[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1781-1789]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    FAA AIR TRANSPORTATION MODERNIZATION AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT


                 Amendments Nos. 49 and 51, as Modified

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


                     AMENDMENT NO. 49, as modified

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


                     amendment no. 51, as modified

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

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

       Section 44901 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(l) Limitations on Use of Advanced Imaging Technology for 
     Screening Passengers.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) Advanced imaging technology.--The term `advanced 
     imaging technology'--
       ``(i) means a device that creates a visual image of an 
     individual's body and reveals other objects on the body as 
     applicable, including narcotics, explosives, and other 
     weapons components; and
       ``(ii) includes devices using backscatter x-rays or 
     millimeter waves and devices referred to as `whole-body 
     imaging technology' or `body scanning'.
       ``(B) Appropriate congressional committees defined.--The 
     term `appropriate congressional committees' means--
       ``(i) the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation and Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate; and
       ``(ii) the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives.
       ``(C) Automatic target recognition software.--The term 
     `automatic target recognition software' means software 
     installed on an advanced imaging technology machine that 
     produces a generic image of the individual being screened 
     that is the same as the images produced for all other 
     screened individuals.
       ``(2) Use of advanced imaging technology.--The Assistant 
     Secretary of Homeland Security (Transportation Security 
     Administration) shall ensure that advanced imaging technology 
     is used for the screening of passengers under this section 
     only in accordance with this subsection.
       ``(3) Implementation of automated target recognition 
     software.--Except as provided in paragraph (4), beginning 
     January 1, 2012, all advanced imaging technology used as a 
     screening method for passengers shall be equipped with 
     automatic target recognition software.
       ``(4) Extension.--The Assistant Secretary may extend the 
     date described in paragraph

[[Page 1782]]

     (3) by 1 or more periods as the Assistant Secretary considers 
     appropriate but each period may not be for a duration of more 
     than by 1 year, if the Assistant Secretary determines that--
       ``(A) advanced imaging technology equipped with automatic 
     target recognition software is not substantially as effective 
     at screening passengers as advanced imaging technology 
     without such software; or
       ``(B) additional testing of such software is necessary.
       ``(5) Reports.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date 
     described in paragraph (3) and, if the Assistant Secretary 
     extends the date pursuant to paragraph (4) by 1 or more 
     periods, not later than 60 days after each period, the 
     Assistant Secretary shall submit to the appropriate 
     congressional committees a report on the implementation of 
     this subsection.
       ``(B) Elements.--Each report required by subparagraph (A) 
     shall include the following:
       ``(i) A description of all matters the Assistant Secretary 
     considers relevant to the implementation of this subsection.
       ``(ii) The status of the compliance of the Transportation 
     Security Administration with the provisions of this 
     subsection.
       ``(iii) If the Administration is not in full compliance 
     with such provisions--

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

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

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


                      Amendment No. 7, as Modified

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

       At the end of the bill insert the following:

     SEC. __. RONALD REAGAN WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT SLOTS.

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

[[Page 1783]]

     may reasonably be expected to have a substantial negative 
     effect on 1 or more of those airports.
       ``(h) Scheduling Priority.--In administering this section, 
     the Secretary shall afford a scheduling priority to 
     operations conducted by new entrant air carriers and limited 
     incumbent air carriers over operations conducted by other air 
     carriers granted additional slot exemptions under subsection 
     (g) for service to airports located beyond the perimeter 
     described in section 49109.''.
       (b) Hourly Limitation.--Section 41718(c)(2) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``3 operations'' and inserting ``4 
     operations''; and
       (2) by striking ``subsections (a) and (b)'' and inserting 
     ``under this section''.
       (c) Limited Incumbent Definition.--Section 41714(h)(5) is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``not'' after ``shall'' in subparagraph 
     (B);
       (2) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon in subparagraph 
     (B);
       (3) by striking ``Administration.'' in subparagraph (C) and 
     inserting ``Administration; and''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) for purposes of section 41718, an air carrier that 
     holds only slot exemptions''.
       (d) Revenues and Fees at the Metropolitan Washington 
     Airports.--Section 49104(a) is amended by striking paragraph 
     (9) and inserting the following:
       ``(9) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, revenues 
     derived at either of the Metropolitan Washington Airports, 
     regardless of source, may be used for operating and capital 
     expenses (including debt service, depreciation and 
     amortization) at the other airport.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


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

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

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

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide for an increase in the number of slots available 
 at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, and for other purposes)

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

     __. RONALD REAGAN WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT SLOTS.

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

[[Page 1784]]

       ``(F) Additional exemptions not permitted.--The Secretary 
     may not grant exemptions in addition to those authorized by 
     paragraph (1) if the Secretary determines that--
       ``(i) the additional exemptions authorized by paragraph (1) 
     have had a substantial negative effect on any of those 
     airports; or
       ``(ii) the granting of additional exemptions under 
     subparagraph (B) of this paragraph may reasonably be expected 
     to have a substantial negative effect on 1 or more of those 
     airports.
       ``(h) Scheduling Priority.--In administering this section, 
     the Secretary shall afford a scheduling priority to 
     operations conducted by new entrant air carriers and limited 
     incumbent air carriers over operations conducted by other air 
     carriers granted additional slot exemptions under subsection 
     (g) for service to airports located beyond the perimeter 
     described in section 49109.''.
       (b) Hourly Limitation.--Section 41718(c)(2) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``3 operations'' and inserting ``4 
     operations''; and
       (2) by striking ``subsections (a) and (b)'' and inserting 
     ``under this section''.
       (c) Limited Incumbent Definition.--Section 41714(h)(5) is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``not'' after ``shall'' in subparagraph 
     (B);
       (2) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon in subparagraph 
     (B);
       (3) by striking ``Administration.'' in subparagraph (C) and 
     inserting ``Administration; and''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) for purposes of section 41718, an air carrier that 
     holds only slot exemptions''.
       (d) Revenues and Fees at the Metropolitan Washington 
     Airports.--Section 49104(a) is amended by striking paragraph 
     (9) and inserting the following:
       ``(9) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, revenues 
     derived at either of the Metropolitan Washington Airports, 
     regardless of source, may be used for operating and capital 
     expenses (including debt service, depreciation and 
     amortization) at the other airport.''.
       This section shall become effective 1 day after enactment.


                             Cloture Motion

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

                             Cloture Motion

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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


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

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

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

     __. RONALD REAGAN WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT SLOTS.

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

[[Page 1785]]

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

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


                             Health Reform

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

[[Page 1786]]

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

[[Page 1787]]

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

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

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

[[Page 1788]]

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

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

  He said this as if it weren't in the law. In fact, he has said these 
exact words repeatedly here on the floor, each time creating the clear 
implication that the health reform law does not allow small businesses 
to pool together to get better deals on health insurance. But in fact 
this is exactly why we passed a health reform law that includes health 
insurance exchanges.
  We owe it to the American people to tell the truth about this. The 
truth is that health reform created State insurance exchanges so that 
health care will be available to the 43 million workers employed by the 
5.9 million small businesses around the country. The exchanges will 
also make affordable health insurance available to 22 million self-
employed Americans. Within these exchanges, insurance companies will 
compete and offer multiple plans so that everyone can choose a plan 
that works best for their family. And in all cases, they will be 
negotiated on behalf of the combined pools of all participating 
businesses with fewer than 100 employees in the State. This will give 
unprecedented negotiating power and competition that will directly 
benefit workers at small businesses. And not just the workers but 
especially the owners of those businesses who, by the way, are already 
receiving tax credits to help them pay for their employees' insurance.
  The fact is, the majority of Americans are supportive of what this 
law is trying to do, and they don't want to go back to the broken 
system we had before it passed. They know it is crucial that American 
families have health care when they need it. They know this law will 
give millions more American families access to this care while creating 
jobs and saving money.
  The truth is, the people have spoken on health care. Unfortunately, 
some of my colleagues have not been listening.
  When you are talking about legislation, it is easy to fall into the 
trap of either promising the world or warning that it will cause the 
sky to fall. Neither is right, and the reality is far more complex. The 
truth is, the Affordable Care Act will change millions of lives but 
will not fix a very broken health care system overnight. It was the 
result of a lot of negotiation and compromise.
  The truth is, the American people want us to move forward and 
implement this law. They know some parts of it will work better than 
other parts. They want us to change what does not work and build on 
what does. They know provisions like the ban on discrimination against 
children with preexisting conditions are already helping families 
across this country, including Isaac, including Maya.
  I challenge my colleagues to talk to families with children like 
Isaac and Maya. Americans are experts on the health care needs of their 
own families. I have talked to families all over Minnesota, and they 
tell me they need accessible health care, they need affordable health 
care, and they want to take personal responsibility to insure their 
families. But the truth is, they need our help. They need us to make 
sure the stool keeps standing.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

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

[[Page 1789]]



                             Cloture Motion

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

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


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

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

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

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

  The amendment (No. 55) was agreed to.

                          ____________________