining the floor 
at a future time.
  Mr. WEBB. I appreciate that courtesy. If there is opportunity for me 
to come back later, I will try.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, if the Senator does come back, I will 
do everything I can to give him a chance to speak, because I know this 
is very important to his State, and I wish for him to have his views 
known.
  Senator Ensign is on his way, and I will do everything possible to 
give him some time.
  Mr. WEBB. I also wish to thank the Senator from Louisiana for 
yielding for this exchange.


                    Amendment No. 3476, As Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for Mr. Ensign, 
     proposes amendment numbered 3476, as modified, to amendment 
     No. 3452.

  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 279, after line 24, add the following:

     SEC. 723. PRESERVATION AND EXPANSION OF ACCESS TO THE 
                   NATIONAL CAPITAL FOR SMALL COMMUNITIES.

       Section 41718 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(g) Slot Usage.--Notwithstanding section 49109 or any 
     other provision of law, any air carrier that holds or 
     operates air carrier slots at Ronald Reagan Washington 
     National Airport (DCA) as of January 1, 2010, pursuant to 
     subparts K and S of part 93 of title 14, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, which are being used as of that date for 
     scheduled service between DCA and a large hub airport may use 
     such slots for up to 15 round trip flights between DCA and 
     any airport located outside of the perimeter restriction 
     described in section 49109.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, again like so many Americans, I was deeply 
disappointed by last night's House vote. At its core, that health care 
reform legislation will put the government between us and our doctors. 
It will raise health care costs significantly. That is not me saying 
that, that is nonpartisan sources such as the Congressional Budget 
Office.
  It will try to be ``paid for'' through a $\1/2\ trillion raid on 
Medicare, another $\1/2\ trillion set of tax increases. And, of course, 
that is the cause of pushing up health care costs. Then, to add insult 
to injury for so many Americans, including so many Louisianans, it will 
provide taxpayer funding of abortion.
  It was truly a sad day for our country, in my opinion. But I take the 
floor today not so much to focus on that but to focus on the continuing 
fight and to focus on the future. My message is very simple. Speaking 
for one Senator, for myself, this fight is not over by a long shot. I 
will be on the floor regularly all this week fighting the separate 
reconciliation bill. Certainly, if any House Democrats thought all 
aspects of that bill would pass into law, to ``fix'' certain portions 
of the underlying Senate ObamaCare bill, I think this week they will be 
sadly disappointed.
  There are many aspects of that bill that are subject to serious 
challenges that will require 60 votes, and will not get them here on 
the Senate floor. We will have a number of important debates and 
amendments.
  I will also continue the fight to try to repeal this very 
counterproductive legislation. Today at 2 o'clock, as soon, as 
absolutely soon, as it was in order, I filed a bill to repeal 
ObamaCare, to repeal what has passed already through the process. I am 
joined with so many other Members, so many other Americans across the 
country to fight to that end, however long it takes. It may not be this 
Congress, but I believe that day will come, because the great majority 
of Americans, certainly including the great majority of Louisianans, 
want that to happen. They want us to act instead in a focused, positive 
way, attacking real problems with real solutions, not a 3,000-plus-page 
bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If neither side yields time, the time will be 
equally charged to both sides.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, 
and I ask unanimous consent the time be charged equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page 4490]]

  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Stewart L. Udall

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, when we reflect on the great families in 
American politics--we have had our fair share--we certainly think of 
John Adams and John Quincy Adams and what they gave to America. In our 
time one thinks of the Kennedy family and how much those brothers gave 
to this Nation. Some of us were honored to serve with Ted Kennedy and 
the sons and daughters of those great Senators of the past. But there 
is another family from the West who has given so much to us. That would 
be the Udall family.
  I was blessed to serve in the House of Representatives with Morris 
Udall. He was a joy, not only a great man of principle but a great 
sense of humor. It was fun to be around Mo Udall. He had an ill-fated 
run for the Presidency which probably generated more one-liners than 
any race in American political history. But he was one of two brothers, 
Stewart Udall being his brother before him who had served as well in 
the House of Representatives from the State of Arizona and backed a man 
for President named John Kennedy in 1960. Because of his early support 
of John Kennedy, when President Kennedy was elected, he called on 
Stewart Udall to serve as his Secretary of the Interior.
  Last Saturday, Stewart Udall passed away. I came to the floor this 
afternoon to say a few words about this great man and the great 
contributions he made to America. He was one of the first real 
activists as Secretary of the Interior. I want to read, if I may, some 
of the things he managed to achieve in the time he served as Secretary 
of the Interior under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson: the acquisition 
of 3.85 million acres of new holdings, four national parks--Canyonlands 
in Utah, Redwood in California, North Cascades in Washington State, 
Guadalupe Mountains in Texas--six national monuments, nine national 
recreation areas, 20 historic sites, 50 wildlife refuges, and eight 
national seashores. He had an interest in preserving historic sites and 
helped to save Carnegie Hall from destruction. What an amazing legacy 
Stewart Udall left as the leader of America's efforts toward 
conservation.
  He was an extraordinary man too, a real Renaissance man in his 
interests. He held evening meetings at the Interior Department and 
invited the likes of Carl Sandburg and the actor Hal Holbrook, as well 
as Wallace Stegner, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author, who he invited 
to become the Department's writer in residence.
  It was Stewart Udall who suggested that John Kennedy invite Robert 
Frost to recite a poem at Mr. Kennedy's inauguration, which is one of 
the most celebrated moments in history in the last century when Robert 
Frost stood before that frozen crowd on Inauguration Day for John 
Kennedy.
  I think back too of his work when it came to the environment. In the 
early days Rachel Carson was the inspiration for many. Her book ``The 
Silent Spring'' inspired Stewart Udall to look beyond conservation to 
protecting the world we live in.
  He did so many things that were ahead of their time. Under the 
Kennedy administration, he began efforts to establish the Nation's 
first national seashores, and it wasn't welcomed by a lot of the people 
affected. People living in Cape Cod, MA, Cape Hatteras in North 
Carolina, and Point Reyes in California objected to taking coastal 
lands out of private hands, saying it would ruin the local economy. 
Exactly the opposite occurred. When these became protected areas, they 
drew more tourism and more economic development than anyone had ever 
before realized.
  Stewart Lee Udall was born on January 31, 1920, in St. Johns, AZ, a 
small community in Apache country. His family had strong ties to the 
Mormon Church. They used to say that you could find Udalls all over the 
political history of the West. His brother Morris, of course, 
represented the State of Arizona for so many years. I remember one 
story I read recently in Sports Illustrated. I mentioned it to Tom 
Udall, his son, who now represents the State of New Mexico. It is a 
story that isn't well known, and it goes back to the early 1960s, when 
Stewart Udall, as Secretary of the Interior, decided to challenge the 
Washington Redskins football team. It turned out in the early 1960s it 
was an all-white team, and the man who owned the team, Mr. Marshall, 
took great pride in the fact there were no black players on the 
Washington Redskins football team. Stewart Udall contacted the 
President and said: Mr. President, it turns out the Federal Government 
has the lease on the stadium that Mr. Marshall is using for his 
football games, and we want to make it clear to him that he better 
integrate that team.
  Well, Mr. Marshall wouldn't hear anything about that. He was going to 
fight him all the way. There were pickets and protests and 
demonstrations and harsh words back and forth. But in the end, Stewart 
Udall and President Kennedy prevailed. The Washington Redskins were 
integrated. In fact, some of their first Black players ended up in the 
Hall of Fame. Interior Secretary Udall did the Washington Redskins and 
their fans quite a favor. That was in the early 1960s. Those who know 
the fight song for the Washington Redskins may be surprised to learn 
that the refrain that talks about ``fight for old DC'' before this 
battle used to say ``fight for old Dixie.'' Things have changed in the 
capital city, and Stewart Udall was part of that change.
  In his life too he was a man who relished physical challenges, as his 
son still does, my colleague Senator Tom Udall and his cousin Mark 
Udall of Colorado. He was an all-conference guard on the University of 
Arizona basketball team, climbed Mount Kilimanjaro and Mount Fuji, 
headed up American delegations to many regions. At the age of 84, 
Stewart Udall, at the end of his last rafting trip on the Colorado 
River, hiked up the steep Bright Angel trail from the bottom of the 
Grand Canyon to the south rim, a 10-hour walk at age 84. And it says in 
the New York Times:

       . . . he celebrated at the end with a martini.

  What an amazing man, an amazing life, a great contribution to 
America. His passing is a reminder of some of the greats who have 
served in so many different ways and have left a mark, an indelible 
legacy, and a heritage.
  Stewart L. Udall was one of those men, and among his legacy items 
would include not only a great family but a great colleague in the 
Senate, his son, Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico. We should honor his 
service, note his passing, and remember his inspiration. His leadership 
made America a better place. His legacy in conservation will serve 
generations to come. We need more like Stewart Udall.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I want to thank Senate leadership for 
bringing this bill to the floor. Our Nation's air traffic control 
systems are in serious need of modernization, and this bill is the 
right step forward in addressing those challenges. Improved safety, a 
reduction in flight delays and more efficient routes resulting in less 
fuel burned are all possible with a modern, 21st century air traffic 
control system. I commend Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member 
Hutchison and the Senate Commerce Committee for their commitment in 
addressing these issues.
  I want to take a few moments today to talk about an issue that is 
important to me, the communities near Washington Reagan National 
Airport and those communities throughout America who currently have 
reliable service to the Nation's Capital. I am deeply concerned with 
any attempts to modify the current agreement on the perimeter and slot 
rules that currently apply to Reagan National Airport.
  In 1987, Congress created the Metropolitan Washington Airports 
Authority to run Reagan National and Washington Dulles International 
Airports.

[[Page 4491]]

The creation of the Airports Authority established a professional 
organization to operate the airports efficiently and represented a 
commitment to the surrounding communities regarding aircraft noise and 
traffic. I think that bears repeating. Congress made a commitment to 
the residents of Alexandria, Arlington and Fairfax County on the 
operation of Reagan National Airport when it transferred authority to 
the Airports Authority. Those commitments were codified by Congress in 
the so-called perimeter and slot rules. Changes to these rules threaten 
to seriously degrade service to Reagan National, Dulles International, 
and Baltimore-Washington International airports. And they break the 
commitment made to our surrounding communities.
  The amendment that the Senator from Nevada has offered seeks 
essentially to do away with the existing 1,250 mile perimeter rule that 
governs flights into and out of Reagan National Airport. The Senator 
from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, has argued that this will have a limited impact 
on existing flights at DCA. On the contrary, if this amendment passes, 
up to 75 existing flights that currently fly from DCA to other large 
cities within the perimeter could be lost. Shifting these flights would 
not only have a direct impact on the cities that stand to lose the 
routes they currently have, but it would also have follow-on effects to 
flights in smaller markets, as well as flights that now service Dulles 
and BWI.
  Furthermore, the flights that would be added at Reagan National would 
be long-haul flights, which means bigger planes and more passengers. 
That in turn means more congestion around and inside the airport: worse 
traffic, longer lines at security, more difficulty parking large planes 
at already crowded gates.
  There are basic physical constraints at Reagan National Airport that 
cannot be ignored, and the original slots and perimeter rules were 
carefully crafted to take that into consideration. If you have ever 
tried to fly out of Reagan National Airport during peak hours, you know 
that parking can be impossible, ticket counters can be incredibly 
congested and the number of gates for jets to park is limited.
  More than 10 years ago, the Airports Authority rebuilt much of Reagan 
National Airport, transforming it into one of the most efficient 
airports in the Nation as the facilities constructed were matched to 
the number of flights established by law. It did so with the slot and 
perimeter restrictions in mind. Any significant change in those rules 
will overburden critical airport facilities and infrastructure, causing 
serious disruptions. New flights will create more demand for parking 
where none is available. At the same time, gate access at Reagan 
National Airport is limited, as airlines are currently sharing gates in 
some areas. Flights coming and going would be delayed, an important 
issue we happen to be addressing in this bill. We have laid out 
policies to reduce the inconvenience of delays and sitting in grounded 
aircraft because of air traffic congestion in this very bill.
  These are significant issues that the Senate must consider before 
making any changes to the perimeter rule. When members consider this 
issue in the context of additional flights for them to get back to 
their constituents, keep in mind there is a significant risk of greater 
delays and, for many Senators here, a possible reduction in services to 
their communities. With a change in the current structure at Reagan 
National Airport, there will be potential impact for communities inside 
the perimeter who could see their access reduced or eliminated. Flights 
to cities like Miami, FL; Chicago, IL; New York City; and Boston, MA 
could lose many of the flights they now have. Communities like 
Charleston, WV; Des Moines, IA; Jackson, MI; Lexington, KY; Madison, 
WI; Manchester, NH; or Omaha, NE; could eventually lose their access as 
well, as airlines backfill their flights to more profitable routes.
  It strikes me that the desire to change the slot and perimeter rules 
at Reagan National Airport is not being driven by market demand, but 
rather by a few airlines seeking a competitive advantage over others. 
Allowing airlines to swap flights from hub airports inside the 
perimeter to hub airports outside of the perimeter could be seen as a 
special interest earmark for a select group of carriers, as the pool of 
beneficiaries is identifiable and limited. By allowing existing rules 
to be altered for a select class, Congress will be allocating this 
scarce resource for the convenience of a few rather than the larger 
community need. This is fundamentally anticompetitive behavior and we 
need to end this periodic and detrimental practice.
  Congress added 24 new slots in 2000 and another 22 slots in 2003. If 
we get rid of the perimeter rule, or modify it in such a way that 
causes loss of service or diminished service to communities inside the 
perimeter, the affected communities will be back before Congress 
seeking more slots to make up for lost service. The communities of 
Northern Virginia should not have to continually suffer for the 
convenience of a relative few. We have seen examples of service in 
other congested airspaces where reasonable slots restrictions have 
controlled or reduced growing delays in flight times.
  The convenience of Reagan National comes at a heavy price for many 
airport neighbors in the form of aircraft noise and airport related 
traffic in Arlington, Alexandria and southern Fairfax County. Changing 
current law only further breaks the bond that was created with the 
neighbors of the airports and unfairly burdens them for the sake of the 
convenience of others. With some foresight in this body, we can avoid 
any greater congestion whether in the air, on the tarmac or on our 
roads. The position that the Senators from Maryland, Mr. Warner, and I 
hold is consistent with local communities groups of Northern Virginia 
and that of many previous Governors of the Commonwealth.
  With regard to the perimeter rule, its value is evident in the 
development taking place at Dulles Airport today. Because Dulles is 
better situated to handle the demands of long-haul flying, Congress 
wisely established the perimeter rule to move long-haul traffic to 
Dulles where the space exists to handle the necessary parking and 
infrastructure expansion. The multibillion-dollar Dulles Development 
program, and the investments in rail service to Dulles, are all 
predicated upon Congress keeping its word on the perimeter rule. 
Eliminating or changing the perimeter rule will not only overburden 
capacity at Reagan National Airport by overwhelming the facilities but 
would significantly change the infrastructure improvements needed at 
Dulles International Airport, many of which are already under 
construction. Sizable business interests have located their operations 
in Fairfax and Loudoun Counties based on their proximity to Dulles and 
on assumptions about the stability of the slot and perimeter rules.
  Service will suffer, infrastructure will be strained and the 
communities surrounding the airport will face more noise and more 
traffic. That is the last thing we need for Northern Virginia, or the 
Nation's Capital.
  I have laid out only the most significant arguments against changes 
to the slot and perimeter rules. But here is one more: it is not 
appropriate for Congress to meddle and manipulate the airports in my 
home State. Congress no longer maintains this kind of silent hand in 
the operations at any airports in my colleagues' home states. Let us 
let the Airports Authority run Washington's airports as Congress agreed 
to. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Ensign amendment and 
reject changes to the perimeter rules at Reagan National Airport.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a March 17, 
2010, letter to me from the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                           Metropolitan Washington


                                           Airports Authority,

                                   Washington, DC, March 17, 2010.
     Hon. James H. Webb,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Webb: The Metropolitan Washington Airports 
     Authority (Airports Authority) is aware of several proposed

[[Page 4492]]

     amendments to H.R. 1586, the legislative vehicle for the 
     Federal Aviation Administration Air Transportation 
     Modernization and Safety Improvement Act, which address 
     flight rules at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport 
     (Reagan National). The Airports Authority would like to 
     reiterate our commitment to maintaining the current High 
     Density Rule (or ``Slot'' Rule) and ``Perimeter Rule'', which 
     direct the allocation of a very scarce resource--take offs 
     and landings--at Reagan National.
       Congress initially mandated the Slot and Perimeter rules in 
     1987, balancing the physical limitations of Reagan National 
     with the growth potential of Washington Dulles International 
     Airport (Dulles International) and Baltimore/Washington 
     Thurgood Marshall International Airport (Baltimore/
     Washington). Over the years, Congress has made modest changes 
     to these rules, and Reagan National has been able to operate 
     with a high degree of arrival and departure reliability. Over 
     the past two decades, tremendous capital investments have 
     been made at Dulles International, as annual air traffic has 
     grown substantially.
       Reagan National's facilities were rebuilt in the 1990s, at 
     a cost of $1 billion, to match the capacity established by 
     Congress in the Slot and Perimeter rules. Drastic changes to 
     the Slot and Perimeter rules that are currently under 
     discussion will add significant flight activity with the 
     potential to result in surface traffic congestion, passenger 
     delays, and security screening back-ups. Further, increases 
     in flights and passenger volumes could stress the air traffic 
     control system during poor weather, ground facilities, 
     baggage, gate and other terminal services. The Airports 
     Authority is also concerned about the possible, or perceived, 
     noise-related impact on the region resulting from additional 
     flights at Reagan National.
       The Airports Authority urges the Congress to reject the 
     temptation to add flights to Reagan National without regard 
     to the ability of Reagan National to absorb this increase, or 
     to the impact on the neighboring community, and Dulles 
     International and Baltimore/Washington Airports.
           Sincerely,
                                                 James E. Bennett,
                            President and Chief Executive Officer.

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as we conclude this debate on this 
reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration, I wish to thank 
my colleagues for their hard work, and I wish to do so with some 
specificity.
  First, I thank Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, the ranking member of 
the Commerce Committee. Senator Hutchison and I, in a sense, kind of 
grew up together on the Commerce Committee. We have worked together, in 
my judgment, entirely successfully on aviation issues. For much of the 
last decade, Senator Hutchison and I have served as either chair or 
ranking member of the Aviation Subcommittee. In 2009, I assumed the 
chairmanship of the Commerce Committee, and she assumed the ranking 
member position on the committee.
  But, more importantly, we have a long history of producing strong, 
bipartisan aviation legislation and working well, generally, starting 
with the landmark AIR 21 bill in 2000--which greatly increased funding 
for our aviation system--through the chaotic days after September 11, 
9/11--which culminated in the Aviation and Transportation Security 
Act--to this important reauthorization we are considering today.
  I am profoundly proud of our work together over the years. I respect 
her professionally. I respect her personally. I think our work is a 
legacy we both can be very proud of. I know I am. She is an 
extraordinary Senator who is deeply committed to making sure the United 
States has the finest aviation system in the world. She has many other 
interests, but that is one of them. Our Nation's aviation system is 
demonstrably safer and more secure because of her efforts.
  I also thank my good friend, Senator Byron Dorgan. In 2009, Senator 
Dorgan became the chair of the Aviation Subcommittee--just a year ago--
but he has attacked it with such ferocity and intensity, typical of 
him, that it seems like much longer than that. He has been a 
magnificent chairman of that subcommittee. His laserlike focus on 
making our aviation system safer has become a cornerstone of this bill. 
He held, for example, eight hearings on aviation safety over the last 
15 months. Eight hearings in 15 months does not seem like a lot, but 
given our schedule around here, it is. He was totally focused, such as 
on what happened in Buffalo and all other aspects.
  As with every issue in which he is engaged--and there are many of 
them--he has made a lasting contribution. I personally regret he has 
chosen to retire at the end of this year. Not only will I miss him as a 
friend, but the people of North Dakota and this country will lose one 
of their most passionate and effective advocates. He should be 
enormously proud of his work on this bill. I know I am.
  I also recognize the work of Senator DeMint, who has championed a 
number of important safety provisions and has been a strong advocate of 
moving this bill forward. It is important to say, very important to 
say.
  Senator Baucus worked hard to develop a revenue title for this bill. 
Through his efforts, the aviation system will have resources it needs 
to build the modern digital air traffic control system our Nation 
demands. We will be spending about $500 billion a year.
  As with every bill that moves through this body, much, much, much of 
the work is done by our staff who put in extraordinary hours.
  First and foremost, I would like to recognize, among other people, 
Gael Sullivan of my staff. Gael has served as a professional staff 
member for the Aviation Subcommittee for almost a decade. For 3 years, 
Gael has worked tirelessly on this bill. It would not be a reality 
without his efforts.
  I would also like to recognize Rich Swayze and Adam Duffy of my 
staff, in addition to Jim Conneely, a detailee from the FAA, as it 
turns out, to the Commerce Committee. He has been of invaluable 
assistance.
  I would like to thank Jarrod Thompson and Ann Begeman of Senator 
Hutchison's staff. They are true and total professionals, without whose 
work the bill would not be possible.
  I would also like to thank Margaret McCarthy of Senator Dorgan's 
staff, who worked seamlessly with the committee staff.
  As always, Senator Baucus's staff was critical to getting the revenue 
title in place.
  Finally, I would be kind of remiss if I did not mention the hard and 
constant work of Ellen Doneski, the staff director of the Commerce 
Committee, who was my legislative director in a former life; Mr. James 
Reid, who sits beside me, my deputy staff director; and the Commerce 
Committee press team, Jamie Smith and Jena Longo.
  The staff never gets enough credit. We talk about it. We say it. I 
think they know we mean it. I wonder if they can guess how much we do 
mean it--the hours they put in; their selflessness; their willingness 
to work together; their willingness to work across party lines, where 
sometimes their Members cannot as easily. So I am fortunate to have so 
many talented people working with me and with Senator Hutchison.
  But most of all, I thank Senator Hutchison.
  Mr. President, I want to say just a few words about two very 
important programs at the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA--the 
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise and the Airport Concessions 
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Airport Improvement Programs.
  These programs have been critically important in helping to level the 
playing field for minority and women owned businesses in the airport 
industry and continue to be instrumental in addressing ongoing 
discrimination. While it is true that our nation has made tremendous 
progress against discrimination in the past five decades, there 
continues to be a good deal more work to do.
  Discrimination in the lending, bonding, and bid process, as well as 
disparities in the treatment of DBE subcontractors once a contract is 
awarded are real life problems faced by these businesses. For this 
reason, I strongly support the provisions in this bill to improve the 
DBE program, including provisions to adjust the personal net worth cap 
for inflation and to require certification training for those who 
review DBE applications.
  We must not forget the true impact of DBE firms on the economy. 
Minority and women owned businesses not only improve the vitality of 
the airport industry, but they are important economic contributors to 
their communities.

[[Page 4493]]

  The statistical and qualitative evidence of discrimination is clear 
and has been compiled in disparity studies that are conducted by state 
and local governments around the country. These studies are well 
constructed third party examinations that shed light on whether 
qualified DBE firms in the area are being utilized, examine the 
contracting and business activities of the state or local government, 
review the corresponding private markets in the same geographic area, 
and analyze anecdotal reports about discrimination from actual 
stakeholders.
  These studies, many examples of which were received during the 
Commerce Committee's May 2009 hearing, and during a hearing in the 
House of Representatives in March 2009, demonstrate that progress has 
been made and that our efforts here in Congress are still necessary.
  For example, studies have showed that airports operated by Denver, 
CO, Phoenix, AZ, and the State of Maryland all have made progress, but 
that significant hurdles remain. These studies demonstrate that 
discrimination continues to exist in both the public contracting 
process and in the private sector, such as in access to credit markets.
  The inclusion of the DBE provisions in the bill will provide an 
important on-the-ground benefit to businesses by helping to level the 
playing field and enabling fairer competition. I am pleased that 
Congress has recognized the continued need for these programs and these 
new provisions as integral to the reauthorization of the FAA.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, let me say how much I appreciate the 
remarks of the chairman. It has been truly delightful working with the 
chairman on this bill. He and I used to be the chairman and ranking 
member of the Aviation Subcommittee. Now we are the chairman and 
ranking member of the full committee. So I think our views on 
aviation--its importance, the importance of the NextGen air traffic 
control system, the importance of safety, the Passenger Bill of 
Rights--are one and the same, and I appreciate working with him.
  I do have some closing remarks, but I wish to let Senator Ensign talk 
about his amendment. It is the pending business. So I think I am going 
to put my remarks to the side for now and let Senator Ensign speak on 
his amendment. I do have comments, following his comments, on his 
perimeter amendment. Then, if we have time, I would like to make my 
closing statement. But if not, in order for us to stay on time, I will 
stay and do it after the vote.
  With that, I yield to the Senator from Utah--I am sorry, the Senator 
from Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, tourism is the backbone of the economy of 
my State of Nevada. It has taken a nosedive over the last year with the 
crash of the Nation's economy. More than ever, the industry has needed 
a lifeline that was recently given to my State when the legislation I 
authored with Senator Dorgan, the Travel Promotion Act, was signed into 
law by the President. Our legislation will revitalize the tourism 
industry across our country and in my State of Nevada by reintroducing 
our rural class destinations to people all over the world.
  On the piece of legislation before us, I have offered two important 
amendments to the FAA bill that will also help tourism in my State and 
will create jobs in this important industry.
  Last week, Senator Reid and I sponsored an amendment that will 
encourage more construction on land around McCarran International 
Airport in Las Vegas, which will ultimately create more jobs for the 
area. Our legislation lifts an outdated deed restriction for land 
surrounding McCarran International Airport which previously prevented 
development on this land because of an agreement with the Bureau of 
Land Management that enforced noise mitigation for airlines flying 
overhead.
  However, because of technology, aircrafts are not as noisy as they 
were 10 years ago, when this restriction was put in place. While our 
amendment does not alter the noise threshold in the area, it does 
broaden the types of buildings that can be constructed on the land 
because airline noise no longer threatens to violate the threshold.
  Clark County can now sell the lands to be used for hotels, arenas, 
auditoriums, and concert halls. Not only are we making this land more 
attractive and more valuable, we are creating jobs by increasing 
construction in the area and increasing the use of the land. I was 
happy this amendment was accepted by both the majority and the 
minority.
  The second amendment Senator McCain has been working on for a long 
time, as well as myself, Senator Reid, and others was unfortunately 
pulled, but it deals with the issue of flights--helicopter flights, 
especially, and fixed-wing flights--over the Grand Canyon, which is 
something I have been working on since I was in the House of 
Representatives. I thought we were close to getting this amendment 
finalized because it is very important not only for tourism, but it is 
also important for those who cannot necessarily hike the Grand Canyon, 
who cannot experience the wonderful aspects of it--those in 
wheelchairs, the elderly--and this amendment would have made sure they 
would have continued to have access.
  I hope we can work on that and get that amendment either in 
conference or in some other way. It is not only good for the economy, 
but it is also good for those who are disabled or those who for other 
reasons cannot go and enjoy the Grand Canyon such as hikers and others 
can.


                    Amendment No. 3476, as Modified

  The last piece I wish to talk about is the amendment we have before 
us today. It is called the DC perimeter amendment. Once again, this is 
something I have been working on for many years. The initial rule was 
put into place in 1966, to put a limit on how far flights could fly out 
of Reagan, then known as Washington National Airport. It was to divert 
air traffic over to the new Dulles Airport, basically making National a 
short-haul and Dulles a long-haul airport.
  To carry out this purpose, there was a restriction of 1,250 miles put 
from National Airport. While Congress has granted certain limited 
exceptions to the perimeter rule over the years, the rule continues to 
place arbitrary limits that restrict air traffic between the airport 
and the Western United States. Today, there are only a dozen nonstop 
flights between Reagan National and the entire Western United States. I 
encourage my colleagues to work on this amendment in conference. In a 
little while, we are probably going to be withdrawing the amendment, 
but we want to work on it in conference so that more areas, more places 
in the United States will have direct access to Reagan National 
Airport, which is much more convenient to use than Washington Dulles or 
the Baltimore airport.
  I will say this: It really is a matter of fairness. Should only the 
east coast or the Midwest have access to Reagan National or should the 
rest of the country have the convenience of flying into Reagan 
National?
  My amendment actually would not have increased the number of landing 
slots available. My amendment would have allowed airlines to take the 
slots. They fly from certain airports, the large hub airports, and 
transfer those to other slots that work better for their business plan 
as well as gives other people in America the right to fly into Reagan 
National Airport, which is, as I mentioned, so much more convenient.
  So after 40 years of implementation of the perimeter rule, it is 
outdated. The last time I checked--and I fly Dulles all the time--
Dulles is thriving. As a matter of fact, it is packed. I circled for 
over an hour today because of the number of flights coming into Dulles. 
It is an extremely busy airport. I don't think we have to make sure 
Dulles stays busy any longer. It has more than it can actually handle. 
But it is time to scale back the perimeter restrictions at Reagan 
National.
  So I really hope in conference we can get together and work on 
reasonable

[[Page 4494]]

changes to the DC perimeter rule that will give other Americans, other 
than those living within the perimeter rule today, access to the 
closest airport to our Nation's Capital.
  With that, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their 
willingness to work with us on this amendment as well as generally. 
This is important legislation they have worked on. We have a lot of 
outdated technology in our current FAA system, and this is a very 
important piece of legislation. I applaud the efforts they have made in 
bringing the legislation to this point.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, expanding air service to metropolitan 
airports is always a very contentious issue. I believe it is important 
that we give due consideration to local interests when considering the 
addition of slots, particularly at National Airport. Senators Warner 
and Webb have significant reservations about moving forward on any 
changes to existing policy at this time, and I have worked to address 
these concerns.
  I believe the agreement reached between Senators Dorgan, Warner, 
Hutchison, Kyl, Ensign, and DeMint is a reasonable way forward. It will 
allow us to balance the desire for additional slots against the 
opposition from local residents.
  Pursuing a more abrupt policy change such as eliminating the 
perimeter rule altogether has significant implications for competition, 
small community air service, congestion, and delay. Going forward, we 
need to make sure there are not unintended consequences from such 
changes and that service to small communities is preserved. Obviously, 
service to small communities is very important to me.
  I also wish to make clear that the Federal Government's role in this 
process is specific. Air carriers sometimes treat airport slots as 
though they are their own property. It is not. It is their privilege. 
The air transportation system is operated for the benefit of the public 
interest, not for the private interests. Too often, the air carriers 
abuse the rights they have been granted. They schedule too many flights 
at congested airports, and the result is gridlock. This is part of the 
reason there is a cap on slots at National.
  The air transportation network requires that capacity be managed 
carefully so the entire system functions rationally. It is the 
responsibility of the Federal Government to make sure it operates well, 
and I take this role very seriously. If the air carriers cannot manage 
their slots in an effective manner, the Federal Government will have to 
step in and do it for them.
  Crafting a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the FAA has been my long 
and difficult journey, together with the ranking member, Senator 
Hutchison. I recognize that many of my colleagues have a strong 
interest in expanding service at National. I appreciate the work they 
have done. But I do believe that what has been discussed here and will 
be discussed later in conference is a balanced approach. I look forward 
to working with my colleagues in a conference with the House that will 
achieve an appropriate agreement that is acceptable to everybody.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleagues for 
their work on the Reagan National perimeter rule issue.
  Last week, I sat down with several interested colleagues in an effort 
to try to find a path forward on this issue, and the result is the 
modified Ensign amendment before us. I wish to say a few words about 
the intent of the amendment.
  I sympathize with the concerns of my friend from Virginia, Senator 
Warner, who is also a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, and our 
colleague, Senator Webb. While in a somewhat different position in the 
past, I have had similar issues raised concerning my home State of 
Texas with Love Field and DFW Airport, and I recognize the impact of 
dealing with the decision to change the status quo. It is difficult.
  I also recognize the views of western State Senators concerned about 
the few opportunities for their constituents to have direct access to 
Reagan National Airport. There are now only 12 flights a day. That 
really should be expanded, but it needs to be expanded in a way that 
does not have the harmful effects on National and the Virginia 
residents who live in and around the airport.
  With that in mind, I think we have come up with a compromise proposal 
that meets the concerns of the western State colleagues and others, as 
well as addressing the concerns of the Virginia Senators. The modified 
Ensign amendment is a simple solution that allows air carriers with 
existing inside-the-perimeter large hub airport slots into Reagan 
National the ability to convert those slots to any community outside 
the perimeter, with each air carrier being kept at 15 roundtrip 
operations eligible for conversion. By utilizing the conversions, we 
don't add any new flights at all to the airport, but we do give the air 
carriers the opportunity to better utilize their networks. I am hopeful 
we can take that concept and message to the House in the next round of 
the legislative process on this bill.
  I thank Senators Ensign and Kyl, Senators DeMint, Boxer, McCain, 
Rockefeller, Dorgan, and Warner for their work on this very important 
issue. I remain hopeful that the final version of this FAA 
reauthorization bill will include a consensus agreement on this issue 
that allows the opportunity for direct service to our Nation's Capital 
for a number of our communities that are eager for that service. It is 
time for some expansion, but I think we can do it in a way that will 
not impact the quality of life in and around Washington National 
Airport.
  I also wish to take a moment to commend my colleagues who have worked 
so hard on this bill. We are coming to the point when we will pass this 
bill out of the Senate. We have been able to accommodate the amendments 
that have been offered, both relevant to the bill as well as those that 
are outside the purview of the bill. It has been an open process. It 
has been a whole week, but we have been able to make slow progress and 
accommodate the amendments that have been offered, and I think we are 
at a very good place now with everyone's cooperation.
  I mentioned that it has really been a very good experience working 
this bill because we have been able to work out some of the problems 
that are on both sides of the aisle, and I think in a constructive way.
  With the passage of this bill, we will now go to work with the House. 
We are very different from the House in many respects, but in FAA 
reauthorization we are in many more respects very different from the 
House in that they have passed a bill and we are getting ready to pass 
a bill that is very different. So we still have a long way to go on 
this legislation. But I think we can do it. With the same cooperation 
we have seen in the Senate, I hope we can get a bill agreed to that the 
Senate will approve as well as the House.
  I thank Senator Rockefeller and his staff. They have been very 
diligent in this process. As I said, we have worked since 2007 to get 
this bill done. I think we are in a very good position now. Ellen 
Doneski has been great, his chief of staff of the committee; James 
Reid, Gael Sullivan, Rich Swayze, Jim Conneely, and Adam Duffey on 
Senator Rockefeller's staff are to be commended.
  Senator Dorgan, the chairman of the aviation subcommittee, has been 
great. I appreciate all he has done on this bill to keep it moving, to 
work with both Senator Rockefeller and myself and Senator DeMint. I 
appreciate Senator Dorgan's work and his commitment to this. When he 
leaves the Senate at the end of the year, I hope he will have this 
significant FAA reauthorization as one of his achievements he can 
claim. His staffer, Margaret McCarthy, has been also very helpful.
  Senator DeMint is the ranking member of the aviation subcommittee, 
and he, too, has been very constructive in this effort, moving the bill 
forward

[[Page 4495]]

along with his staff and Tom Jones, who has really helped move the ball 
forward on this bill that is right out of their subcommittee.
  On my staff, Jarrod Thompson has been wonderful. He knows this issue 
backward and forward and has worked on many of these aviation 
reauthorizations through the years on the Commerce Committee. I look to 
him for the knowledge he has gained over the years in all facets of 
FAA, including safety, NextGen, and all of the relevant issues that 
come under this subcommittee and this bill. My chief of staff for the 
committee, Ann Begeman, has been solid as a rock, helping to move the 
ball forward, going through the different issues and settling many of 
them. She has been great, as well as Dan Neumann; Patrick Mullane, also 
in my office, who does all of my transportation work; Brian Hendricks, 
the general counsel of the Commerce Committee on our side, the ranking 
general counsel; and Matt Acock, my legislative director, who also is 
going to be leaving in a few weeks. This is something he has worked on 
and he knows about as much as any of us, and he has done a great job as 
well.
  Having said all of that, I thank the distinguished chairman and look 
forward to having a vote in just a few minutes, as soon as we dispose 
of the Ensign amendment and move forward to final passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator what does the amendment 
do?
  Mr. ENSIGN. The amendment allows any carrier which currently has 
slots at DCA to convert flights now serving large hub airports inside 
the perimeter into flights serving any airport outside the perimeter.
  This would mean that more passengers travelling from the West could 
fly into and out of National, avoiding the inconvenience and additional 
expense associated with getting into the city from Dulles.
  Mr. KYL. Does the amendment add any flights to DCA?
  Mr. ENSIGN. The amendment does not reduce the number of flights 
between DCA and small cities within the 1,250-mile perimeter; it does 
not affect the slot regulations at DCA; it does not increase the number 
of allowable flight operations at the airport; and it does not impact 
the small and medium size airports inside the perimeter.
  Rather, the amendment is a reasonable pro-competition solution that 
gives tourists and business travelers from around the nation another 
option for visiting the nation's Capital.
  Mr. KYL. How many flights at DCA are currently exempted from the 
perimeter rule?
  Mr. ENSIGN. There are only a dozen nonstop flights between Ronald 
Reagan National Airport and the entire western United States. To put 
that number in perspective, that is 12 beyond the perimeter flights at 
DCA out of approximately 400 flights daily. The beyond the perimeter 
flights represent just 3 percent of all daily, domestic operations at 
DCA.
  Mr. KYL. Does Dulles need to be protected by the perimeter rule?
  Mr. ENSIGN. No. In 1962, Dulles only served approximately 52,000 
passengers. Today, however, Dulles is thriving. In 2009, the airport 
served approximately 23 million passengers. According to the 
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, ``Dulles has emerged as one 
of the fastest growing airports in the world and a major East Coast 
gateway for domestic and international travelers as well as cargo 
activities.''
  Mr. KYL. Is there any legislative language to support amending the 
DCA perimeter rule?
  Mr. ENSIGN. Yes, the Wright amendment of 1979 was a Federal law 
restricting flights at Dallas' Love Field Airport. It originally 
limited most nonstop flights from Love Field to destinations within 
Texas and neighboring States. In 2006, Congress passed the Wright 
Amendment Reform Act, which issued a full repeal of the Love Field 
perimeter rule with conditions. Lifting the restrictions at Love Field 
gave the traveling public more flight options, cut prices, and made 
traveling more efficient.
  Mr. KYL. How does the Ensign amendment affect service to small and 
medium hub airports inside the perimeter?
  Mr. ENSIGN. The slot conversion provision ensures that service to 
small and medium hub airports within the perimeter would not be 
affected. There is no restriction, however, on converting a flight that 
currently serves a large hub airport within the perimeter to a small or 
medium hub airport beyond the perimeter. So, presumably the Ensign 
amendment could expand service to small and medium hub airports beyond 
the perimeter.
  Mr. KYL. Does the Ensign amendment increase slot allocations at DCA?
  Mr. ENSIGN. No. The number of flights currently serving DCA remains 
the same. Residents around the airport will not hear an increase in 
noise from takeoffs and landings and will not see larger planes 
operating at DCA. The only change is that a few of the planes would 
have a different destination.
  Mr. KYL. Do you intend to withdraw your amendment?
  Mr. ENSIGN. Yes, because Senator Dorgan and our other colleagues have 
agreed to address the DCA perimeter rule as the FAA reauthorization 
process moves forward.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong concerns 
over efforts to expand service at Washington-Reagan National Airport--
National. I would first like to remind my colleagues that this Congress 
passed legislation in 1986 to create the Metropolitan Washington 
Airports Authority so that a professional group of aviation experts 
would manage both National and Dulles airports. The Airports Authority 
has done its job well: Dulles has blossomed as an international gateway 
to the region and National remains an efficiently run airport.
  I recognize the value of National Airport and the critical role it 
plays in serving our Nation's Capital. It is a key component of the 
transportation system in this region and it provides excellent access 
to the rest of the country for my colleagues.
  At the same time, the citizens of my State are the ones who are most 
directly affected by National's operations, and we must take a balanced 
approach in considering any changes at the airport. My constituents are 
the ones who have to deal with the consequences of any decision--
additional aircraft noise, growing traffic congestion, and airport 
emissions that will affect them on a daily basis.
  I appreciate that some of my colleagues want direct service from 
National to destinations in their State, but we must be even-handed in 
moving forward on this issue. We must avoid making wholesale changes 
that would have an impact on the important economic balance between 
National, Dulles and BWI. The airport authorities that manage these 
airports, and the airlines that fly to them, have made long-term 
investment decisions based on the current rules. Dramatic changes to 
the rules would have a negative financial and economic impact on those 
airports and the communities that depend on them for economic growth.
  In addition, any new capacity must be allowed through a fair process 
that does not favor any one airline or class of airlines. The limited 
new capacity needs to be allocated in an open and transparent process 
that benefits the most potential passengers, promotes competition and 
does not tip the scales for any airline or class of airlines.
  I believe strongly that the rules currently in place at National 
Airport serve my state and our region well. I also recognize and 
respect the interests of the sponsors of the Ensign amendment and will 
work with Chairman Rockefeller and Ranking Member Hutchison to try to 
address them in conference.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Expanding air service to metropolitan airports is 
always a contentious issue and I believe it is important that we give 
due consideration to local interests when considering the addition of 
slots at National Airport. Senators Warner and Webb have significant 
reservations about moving forward on any changes to existing policy at 
this time, and I have worked to address these concerns.

[[Page 4496]]

  I believe the agreement reached between Senators Dorgan, Warner, 
Hutchison, Kyl, Ensign and DeMint is a reasonable way forward. It will 
allow us to balance the desire for additional slots against the 
opposition from local residents.
  Pursuing a more abrupt policy--change such as eliminating the 
perimeter rule altogether--has significant implications for 
competition, small community air service, and congestion and delay.
  Going forward we need to make sure that there are not unintended 
consequences from such changes, and that service to small communities 
is preserved. Service to small communities is critical to me, and I 
cannot support any proposal that will adversely affect such service.
  I also want to make the Federal Government's role in this process 
clear. Air carriers treat airport slots like it is their own property--
it is not--it is a privilege. The air transportation system is operated 
for the benefit of the public interest--not the private interest. Too 
often the air carriers abuse the rights they have been granted--they 
schedule too many flights at congested airports and the result is 
gridlock. This is part of the reason why there is a cap on slots at 
National.
  The air transportation network requires that capacity be managed 
carefully so the entire system functions efficiently. It is the 
responsibility of the Federal Government to make sure it operates well, 
and I take this role seriously. If the air carriers cannot manage their 
slots in an effective manner the Federal Government will have to step 
in and do it for them.
  Crafting a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the FAA has been a long and 
difficult journey. I recognize many of my colleagues have a strong 
interest in expanding service at National. I appreciate the work they 
have done to reach a compromise on this issue.
  It is a balanced approach and I look forward to working with my 
colleagues in conference with the House that will achieve an 
appropriate agreement that is acceptable to everyone.
  Mr. DORGAN. The issue of slots and the perimeter rule at Reagan 
National Airport has a long and very complicated history. Many of my 
colleagues have interests on both sides of this debate. I have been 
pleased to work closely with Senator Warner, a member of the Aviation 
Subcommittee that I chair, on this matter, which has the most immediate 
impact on his constituents in Virginia. I can also sympathize with my 
colleagues from Western States who would like the opportunity for their 
constituents to be able to access National Airport.
  The FAA reauthorization bill that was approved by the Senate Commerce 
Committee and is before the Senate today does not make any changes at 
National Airport. However, the House FAA reauthorization bill does 
increase the number of slots at National Airport. So we know that this 
is an issue that will need to be addressed in conference with the House 
and that the end result will be some change to the status quo.
  But after spending more than 5 days on this FAA reauthorization bill 
in the Senate, I fear that a protracted debate on this contentious 
issue will derail the good bipartisan bill we are so close to passing. 
A number of my colleagues have filed amendments on slots and the 
perimeter rule. We understand that the Senate position needs to address 
access for citizens outside the current perimeter.
  We cannot forget that this bill is about the safety and modernization 
of our nation's aviation system. This legislation takes important 
strides to bring our air traffic control system into the 21st century 
with the Next Generation Air Transportation System, NextGen. It 
includes provisions to ensure one high level of safety across the 
entire industry. After 11 extensions instead of a reauthorization bill 
that addresses these issues, it is time for the Senate to pass this 
legislation.
  Mr. DeMINT. The current perimeter rule at Ronald Reagan Washington 
National Airport stands as an artificial and antiquated barrier to 
competition and an impediment to choice. I am strongly supportive of 
this amendment and others that provide travelers with more choices in 
air travel.
  The Ensign amendment provides a needed improvement by allowing 
carriers traveling out of DCA to respond to market demands and provide 
their customers with the air travel choices they demand most, instead 
of being confined by an antiquated statutory restriction. I am 
optimistic that as this bill moves forward that we can keep customer 
choice at the forefront and continue to open the skies to competition.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleagues 
for their work on the Reagan National perimeter rule issue.
  Last week, I sat down with several interested colleagues in an effort 
to try and find a path forward on this issue. As a result, we have the 
modified Ensign amendment before us.
  I would like to say a few words about the intent of that amendment. I 
am one who is sympathetic to the concerns of from my friend from 
Virginia, Senator Warner, who also serves as a member of the Senate 
Commerce Committee. While in a somewhat different position, in the 
past, I have had similar issues raised concerning my home State of 
Texas, and I recognize well that the impacts of dealing with a decision 
to change the status quo are enormously difficult.
  With that in mind, I believe we have come up with a compromise 
proposal that meets the concerns of my Western State colleagues and 
others and tries to address, to the extent possible, my friend from 
Virginia's concerns.
  The modified Ensign amendment is a simple solution to a complex 
problem. The amendment would allow any air carrier with existing 
``inside'' the perimeter large hub airport slots into Reagan National 
the ability to ``convert'' those slots to any community ``outside'' the 
perimeter, with each air carrier being capped at 15 round trip 
operations eligible for conversion.
  By utilizing the idea of ``conversions,'' we don't add any new 
flights to the airport, but we do give the air carriers the opportunity 
to better utilize their networks. I am hopeful we can take that concept 
and message to the House in the next round of the legislative process 
on this bill.
  I thank Senators Ensign and Kyl, as well as Senators DeMint, Boxer, 
McCain, Rockefeller, Dorgan, and Warner for their work on this very 
important issue. I remain hopeful that the final version of this FAA 
reauthorization bill will include a consensus agreement on this issue, 
and allow the opportunity for direct service to our Nation's Capitol 
for a number of communities that are eager for such service.


               Amendment No. 3476, as Modified Withdrawn

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment 
No. 3476, as modified, be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized 
following the vote on the legislation to speak briefly about the FAA 
reauthorization.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from West Virginia.


                           Amendment No. 3527

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, notwithstanding the order of March 
19, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 3527 not be withdrawn; 
that it be considered when the managers' package is presented.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


Amendments Nos. 3469, 3488, 3492, 3494, 3511, 3479, as Modified; 3483, 
 as Modified; 3506, as Modified; 3514, as Modified; 3520, as Modified; 
3538, as Modified; 3543, 3527, as Modified; 3541, as Modified; 3539, as 
        Modified; 3532, 3525, as Modified; and 3534, as Modified

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, pursuant to the order of March 19 
regarding a managers' package of amendments, I send to the desk the 
managers' package, with the other provisions of the order with respect 
to the amendments remaining in effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 4497]]

  The managers' amendment at the desk is agreed to, and the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table.
  The amendments are as follows:


                           Amendment No. 3469

 (Purpose: To require the Secretary of the Interior to convey to Clark 
   County, Nevada, certain public land for the development of flood 
mitigation infrastructure for the Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport 
                        in the State of Nevada)

       At the end of title VII, add the following:

     SEC. 7__. LAND CONVEYANCE FOR SOUTHERN NEVADA SUPPLEMENTAL 
                   AIRPORT.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) County.--The term ``County'' means Clark County, 
     Nevada.
       (2) Public land.--The term ``public land'' means the land 
     located at--
       (A) sec. 23 and sec. 26, T. 26 S., R. 59 E., Mount Diablo 
     Meridian;
       (B) the NE \1/4\ and the N \1/2\ of the SE \1/4\ of sec. 6, 
     T. 25 S., R. 59 E., Mount Diablo Meridian, together with the 
     SE \1/4\ of sec. 31, T. 24 S., R. 59 E., Mount Diablo 
     Meridian; and
       (C) sec. 8, T. 26 S., R. 60 E., Mount Diablo Meridian.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (b) Land Conveyance.--
       (1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date 
     described in paragraph (2), subject to valid existing rights, 
     and notwithstanding the land use planning requirements of 
     sections 202 and 203 of the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1712, 1713), the Secretary 
     shall convey to the County, without consideration, all right, 
     title, and interest of the United States in and to the public 
     land.
       (2) Date on which conveyance may be made.--The Secretary 
     shall not make the conveyance described in paragraph (1) 
     until the later of the date on which the Administrator of the 
     Federal Aviation Administration has--
       (A) approved an airport layout plan for an airport to be 
     located in the Ivanpah Valley; and
       (B) with respect to the construction and operation of an 
     airport on the site conveyed to the County pursuant to 
     section 2(a) of the Ivanpah Valley Airport Public Lands 
     Transfer Act (Public Law 106-362; 114 Stat. 1404), issued a 
     record of decision after the preparation of an environmental 
     impact statement or similar analysis required under the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
     seq.).
       (3) Withdrawal.--Subject to valid existing rights, the 
     public land to be conveyed under paragraph (1) is withdrawn 
     from--
       (A) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and
       (B) operation of the mineral leasing and geothermal leasing 
     laws.
       (4) Use.--The public land conveyed under paragraph (1) 
     shall be used for the development of flood mitigation 
     infrastructure for the Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport.


                           amendment no. 3488

      (Purpose: To allow aircraft owners and operators to accept 
          reimbursement for voluntary medical transportation)

     SEC. ------. CLARIFICATION OF REQUIREMENTS FOR VOLUNTEER 
                   PILOTS OPERATING CHARITABLE MEDICAL FLIGHTS.

       In administering part 61.113(c) of title 14, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, the Administrator of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration shall allow an aircraft owner or 
     aircraft operator who has volunteered to provide 
     transportation for an individual or individuals for medical 
     purposes to accept reimbursement to cover all or part of the 
     fuel costs associated with the operation from a volunteer 
     pilot organization.


                           Amendment No. 3492

 (Purpose: To provide a limited exemption from compliance with FAA and 
 PHMSA standards for the air transportation within Alaska of cylinders 
 of compressed oxygen, nitrous oxide, or other oxidizing gases without 
                regard to the end use of the cylinders)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ------. CYLINDERS OF COMPRESSED OXYGEN, NITROUS OXIDE, 
                   OR OTHER OXIDIZING GASES.

       (a) In General.--The transportation within Alaska of 
     cylinders of compressed oxygen, nitrous oxide, or other 
     oxidizing gases aboard aircraft shall be exempt from 
     compliance with the requirements, under sections 
     173.302(f)(3) and (f)(4) and 173.304(f)(3) and (f)(4) of the 
     Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration's 
     regulations (49 CFR 173.302(f)(3) and (f)(4) and 
     173.304(f)(3) and (f)(4)), that oxidizing gases transported 
     aboard aircraft be enclosed in outer packaging capable of 
     passing the flame penetration and resistance test and the 
     thermal resistance test, without regard to the end use of the 
     cylinders, if--
       (1) there is no other practical means of transportation for 
     transporting the cylinders to their destination and 
     transportation by ground or vessel is unavailable; and
       (2) the transportation meets the requirements of subsection 
     (b).
       (b) Exemption Requirements.--Subsection (a) shall not apply 
     to the transportation of cylinders of compressed oxygen, 
     nitrous oxide, or other oxidizing gases aboard aircraft 
     unless the following requirements are met:
       (1) Packaging.--
       (A) Smaller cylinders.--Each cylinder with a capacity of 
     not more than 116 cubic feet shall be--
       (i) fully covered with a fire or flame resistant blanket 
     that is secured in place; and
       (ii) placed in a rigid outer packaging or an ATA 300 
     Category 1 shipping container.
       (B) Larger cylinders.--Each cylinder with a capacity of 
     more than 116 cubic feet but not more than 281 cubic feet 
     shall be--
       (i) secured within a frame;
       (ii) fully covered with a fire or flame resistant blanket 
     that is secured in place; and
       (iii) fitted with a securely attached metal cap of 
     sufficient strength to protect the valve from damage during 
     transportation.
       (2) Operational controls.--
       (A) Storage; access to fire extinguishers.--Unless the 
     cylinders are stored in a Class C cargo compartment or its 
     equivalent on the aircraft, crew members shall have access to 
     the cylinders and at least 2 fire extinguishers shall be 
     readily available for use by the crew members.
       (B) Shipment with other hazardous materials.--The cylinders 
     may not be transported in the same aircraft with other 
     hazardous materials other than Division 2.2 materials with no 
     subsidiary risk, Class 9 materials, and ORM-D materials.
       (3) Aircraft requirements.--
       (A) Aircraft type.--The transportation shall be provided 
     only aboard a passenger-carrying aircraft or a cargo 
     aircraft.
       (B) Passenger-carrying aircraft.--
       (i) Smaller cylinders only.--A cylinder with a capacity of 
     more than 116 cubic feet may not be transported aboard a 
     passenger-carrying aircraft.
       (ii) Maximum number.--Unless transported in a Class C cargo 
     compartment or its equivalent, no more than 6 cylinders in 
     each cargo compartment may be transported aboard a passenger-
     carrying aircraft.
       (C) Cargo aircraft.--A cylinder may not be transported 
     aboard a cargo aircraft unless it is transported in a Class B 
     cargo compartment or a Class C cargo compartment or its 
     equivalent.
       (c) Definitions.--Terms used in this section shall have the 
     meaning given those terms in parts 106, 107, and 171 through 
     180 of the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety 
     Administration's regulations (49 CFR parts 106, 107, and 171-
     180).


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3494

    (Purpose: To correct an error related to Amtrak security in the 
        enrollment of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010)

       At the end of title VII, add the following:

     SEC. 723. TECHNICAL CORRECTION.

       Section 159(b)(2)(C) of title I of division A of the 
     Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, is amended by striking 
     clauses (i) and (ii) and inserting the following:
       ``(i) requiring inspections of any container containing a 
     firearm or ammunition; and
       ``(ii) the temporary suspension of firearm carriage service 
     if credible intelligence information indicates a threat 
     related to the national rail system or specific routes or 
     trains.''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3511

 (Purpose: To require a semiannual report on the status of the Greener 
                             Skies project)

       On page 98, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:

     SEC. 325. SEMIANNUAL REPORT ON STATUS OF GREENER SKIES 
                   PROJECT.

       (a) Initial Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit 
     to Congress a report on the strategy of the Administrator for 
     implementing, on an accelerated basis, the NextGen 
     operational capabilities produced by the Greener Skies 
     project, as recommended in the final report of the RTCA 
     NextGen Mid-Term Implementation Task Force that was issued on 
     September 9, 2009.
       (b) Subsequent Reports.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     Administrator submits to Congress the report required by 
     subsection (a) and not less frequently than once every 180 
     days thereafter until September 30, 2011, the Administrator 
     shall submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate and to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives a report on the progress of the Administrator 
     in carrying out the strategy described in the report 
     submitted under subsection (a).
       (2) Contents.--Each report submitted under paragraph (1) 
     shall include the following:
       (A) A timeline for full implementation of the strategy 
     described in the report submitted under subsection (a).
       (B) A description of the progress made in carrying out such 
     strategy.
       (C) A description of the challenges, if any, encountered by 
     the Administrator in carrying out such strategy.

[[Page 4498]]




                    Amendment No. 3479, as modified

  (Purpose: To allow for the simultaneous inclusion of more than one 
       General Aviation airport in the Military Airport Program)

       On page 282, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

     SEC. 219. DESIGNATION OF FORMER MILITARY AIRPORTS.

       Section 47118(g) is amended by striking ``one'' and 
     inserting ``three'' in its place.


                    amendment no. 3483, as modified

       At the end of title II, add the following:

     SEC. 2 AIRPORT SUSTAINABILITY PLANNING WORKING GROUP.

       (a) In General.--The Administrator shall establish an 
     airport sustainability working group to assist the 
     Administrator with issues pertaining to airport 
     sustainability practices.
       (b) Membership.--The Working Group shall be comprised of 
     not more than 15 members including.--
       (1) the Administrator
       (2) 5 member organizations representing aviation interests 
     including: (A) an organization representing airport 
     operators; (B) an organization representing airport 
     employees; (C) an organization representing air carriers; (D) 
     an organization representing airport development and 
     operations experts; (E) a labor organization representing 
     aviation employees.
       (3) 9 airport chief executive officers which shall include: 
     (A) at least one from each of the FAA Regions; (B) at least 1 
     large hub; (C) at least 1 medium hub; (D) at least 1 small 
     hub; (E) at least 1 non hub; (E) at least 1 general aviation 
     airport.
       (c) Functions.--
       (1) develop consensus-based best practices and metrics for 
     the sustainable design, construction, planning, maintenance, 
     and operation of an airport that comply with the guidelines 
     prescribed by the Administrator;
       (2) develop standards for a consensus-based rating system 
     based on the aforementioned best practices, metrics, and 
     ratings; and
       (3) develop standards for a voluntary ratings process, 
     based on the aforementioned best practices, metrics, and 
     ratings
       (4) examine and submit recommendations for the industry's 
     next steps with regard to sustainability
       (d) Determination.--The Administrator shall provide 
     assurance that the best practices developed by the working 
     group under paragraph (a) are not in conflict with any 
     federal aviation or federal, state or local environmental 
     regulation.
       (e) Unpaid Position.--Working Group members shall serve at 
     their own expense and receive no salary, reimbursement of 
     travel expenses, or other compensation from the Federal 
     Government.
       (f) Nonapplicability of FACA.--The Federal Advisory 
     Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the Working 
     Group under this section.
       (g) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of 
     enactment the Working Group shall submit a report to the 
     Administrator containing the best practices and standards 
     contained in paragraph (c). After receiving the report, the 
     Administrator may publish such best practices in order to 
     disseminate the information to support the sustainable 
     design, construction, planning, maintenance, and operation of 
     airports.
       (h) No funds may be authorized to carry out this provision.


                    amendment no. 3506, as modified

 (Purpose: To ensure that all consumers are able to easily and fairly 
    compare airfares and other costs applicable to tickets for air 
             transportation, including all taxes and fees)

       At the end of subtitle A of title IV, add the following:

     SEC. 407. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE SALE 
                   OF AIRLINE TICKETS.

       (a) In General.--The Office of Aviation Consumer Protection 
     and Enforcement of the Department of Transportation shall 
     establish rules to ensure that all consumers are able to 
     easily and fairly compare airfares and charges paid when 
     purchasing tickets for air transportation, including all 
     taxes and fees.
       (b) Notice of Taxes and Fees Applicable to Tickets for Air 
     Transportation.--Section 41712, as amended by this Act, is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Notice of Taxes and Fees Applicable to Tickets for 
     Air Transportation.--
       ``(1) In general.--It shall be an unfair or deceptive 
     practice under subsection (a) for an air carrier, foreign air 
     carrier, or ticket agent to sell a ticket for air 
     transportation on the Internet unless the air carrier, 
     foreign air carrier, or ticket agent, as the case may be--
       ``(A) displays information with respect to the taxes and 
     fees described in paragraph (2), including the amount and a 
     description of each such tax or fee, in reasonable proximity 
     to the price listed for the ticket; and
       ``(B) provides to the purchaser of the ticket information 
     with respect to the taxes and fees described in paragraph 
     (2), including the amount and a description of each such tax 
     or fee, before requiring the purchaser to provide any 
     personal information, including the name, address, phone 
     number, e-mail address, or credit card information of the 
     purchaser.
       ``(2) Taxes and fees described.--The taxes and fees 
     described in this paragraph are all taxes, fees, and charges 
     applicable to a ticket for air transportation, consisting 
     of--
       ``(A) all taxes, fees, charges, and surcharges included in 
     the price paid by a purchaser for the ticket, including fuel 
     surcharges and surcharges relating to peak or holiday travel; 
     and
       ``(B) any fees for baggage, seating assignments; and
         ``(C) operational services that are charged when the 
     ticket is purchased.''
       (c) Regulations.--The Secretary of Transportation, in 
     consultation with the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration, shall prescribe such regulations as may be 
     necessary to carry out subsection (d) of section 41712 of 
     title 49, United States Code, as added by subsection (b) of 
     this section.


                    amendment no. 3514, as modified

  (Purpose; To include the modernization, renovation, and repairs of 
    buildings to meet the criteria for being high-performance green 
                   buildings as airport development)

       At the end of title II, add the following:

     SEC. 219. INCLUSION OF MEASURES TO IMPROVE THE EFFICIENCY OF 
                   AIRPORT BUILDINGS IN AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT 
                   PROJECTS.

       Section 47101(a) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (12), by striking ``; and'' and inserting 
     a semicolon;
       (2) in paragraph (13), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(14) that the airport improvement program should be 
     administered to allow measures to improve the efficiency of 
     airport buildings to be included in airport improvement 
     projects, such as measures designed to meet one or more of 
     the criteria for being a high-performance green building set 
     forth in section 401(13) of the Energy Independence and 
     Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17061(13)), if any 
     significant increase in upfront project costs from any such 
     measure is justified by expected savings over the lifecycle 
     of the project.''.


                    amendment no. 3520, as modified

(Purpose: To develop a monitoring system for flight service specialist 
   staffing and training under service contracts for flight service 
                               stations)

       On page 246, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       (d) Alaska Flight Service Stations.--Not later than 180 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Administrator, in conjunction with flight service station 
     personnel, shall submit a report to Congress on the future of 
     flight service stations in Alaska, which includes--
       (1) an analysis of the number of flight service specialists 
     needed, the training needed by such personnel, and the need 
     for a formal training and hiring program for such personnel;
       (2) a schedule for necessary inspection, upgrades, and 
     modernization of stations and equipment; and
       (3) a description of the interaction between flight service 
     stations operated by the Administration and flight service 
     stations operated by contractors.


                    amendment no. 3538, as modified

 (Purpose: To conduct audits of certain small airports to analyze the 
 accrual of annual passenger enplanements and to modify the method for 
       apportioning amounts to airports for airport improvements)

       On page 10, after the matter following line 5, insert the 
     following:
       (c) Passenger Enplanement Report.--
       (1) In General.--The Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration shall prepare a report on every airport in the 
     United States that reported between 10,000 and 15,000 
     passenger enplanements during each of the 2 most recent years 
     for which such data is available.
       (2) Report Objectives.--In carrying out the report under 
     paragraph (1), the Administrator shall document the methods 
     used by each subject airport to reach the 10,000 passenger 
     enplanement threshold, including whether airports subsidize 
     commercial flights to reach such threshold.
       (3) Review.--The Inspector General of the Department of 
     Transportation shall review the process of the Administrator 
     in developing the report under paragraph (1).
       (4) Report--The Administrator shall submit the report 
     prepared under paragraph (1) to Congress and the Secretary of 
     Transportation.


                           Amendment No. 3543

  (Purpose: To authorize the FAA to provide financial assistance for 
                     NextGen equipage of aircraft)

       At the appropriate place in title III, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. ------. FINANCIAL INCENTIVES FOR NEXTGEN EQUIPAGE.

       (a) In General.--The Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration may enter into agreements to fund the costs of 
     equipping aircraft with communications, surveillance, 
     navigation, and other avionics to enable NextGen air traffic 
     control capabilities.

[[Page 4499]]

       (b) Funding Instrument.--The Administrator may make grants 
     or other instruments authorized under section 106(l)(6) of 
     title 49, United States Code, to carry out subsection (a).


                    amendment No. 3527, as modified

       On page 84, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:

     SEC. 319. REPORT ON FUNDING FOR NEXTGEN TECHNOLOGY.

       Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration shall submit to Congress a report that 
     contains--
       (1) a financing proposal that--
       (A) uses innovative methods to fully fund the development 
     and implementation of technology for the Next Generation Air 
     Transportation System in a manner that does not increase the 
     Federal deficit; and
       (B) takes into consideration opportunities for involvement 
     by public-private partnerships; and
       (C) recommends creative financing proposals other than user 
     fees or higher taxes and
       (2) recommendations with respect to how the Administrator 
     and Congress can provide operational benefits, such as 
     benefits relating to preferred airspace, routings, or runway 
     access, for all aircraft, including air carriers and general 
     aviation, that equip their aircraft with technology necessary 
     for the operation of the Next Generation Air Transportation 
     System before the date by which the Administrator requires 
     the use of such technology.


                    amendment no. 3541, as modified

       At the end of title V, insert the following:

     SEC. 564. STUDY OF AIR QUALITY IN AIRCRAFT CABINS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration shall initiate a study of air quality 
     in aircraft cabins to--
       (1) assess bleed air quality on the full range of 
     commercial aircraft operating in the United States;
       (2) identify oil-based contaminants, hydraulic fluid 
     toxins, and other air toxins that appear in cabin air and 
     measure the quantity and prevalence, or absence of those 
     toxins through a comprehensive sampling program;
       (3) determine the specific amount and duration of toxic 
     fumes present in aircraft cabins that constitutes a health 
     risk to passengers;
       (4) develop a systematic reporting standard for smoke and 
     fume events in aircraft cabins;
       (5) identify the potential health risks to individuals 
     exposed to toxic fumes during flight;
       (6) determine the extent to which the installation of 
     sensors and air filters on commercial aircraft would provide 
     a public health benefit; and
       (b) Authority To Monitor Air in Aircraft Cabins.--For 
     purposes of conducting the study required by subsection (a), 
     the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration 
     shall require domestic air carriers to allow air quality 
     monitoring on their aircraft in a manner that imposes no 
     significant costs on the carrier and does not interfere with 
     the normal operation of the aircraft.


                    Amendment No. 3539, as modified

(Purpose: To apportion amounts to airports for airport improvements in 
 proportion to the amounts of air traffic at the airports and to limit 
aggregate apportionments to the aggregate amount apportioned for fiscal 
                               year 2009)

       At the end of Title II, add the following:

     SEC. __. STUDY ON APPORTIONING AMOUNTS FOR AIRPORT 
                   IMPROVEMENT IN PROPORTION TO AMOUNTS OF AIR 
                   TRAFFIC.

       (a) Study and Report Required.--Not later than 180 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall--
       (1) complete a study on the feasibility and advisability of 
     apportioning amounts under section 47114(c)(1) of title 49, 
     United States Code, to the sponsor of each primary airport 
     for each fiscal year an amount that bears the same ratio to 
     the amount subject to the apportionment for fiscal year 2009 
     as the number of passenger boardings at the airport during 
     the prior calendar year bears to the aggregate of all 
     passenger boardings at all primary airports during that 
     calendar year; and
       (2) submit to Congress a report on the study completed 
     under paragraph (1).
       (b) Report Contents.--The report required by subsection 
     (a)(2) shall include the following:
       (1) A description of the study carried out under 
     subsection. (a)(1).
       (2) The findings of the Administrator with respect to such 
     study.
       (3) A list of each sponsor of a primary airport that 
     received an amount under section 47114(c)(1) of title 49, 
     United States Code, in 2009.
       (4) For each sponsor listed in accordance with paragraph 
     (3), the following:
       (A) The amount such sponsor received, if any, in 2005, 
     2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 under such section 47114(c)(1).
       (B) An explanation of how the amount awarded to such 
     sponsor was determined.
       (C) The average number of air passenger flights serviced 
     each month at the airport of such sponsor in 2009.
       (D) The number of enplanements for air passenger 
     transportation at such airport in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 
     2009.


                           amendment no. 3532

 (Purpose: To set the fee to be paid by commercial air tour operators 
that conduct commercial air tour operations over a national park at an 
 amount sufficient to offset all of the costs incurred by the Federal 
  Government to develop air tour management plans for national parks)

       On page 250, strike line 12 and all that follows through 
     page 251, line 18, and insert the following:
       (e) Collection of Fees From Air Tour Operations.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of the Interior shall assess 
     a fee in an amount determined by the Secretary under 
     paragraph (2) on a commercial air tour operator conducting 
     commercial air tour operations over a national park.
       (2) Amount of fee.--In determining the amount of the fee 
     assessed under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall collect 
     sufficient revenue, in the aggregate, to pay for the expenses 
     incurred by the Federal Government to develop air tour 
     management plans for national parks.
       (3) Effect of failure to pay fee.--The Administrator of the 
     Federal Aviation Administration shall revoke the operating 
     authority of a commercial air tour operator conducting 
     commercial air tour operations over any national park, 
     including the Grand Canyon National Park, that has not paid 
     the fee assessed by the Secretary under paragraph (1) by the 
     date that is 180 days after the date on which the Secretary 
     determines the fee shall be paid.
       (f) Funding for Air Tour Management Plans.--The Secretary 
     of the Interior shall use the amounts collected under 
     subsection (e) to develop air tour management plans under 
     section 40128(b) of title 49, United States Code, for the 
     national parks the Secretary determines would most benefit 
     from such a plan.


                    Amendment No. 3525, as modified

       At the end of title VII, add the following:

     SEC. 723. PLAN FOR FLYING SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS ON 
                   COMMERCIAL FLIGHTS.

       (a) Plan Development.--Not later than 270 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Transportation and the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation 
     with interested representatives of the aviation industry and 
     other relevant agencies, shall develop a plan and process to 
     allow Federal agencies to fly scientific instruments on 
     commercial flights with airlines who volunteer, for the 
     purpose of taking measurements to improve weather 
     forecasting.


                    Amendment No. 3534, as modified

   (Purpose: To amend section 40128 of title 49, United States Code, 
        relating to air tour management plans at national parks)

       On page 246, strike lines 16 through 18 and insert the 
     following:
       (D) in subsection (b)--
       (i) in paragraph (1)--

       (I) in subparagraph (A)--

       (aa) by striking ``, in cooperation with'' and inserting 
     ``and''; and
       (bb) by striking ``The air tour'' and all that follows; and

       (II) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C);
       (III) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:

       ``(B) Process and approval.--The Federal Aviation 
     Administration has sole authority to control airspace over 
     the United States. The National Park Service has the sole 
     responsibility for conserving the scenery and natural 
     resources in National Parks and providing for the enjoyment 
     of the National Parks unimpaired for future generations. Each 
     air tour management plan shall be--
       ``(i) developed through a public process that complies with 
     paragraph (4); and
       ``(ii) approved by the Administrator and the Director.''; 
     and

       (IV) by adding at the end the following:

       ``(D) Exception.--An application to begin commercial air 
     tour operations at Crater Lake National Park may be denied 
     without the establishment of an air tour management plan by 
     the Director of the National Park Service if the Director 
     determines that such operations would unacceptably impact 
     park resources or visitor experiences.''; and
       (ii) in paragraph (4)(C), by striking ``National Park 
     Service'' and inserting ``Department of the Interior''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment in the nature of a substitute, 
as amended, is agreed to, and the motion to reconsider is considered 
made and laid upon the table.
  The clerk will read the bill for the third time.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.

[[Page 4500]]

  The bill having been read the third time, the question is on passage 
of the bill, as amended.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from New 
Mexico, (Mr. Udall) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New 
Mexico, (Mr. Udall) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. Kyl. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Utah (Mr. Benett), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), 
the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), and the Senator from Georgia 
(Mr. Isakson).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 61 Leg.]

                                YEAS--93

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     LeMieux
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bennett
     Byrd
     DeMint
     Isakson
     Sanders
     Udall (NM)
     Wicker
  The bill (H.R. 1586), as amended, was passed, as follows:
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The title amendment at the desk is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3555) was agreed to, as follows:

       Amend the title so as to read: ``An Act to modernize the 
     air traffic control system, improve the safety, reliability, 
     and availability of transportation by air in the United 
     States, provide for modernization of the air traffic control 
     system, reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration, and 
     for other purposes.''

  The Senator from West Virginia.


               Corrected Amendment No. 3479, As Modified

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding the adoption of amendment No. 3479, as modified, it be 
corrected to reflect that the instruction line was modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3479), as modified, is as follows:

  (Purpose: To allow for the simultaneous inclusion of more than one 
       General Aviation airport in the Military Airport Program)

       At the end of title II, insert the following:

     SEC. 219. DESIGNATION OF FORMER MILITARY AIRPORTS.

       Section 47118(g) is amended by striking ``one'' and 
     inserting ``three'' in its place.

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, the vote just taken was unanimous, which 
is interesting. We were able to work on this for 5 days here on the 
floor of the Senate. But I also want to say we always talk about good 
staff work. We do have an exceptionally fine staff at the Commerce 
Committee and I want to say that Senator Rockefeller's work and Senator 
Hutchison's work was so important in order to move us in this direction 
to get this completed.
  I think they would agree as well that the staff director Ellen 
Doneski, deputy staff director James Reid, Gael Sullivan, Rich Swayze 
on the Aviation Subcommittee staff, and I know Senator Hutchison's 
staff, Ann Begeman, staff director, Jarrod Thompson, and Tom Jones for 
Senator DeMint, is a fine staff.
  The reason I wanted to say a word about this piece of legislation--I 
just got off an airplane myself, just came back from North Dakota. But 
I wanted to say that this piece of legislation, while not getting the 
attention that some other pieces of legislation are getting these days, 
notably health care, among others, is a very important piece of 
legislation, and it has some very important critical changes that I 
think will be beneficial and will save lives. I wanted to mention a 
couple of them.
  No. 1, for the irritants that exist in air travel these days, and 
there are a lot of them, this includes the Passenger Bill of Rights--a 
lot of people probably do not know that, but just common sense, sound 
thinking about what are the rights of passengers here.
  We worked with the airlines and the passenger groups and so on. This 
includes the Passenger Bill of Rights, the 3-hour limit. If you are on 
an airline some place and they want to have you sit on the end of a 
runway or on the tarmac for 5 or 6 hours, it is not going to happen, 
not when this legislation passes. We have a 3-hour limitation. That is 
just the start of it. But the Passenger Bill of Rights is important.
  Most important to me are the safety issues. I held a number of 
hearings on safety in our subcommittee, and I appreciate very much the 
work of Senator Rockefeller. He was very interested in making sure that 
we pursue these safety issues in order that they can become a part of 
the FAA reauthorization bill.
  A significant part of this bill is modernization of the air traffic 
control system. But this bill also is about aviation safety, and so I 
want to mention the safety provisions. We held a number of hearings to 
try to understand what could we learn from the tragedy that occurred at 
the Colgan crash in Buffalo, NY. We learned a lot, and a lot of things 
that were frankly, to me, very troubling. We have addressed a number of 
those provisions in this legislation.
  Pilot training and experience. Frankly, were it not for the families 
of the victims of the Colgan crash who have witnessed here at every 
opportunity, in every circumstance, where there has been a hearing or 
something in which aviation safety was discussed, they were here 
pushing and prodding and asking the right questions.
  We do advance the interests of aviation training and experience in 
this legislation. The FAA must revisit flight and duty-time limitations 
to address pilot fatigue in this legislation.
  We do not yet and have not addressed the commuting issue which I 
think is an issue, but we have not yet addressed that, and could not in 
this bill, but that will continue to be an issue we will work on. We 
have an FAA-required report to the Congress now, annually every year, 
of all of the safety recommendations from the NTSB, and which have been 
followed and which have not.
  This issue of the most-wanted list of safety recommendations, which 
in some cases has been on the list for 10 and 15 years, it is 
unforgivable that that has happened. We are not going to let that 
happen again.
  Obviously, we prohibit the use of wireless communications devices and 
laptop computers in the cockpit that are not used for the purpose of 
the operation of the airplane. When I say obviously, an airplane that 
overflies its destination with a couple of pilots working on laptops, 
overflying the destination by 150 miles or so, does not make much sense 
to me that we do not have a prohibition in the FAA manuals to prohibit 
in every circumstance the use of these kinds of personal wireless 
communications devices for personal use in the cockpit during flight.
  We enhance safety oversight of foreign repair stations, which is very 
important. It mandates two inspections per year by the FAA. A lot of 
people do not understand that a lot of the maintenance now is being 
done in some

[[Page 4501]]

cases overseas, and in other cases, they are being done, farmed out and 
contracted out, to someone outside of the airline itself.
  We require the disclosure of the airline operating flights. When a 
consumer buys a ticket on an airline, we want them to understand who is 
the company that is carrying them, not what is the brand on the 
airline, but what company is this, so they have some sense of who is in 
charge of that flight.
  Access to all pilots records. You know regarding the captain in the 
Colgan flight, the CEO of Colgan Air said: Had I known the failures of 
that captain in certain exams and tests along the way, in certifying 
these various licenses, we would not have hired that captain. And yet 
the company did not know. That will not be the case in the future.
  Those are just some, not all, of the safety issues. They are very 
important. I am convinced that lives will be saved. I do not suggest 
this is the entire set of issues that has to be resolved. More remains 
to be done and we will remain on the case to do that. We will continue 
even now with additional hearings.
  Finally, I want to say on the issue of modernization, this too is so 
important. It relates to safety, but it relates to other things. It 
relates to the reduced use of fuel, more direct routing, better 
timelines for trips for passengers, because they will get to their 
destination more quickly; less spacing between airplanes in the sky. 
That is because, rather than fly to the old ground-based radar system, 
where you know about where an airline is, you only know about where it 
is when the transponder flashes a dot on that screen in front of the 
air traffic controller, and the next 7 or so seconds that airplane is 
somewhere else.
  Well, using the GPS system which all of us, or at least some of us--I 
do not have, but many people use it in their car, use it on their cell 
phone. The common use of the GPS is all over the world these days, 
except we do not use it, by and large, for commercial airlines, and we 
should.
  Air traffic control modernization means ground-based systems that 
need to be built, it means protocols that have to be developed, it 
means equipage in the cockpit. But we must get there not in 15 or 20 
years, we must get there soon. So this piece of legislation 
dramatically advances those timelines.
  Some talk about waiting and finishing this job in 15 years. We 
substantially truncated the time to say: No, let's get this done. So 
those are the significant issues.
  Again, I want to thank Margaret McCarthy on my staff, along with the 
other staff I have previously mentioned.
  I especially again want to say, I have served on the Commerce 
Committee for a good many years, and we have worked on a lot of issues. 
It has such a wide jurisdiction, a wide range of interests and issues. 
Senator Rockefeller assumed control of the Commerce Committee just this 
Congress, and I think has done an extraordinary job. I appreciate his 
leadership. I appreciate the fact that he gave us not only directions 
but the reins to work in the subcommittee, and then he and the ranking 
member worked very hard at the full committee to put this piece of 
legislation together.
  It is rare indeed in this day and age to find a piece of legislation 
that passes the Senate in a record vote, that is a piece of legislation 
of great consequence, that deals with many issues, some of them 
controversial, to be passed by the Senate with no negative votes at 
all. Think of that. No negative votes cast on this bill today.
  Would not it be nice if we could see more of that kind of 
togetherness, coming together on public policy that all of us think is 
good for this country and its future.
  I wanted to again say how proud I am of this legislation and how 
important it is to this country. I am pleased that this is the next 
step, an important step, and then we would conference with the House 
and bring a conference report back, and it will be signed by the 
President. We will have all done something to advance safety and 
modernization in aviation in this country; not just for commercial 
aviation, but for general aviation, which is an increasingly important 
part of our aviation system.
  Madam President, I also want to take this opportunity to say a few 
words about the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise--DBE--Program and the 
Airport Concessions Disadvantaged Business Enterprise--ACDBE--Program, 
or the DBE Programs. As the Senate is well aware, this program was 
originally enacted by Congress to level the playing field for minority 
and women contractors working in airport related businesses.
  While we have made considerable progress toward that goal over the 
years, unfortunately a good deal more work remains. The Commerce 
Committee examined disparity studies documenting the existence of 
discrimination in public contracting while considering and drafting FAA 
reauthorization legislation. We concluded that the DBE Program remains 
necessary to thwart ongoing discrimination and determined that several 
improvements to the DBE Programs were necessary. I am pleased that the 
FAA Reauthorization bill includes provisions to adjust the personal net 
worth calculation for inflation, to require certification training of 
officials involved in the review of DBE applications, to prohibit 
excess bonding requirements, and to ensure that retirement savings are 
not included in the personal net worth calculation.
  The evidence of discrimination included in disparities studies makes 
clear that discrimination against minority and women owned businesses 
is still a serious problem in airport-related businesses and beyond. 
This is unacceptable. The DBE and ACDBE Programs are the only current 
safeguard against the problems of business discrimination in the 
airport context. I am encouraged that this bill includes provisions to 
ensure the continued health of the program and to promote a level 
playing field within the industry.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________