[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9099-9106]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

  NOMINATION OF MARI CARMEN APONTE TO BE AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND 
 PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE REPUBLIC OF EL 
                           SALVADOR--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session.
  The motion to proceed to the motion to reconsider the vote by which 
cloture was not invoked on Executive Calendar No. 501 is agreed to, the 
motion to reconsider is agreed to, and there will now be 30 minutes of 
debate equally divided in the usual form.
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to address and 
advocate for the nomination of an extraordinary woman, a qualified, 
talented Latina, Mari Carmen Aponte, to be the U.S. Ambassador to El 
Salvador.
  Over 2 years ago I first chaired the nomination hearing for 
Ambassador Aponte to serve as President Obama's Ambassador to El 
Salvador, to San Salvador. The reality is that as a member of the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I found her to be an exceptional 
candidate. Last November I chaired yet another hearing for Ambassador 
Aponte, and then last December this Chamber met to vote on her 
confirmation. In addition to last year's vote, the Foreign Relations 
Committee has held a series of meetings to consider her nomination. 
Frankly, I have not seen any nominee forced to go through such an 
arduous and drawn-out confirmation process as Ms. Aponte.
  Let me talk about her record. Mari Carmen Aponte is a respected 
American diplomat who has been on the job and has served this Nation 
with distinction. During the 15 months Ambassador Aponte was sworn in 
as the U.S. Ambassador to El Salvador, she impressed the diplomatic 
establishment with her professionalism and won the respect of parties 
both on the right and the left in El Salvador. She has won the respect 
of civilian and military forces. She has won the respect of the public 
and private sectors. She has won everyone's support and fostered a 
strong U.S.-Salvadorian bilateral relationship that culminated with 
President Obama announcing El Salvador as one of only four countries in 
the world and the only country in Latin America chosen to participate 
in the Partnership for Growth Initiative.
  Most importantly, Ambassador Aponte has been an advocate for American 
national security and democratic values. As a result of her advocacy, 
El Salvador is again a key ally in Central America. Its troops were the 
only ones from a Latin American country fighting aside American troops 
in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
  As a result of her negotiating skills, the United States and El 
Salvador will open a new jointly funded electronic monitoring center 
that will be an invaluable tool in fighting transnational crime.
  Before that period of time in which she had a recess appointment, 
Ambassador Aponte had been the Executive Director of the Puerto Rican 
Federal Affairs Administration. In 2001 she had served as a director at 
the National Council of La Raza, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and 
Education Fund. She presided over the Hispanic Bar Association of the 
District of Columbia and the Hispanic National Bar Association.
  This is a record of success. It is a record of honor. It is a record 
of diplomatic and political distinction. It is a record of a dedicated, 
qualified, experienced, and engaged American diplomat, a 15-month 
record that brought our nations together. What more could we ask? What 
more should we ask?
  Finally, I will simply say that I believe the statements that have 
been used by some against Ambassador Aponte are baseless. As someone 
who personally reviewed her record, as someone who personally looked at 
all of the files, I believe there is absolutely nothing to prevent 
Ambassador Aponte from being confirmed by the Senate. It is my hope, 
with having had the whole history of her tremendous service and all of 
the issues vetted, that today the Senate will take a vote that will 
confirm an incredibly qualified person who has a long history of 
tremendous service to the Hispanic community in this country, to our 
Nation, and who did an exceptional job in the 15 months she was 
appointed by President Obama during a recess appointment as the 
Ambassador to El Salvador. She served the national interests and 
security of the United States very well.
  We have had an incredible period of time in which we have had no 
Ambassador confirmed there. That sends the wrong message to a country 
that is willing to embrace its relationship with the United States in 
Central America, in the midst of other countries that are not as 
friendly to the United States. We need to confirm an Ambassador, send 
her there, and have her continue the work she was doing.
  I ask unanimous consent that any time in which there is a quorum call 
be equally divided against both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I rise to speak about Mari Carmen Aponte, 
the President's nominee to be Ambassador to El Salvador.
  Those of us who have had the privilege of being here for some period 
of time--Senator Inouye has been here almost 50 years; I have been here 
for 27; Senators Leahy, Lugar, Baucus, and others have also served for 
a significant period of time. Brief as my stay has been, never have I 
seen this institution behaving as it does today.
  Certainly, ideology isn't new to the American political arena and 
ideology isn't unhealthy. But in a Senate where the extraordinary 
measure of a filibuster has become an ordinary expedient, where Senate 
procedure is used as a political tool to undermine almost every 
proposal by the President and his Democratic colleagues, I think we all 
need to take a long, hard look at our priorities.
  One priority that is staring us in the face is to work for the swift 
confirmation of Ms. Aponte. El Salvador has been without a U.S. 
Ambassador for 5 months. And I would ask colleagues how does this serve 
our national security or economic interests? El Salvador is the only 
Latin American country to

[[Page 9100]]

send troops to Afghanistan. It is an increasingly important partner on 
counternarcotics and trade. Right now, more than 300 U.S. companies are 
operating on its soil. Bottom line: We are long overdue in bringing Ms. 
Aponte's nomination to a vote on the floor.
  I have said before--and I repeat today--that the Senate should not 
hold Ms. Aponte hostage to the partisan infighting that has consumed 
our politics. It should allow her the right to a full appointment as 
Ambassador, given the commendable job she has already done in that 
capacity.
  Let's review the facts because I think there has been some confusion 
here. Ms. Aponte has already received three high-level security 
clearances from national security experts in our government. Let me 
repeat. After three separate and thorough reviews, our national 
security experts gave Ms. Aponte the green light to represent our 
country.
  We have been down this road many times. Senators have reviewed Ms. 
Aponte's FBI file for themselves. Along with the administration, I have 
sought repeatedly and in good faith to address the concerns of some of 
my colleagues. The administration even offered high-level briefings, 
but their offers were turned down. To continue addressing patently 
partisan concerns about her personal background, in my judgment, would 
be counterproductive.
  So let's talk about her accomplishments. Ms. Aponte will bring 
intelligence, diligence, and broad experience to this important 
responsibility. Prior to serving as Ambassador, she was a practicing 
attorney for over 30 years. She has been a proud champion of Hispanics 
in the United States and is a highly respected leader within the Puerto 
Rican community on the mainland.
  Ms. Aponte served a recess appointment as Ambassador to El Salvador 
until the end of the last congressional session. During her 
approximately 16-month tenure, Ms. Aponte served our country with 
distinction. She did a tremendous job negotiating an agreement with the 
Salvadoran Government to open a new bilateral initiative to fight 
transnational crime. She aggressively promoted initiatives to remove 
constraints on economic growth in El Salvador and brought together the 
U.S. and Salvadoran Governments to sign a comprehensive Partnership for 
Growth Joint Action Plan. These aren't small achievements.
  But you don't need to take my word for it. Just ask the eight former 
Foreign Ministers from El Salvador who wrote to the Foreign Relations 
Committee in support of her nomination. Their position on Ms. Aponte is 
crystal clear:

       Her endeavors are very valued in all segments of political, 
     social and economic centers. There is no doubt that 
     Ambassador Aponte will continue to find areas of common 
     interest to build consensus not only between the United 
     States and El Salvador, but will also continue to collaborate 
     towards the strengthening of our institutions and will 
     support the ongoing development process of our country.

  I couldn't agree more.
  Mr. President: Thomas Jefferson used to say that he could ``never 
fear that things will go far wrong where common sense has fair play.'' 
Ms. Aponte has already demonstrated that she was a superb Ambassador to 
El Salvador. She deserves to be sent back, where she will represent our 
country with distinction. All we need to do now is allow our narrow 
interests to yield to the national interest and give common sense fair 
play.
  I ask unanimous consent to have the letter to which I referred be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 San Salvador,

                                                November 11, 2011.
     Hon. Richard Lugar,
     U.S. Senator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. John Kerry,
     U.S. Senator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Senators: The undersigned are all former Ministers of 
     Foreign Relations of the Republic of El Salvador, covering 
     various Administrations lead by different political parties 
     until 2009. We write this letter in support of the 
     confirmation of Mari Carmen Aponte as United States 
     Ambassador to El Salvador.
       As experienced diplomats, we have closely watched 
     Ambassador Aponte's work since her arrival. She came to El 
     Salvador at a critical, delicate and politically complicated 
     time. With the first FMLN government in power after the armed 
     conflict, there was uncertainty as to which direction the 
     country would take. Ambassador Aponte immediately commenced 
     an even-handed and balanced approach, reaching out to all 
     sides of the political spectrum. Systematically, she gained 
     key players trust and since then, has consistently brought 
     the government, private sector and civil society to the table 
     on a myriad of issues, and has worked to cement a stronger 
     democracy built on free market. El Salvador has experienced a 
     very successful political transition and her impartial 
     efforts have contributed to this goal.
       With very minor exceptions, one can hear in our capital in 
     private conversations as well as read in opinion and press 
     articles the deep sense of respect and confidence Ambassador 
     Aponte enjoys in our country. Her endeavors are very valued 
     in all segments of political, social and economic centers. 
     There is no doubt that Ambassador Aponte will continue to 
     find areas of common interest to build consensus not only 
     between the United States and El Salvador, but will also 
     continue to collaborate towards the strengthening of our 
     institutions and will support the ongoing development process 
     of our country.
       We urge you to confirm her appointment as U.S. Ambassador 
     to El Salvador. We are also grateful if you could share this 
     letter with all the members of the Senate Foreign Relations 
     Committee.
           Sincerely,
         Marisol Argueta de Barillas; Jose Manuel Pacas Castro; 
           Fidel Chavez Mena; Alfredo Martinez Moreno; Francisco 
           E. Lainez; Oscar Alfredo Santamaria; Maria Eugenia 
           Brizuela de Avila; Ramon Gonzalez Giner.

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I urge that the Senate confirm the 
nomination of Mari Aponte to be the Ambassador to El Salvador. She has 
been waiting in the aisle too long, and I hope she will be able to 
renew her old job.
  She was an exemplary nominee of whom the Puerto Rican community, and 
Hispanics in general, can feel proud. She is an excellent Ambassador.
  President Obama recess-appointed her as an Acting Ambassador to El 
Salvador in 2010, and she has served with distinction. That is why she 
will be confirmed today.
  During her time as Acting Ambassador, Ms. Aponte was an outspoken 
advocate for American values and democracy and a staunch supporter of 
the U.S. private enterprise. She persuaded the government of El 
Salvador to deploy troops to Afghanistan. El Salvador is the first and 
only Latin American country to send military forces to join our NATO 
deployment. That says it all.
  She reached an agreement with the Salvadoran Government to open a 
new, jointly-funded electronic monitoring center to fight transnational 
crime. She has already proved her strengths and qualifications on the 
job. That is what she has already done.
  She has the support of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and 
countless local and national Latino organizations around the country. 
They are very proud of her--as they should be. I am proud of her.
  President Obama supported her and, to his credit, the Obama 
administration did a lot of heavy lifting to get her confirmed.
  White House staff worked diligently for the past month to round up 
every vote possible. Secretary Clinton personally called Senators this 
week, Democrats and Republicans, to support this Aponte nomination. I 
commend Senator Menendez for his tireless leadership on this issue. It 
is high time the United States has a Senate-confirmed Ambassador to El 
Salvador, our ally.
  I also wish to express my appreciation to my Republican colleagues 
who dropped their unwarranted opposition and will help us confirm this 
well-qualified nominee. I am sorry for her and the country that El 
Salvador has been without someone doing advocacy for our country within 
El Salvador. That will not happen anymore. She will be able to go to 
work tomorrow.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page 9101]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in 
the remaining time before the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, we are about to vote--what I hope will 
be a positive vote--to send a message to the people of El Salvador that 
we appreciate their positive engagement with the United States, at a 
time in which many Central and Latin American countries have taken a 
different view.
  This is a country that has been engaged with us on the whole issue of 
narcotic trafficking and has sent their sons and daughters to fight 
alongside us, and they have shown a willingness to engage in democracy 
and the rule of law.
  We have an incredibly qualified American of Latina descent, Mari 
Carmen Aponte. She is someone who has served with distinction for 15 
months. I assume the absence of voices to the contrary in the Chamber 
up to this time speaks volumes of the process we have had and the 
opportunity in which we are about to engage.
  It is my hope that we will see a strong bipartisan vote on behalf of 
Ambassador Aponte and send her back to El Salvador to get back to work 
for the United States and our collective interests.
  With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  All time has expired.
  Under the previous order and pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays 
before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will 
report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of 
     Mari Carmen Aponte, of the District of Columbia, to be 
     Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United 
     States of America to the Republic of El Salvador.
         Harry Reid, John F. Kerry, Barbara Boxer, Patrick J. 
           Leahy, Patty Murray, Richard J. Durbin, Kent Conrad, 
           John D. Rockefeller IV, Jeff Bingaman, Tim Johnson, 
           Robert Menendez, Daniel K. Inouye, Max Baucus, Charles 
           E. Schumer, Mark Udall, Michael F. Bennet, Al Franken.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Upon reconsideration, is it the sense of the Senate 
that debate on the nomination of Mari Carmen Aponte, of the District of 
Columbia, to be Ambassador Extraordinary Plenipotentiary of the United 
States to the Republic of El Salvador shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 62, nays 37, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 121 Ex.]

                                YEAS--62

     Akaka
     Ayotte
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--37

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Lee
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
      
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 62, the nays are 
37. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion, upon reconsideration, is agreed to.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3268

  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, in a moment I am going to propound a 
unanimous consent request. Before I do, I would like to say what it is 
on so people will understand the time and effort that has gone into 
getting legislation passed. I am referring now to S. 3268.
  When John Glenn retired from this body, that left me as kind of the 
last acting commercial pilot. Consequently, I ended up getting a lot 
more of the complaints and problems within the FAA and the way 
accusations are made and enforcement actions are taken. I have gone to 
bat for a lot of these people when I believed there was really a 
fairness problem.
  It was not until I had an experience, a personal experience, that I 
realized the depth of the problem. It is very hard for people in this 
room to understand. If you have been, as I have been, a private pilot, 
commercial pilot, and flight instructor for 55 years, what it would 
mean to have that license taken away from you if that were merely at 
the whim of some enforcement officer in the field. I think all of us 
know--when I was mayor of Tulsa, now and then we had a few police 
officers who could not handle the authority. It happens all the time. 
Certainly we hear about it with enforcement actions brought about by 
the FAA.
  What happened to me, and I will share this with you--I think it is 
very important--I have probably more hours than most airline pilots 
have and I was still active in aviation. I was flying down to the 
southern part of Texas, the furthest south part of Texas, way down by 
Brownsville, to Cameron County Airport. Papa India Lima is the 
identifier for it. In this effort, with several passengers with me, I 
was going by the controllers. This is what you do not have to do but I 
always do for safety purposes. I went through the Corpus Christi 
approach control. He handed me off to the Valley approach control. I 
was going into a field that was uncontrolled, so the only control is 
the Valley approach control. They are watching on a screen, and they 
have all the information they need to direct you and authorize you to 
do things. They are looking for traffic and you are squawking, so they 
know exactly where you are, how high you are, and all the things that 
are happening. Again, you don't have to do that. On this day in 
October, a year ago October, I did not have to do it, but I did it 
anyway.
  As I approached--the wind is always out of the south down there. The 
runway is 1-3--that coordinates with 130 degrees. When I was on about--
I would have to go back and listen again to the voice recorder--about a 
2- or 3-mile final to runway 1-3, the controller said: Twin Cessna 115 
echo alpha, you are cleared to land runway 1-3.
  When you do this, you dirty up your plane so you can land. This 
happens to be a pretty sophisticated twin-engine plane; you have to let 
the flaps down and gears down and all that stuff. You get to the point, 
if you have a full plane, beyond which you cannot go around. When I 
came in to make a landing, I did not see X on the runway because it was 
not very prominent, but nevertheless there was one there. But there 
were some workers on the far east side of the runway. This was a 8,000- 
or 9,000-foot runway. I only needed 2,000 or 3,000 feet. So I went over 
the

[[Page 9102]]

workers and I landed. Immediately they got upset that I landed.
  A lot of people, because I am a Member of the U.S. Senate, started 
calling the New York Times and the Washington Post. They had a 
wonderful time with this. I started looking at it and talking to the 
people who do the enforcement action. I have to say they were good, and 
they were responding to a lot of hysterical people, frankly, who did 
not like me. So they came with an enforcement action against me which 
merely was to go around the pattern with a CFI, a flight instructor. So 
I did this. I am also a flight instructor. I had given him his license, 
as a matter of fact. I went through this procedure, and everything was 
fine.
  However, the problem was this: I was denied access to the information 
they were going to use against me. When I told them that I was cleared 
to land by the controller, it took me, a U.S. Senator, 4 months to get 
the voice recording to prove I was right.
  Second, there is a thing called Notices to Airmen. NOTAMS are 
supposed to be published every time there is work on a runway. Pilots 
are supposed to have access to NOTAMS. You look through your resources, 
as I always do, to see if there are NOTAMS on the runways where I land. 
When I go back on weekends, normally I will fly--gosh, I will be at 
five or six different towns, but I look up the NOTAMS on all the towns. 
I had done that. There were no NOTAMS on Cameron County Airport. We 
checked afterward. We could never find any. No one says there were 
NOTAMS now. So, No. 1, I was clear to land, and No. 2, there were no 
NOTAMS that were published.
  What they could have done--they could have very well done is taken my 
license away. It doesn't mean much to people who are listening to me 
right now because you are not pilots, but it means a lot to the 400,000 
members of the AOPA who are watching us right now and to the 175,000 
general aviation pilots with the EAA, Experimental Aircraft 
Association, who are watching us right now. They know that they, at the 
whim of one bureaucrat, could lose their licenses.
  Anyway, I came back and drafted legislation. I have to say this was 
way back a year ago now--July 6 of 2011. I introduced a bill with 25 
cosponsors that would do three things:
  No. 1, it would let the accused have access to all relevant evidence 
within 30 days prior to a decision to proceed with an enforcement 
action.
  No. 2, it would allow the accused to have access to the Federal 
courts. As it is right now, the National Transportation Safety Board--
it goes to them, and they rubberstamp whatever the FAA does. In fiscal 
year 2010, there were 61 appeals, and of those only 5 were reversed. Of 
the 24 petitions in 2010 seeking review for emergency determinations, 
only 1 was granted and 23 were denied. It is a rubberstamp. Everybody 
knows it. Ask any pilot you can find, and they will tell you that is 
what it is.
  This way, they would have access to the Federal courts. It is not 
going to happen because I can assure you, that inspector in the field, 
the enforcement officer in the field is not going to put his reputation 
on the line knowing that someone is going to be looking at it with a 
sense of fairness. The district court doesn't have to know anything 
about piloting an airplane, it is just a fairness issue.
  In my case, they would have looked at this and said: Wait, you are 
cleared to land by the FAA, and there are no NOTAMS published. What did 
you do wrong?
  I did nothing wrong.
  They would make sure flight station communications are available to 
all airmen. They are supposed to be. But if it took me 4 months--and I 
am a U.S. Senator--to get a voice recording to show I was cleared to 
land at this airport, what about somebody who is not a Senator? What 
about somebody who would be intimidated to the point he would lose his 
license?
  The second thing this does is it forces the NOTAMS--Notices to 
Airmen--to be put in a place where they are visible, a central 
location.
  The third thing. If you talk to the aircraft owners and the pilots 
association, of all the problems that they get called to their 
attention, 28 percent of all the requests for assistance received by 
them relate to the medical certification process. In other words, 
someone might lose his medical and then find he has corrected any kind 
of physical problem and wants to get it back, and he gets it back. 
However, if he happens to live in a different town and there are 
hundreds of doctors around to do this, there is no uniformity to it.
  So it sets up a process or helps facilitate setting up a process by 
having general aviation, having the FAA, having the NTSB, having anyone 
who is relevant and interested in this to look at and coordinate the 
medical certification process.
  That is essentially it. I am prepared to go into a lot of detail. I 
know I now have 66 cosponsors in this body. I could have had a lot 
more; we quit after we got two-thirds. I think everyone knows that is 
normally what you do. I do know we may have one objection to this 
unanimous consent request, but I am going to make it now.
  As in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 422, S. 3268, 
that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider 
be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from West 
Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, reserving the right to object, 
first of all, I know this bill is very important to the Senator who is 
offering it. I understand that, and I respect the Senator. He is a good 
Senator. But my objection is not based so much on what he said, it is 
based on the whole concept of public safety.
  This is about public safety. We should not have to worry that 
potentially unqualified pilots are in the air. We have so many tens of 
thousands of airplanes in the air every hour of every day. This bill 
would create a process which would be new which could result in the 
Federal Government being unable to pursue enforcement action because of 
the limited resources. It is a fact of life these days. FAA has to cut 
way back. We are having to address other mandated priorities which are 
perhaps more important than this one. That could very well mean that 
the FAA and the NTSB, the National Transportation Safety Board, which 
are ultimately responsible for making decisions about whether pilots 
have violated aviation regulations, could be barred from taking actions 
to prevent unsafe pilots from continuing to fly. That is heavy water. 
That could have serious safety consequences.
  According to the FAA, in some cases which would typically warrant 
revocation of a pilot's license, some unqualified pilots would be able 
to avoid losing their certificates by avoiding FAA prosecution of the 
matter before the NTSB.
  This bill, in closing, would stand the FAA's enforcement structure on 
its head. As a result, I do object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Let me respond. This in no way has anything to do with 
safety because we are talking--the first arbitrator is the FAA. That is 
not what this is about at all. When we have had a chance to talk, as we 
have to almost all the Senators in this body, we have talked about 
safety. We bounced that off many people. We had a hearing at Oshkosh 
about safety. I had the air traffic controllers support me on this. 
They are the ones concerned with safety.
  I would say I don't agree with the argument, but I respect the 
Senator from West Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I too object, along with Senator 
Rockefeller. I have been on the National Transportation Safety Board, 
and I know well the kinds of cases that are pilots' license revocations 
and the NTSB process for appeals of those. I understand Senator 
Inhofe's explanation for what happened with him and that he is in 
somewhat of a disagreement with some of the reporting of that incident.

[[Page 9103]]

  I also understand the Senator from Oklahoma's long-time record of 
being a pilot, and I respect that very much, but I am afraid that what 
he is not taking into consideration is most certainly a safety issue.
  We have tasked the FAA with air safety, and we have given them the 
responsibility for revoking pilots' licenses when there is a need to do 
that in their opinion, whether it be for a violation of landing on a 
runway that has an X, which pilots know means that runway cannot be 
used at that time.
  As happened with Senator Inhofe's case, he is saying that he had a 
clearance, but the X was there and the FAA cited him for that. They did 
not revoke his pilot's license at all, yet he is coming forward with a 
bill that not only addresses some of his legitimate concerns, which I 
agree with. The FAA's expertise and its mission, which is given to it 
by Congress, is to provide for safety and to revoke a private pilot's 
license or commercial pilot's license or aviation mechanic's license. 
Senator Inhofe's bill that would allow pilots to not have to go through 
the appellate process with the National Transportation Safety Board, 
which is the appellate authority, which also has the expertise and 
experience to know when a revocation would be questionable or if the 
FAA was right. They have the pilots, they have the expertise to make 
those decisions, and after the NTSB appeal, they then have the right to 
go to Federal court if they so choose.
  What Senator Inhofe's bill does is take away the NTSB portion of the 
appeals process. Let me say that I have offered to Senator Inhofe--
because he knew I objected to this bill--to do everything in his bill 
that he has addressed, including the openness, the requirement that an 
enforcement action that the FAA would grant the pilot all the relevant 
evidence in 30 days prior to a decision, that it would clarify the 
statutory deference as it relates to NTSB. NTSB is not a rubberstamp at 
all. I think they have been fair with their expertise. The FAA has the 
responsibility for aviation safety. Requiring the FAA to undertake a 
notice to the Airmen Improvement Program, I think, is certainly 
legitimate. Making flight service station communications available to 
all airmen is a legitimate piece of this legislation.
  What I object to and have asked Senator Inhofe to let us work 
together to do is not to bypass NTSB, but to let the appellate process 
go forward, and then at the end, if there is still a feeling of 
unfairness on the part of the pilot, that they would have access to the 
Federal courts. They can do that now.
  So I think Senator Inhofe insisting on bypassing NTSB is holding up 
the good parts of his bill because it is very important, in my opinion, 
that we keep the expertise for safety in the skies where it is, in the 
FAA, the NTSB, and then go to the Federal courts if rights are 
violated.
  In 2011, the NTSB had 350 appeal cases for administrative law judges 
and the number was similar in 2010. Cases are typically disposed of in 
90 to 120 days, so there is not a long lag time in which the pilot 
doesn't have the access to his or her license. The NTSB held 62 appeals 
hearings in 2011 and 36 cases went to the full board. The breakdown of 
the cases was private pilots, 48 percent; airline mechanics or aviation 
mechanics, 13 percent; commercial pilots, 6 percent; air carriers, 8 
percent; and medical with 25 percent.
  Senator Rockefeller and I, as the relevant chairman and ranking 
member on the Commerce Committee, have agreed to have a hearing on 
Senator Inhofe's bill so that this can be fully vetted, and most 
certainly I have on many occasions offered to work with Senator Inhofe 
to get the notification requirements, the openness requirements--every 
part of his bill that would require reforms of the process for fairness 
to the pilots--I would agree with and work to help him pass. But I 
think taking out the NTSB and going directly to Federal courts is not 
necessary, and I think it will hurt aviation safety.
  I also believe that a different, extraneous issue is that our Federal 
courts are pretty clogged already and the Federal courts do not have 
those with pilots' licenses on their staff clerkship rolls, to a great 
extent. Maybe they happen to be. But they don't have the familiarity 
with the requirements of FAA and the issues that FAA looks at, and they 
do have access to Federal courts in the end anyway. But I think the 
NTSB part is important so that the experienced pilots in the NTSB have 
the appellate authority, as they do now, to decipher what happened with 
the FAA and determine if fairness was given to the pilot. It is also to 
help determine if that pilot should continue to fly or if it would 
endanger aviation safety, which should not be the role of the Federal 
courts.
  So Senator Rockefeller and I do object. I hold my hand out to Senator 
Inhofe to work with him on the notification and fairness issues in his 
bill, which I support. I just don't think bypassing the expertise of 
the NTSB and adding another burden to the Federal courts where they do 
not have the expertise is in anyone's best interest in this country, 
and I am happy to work with anyone who is interested in this issue and 
hope we can resolve it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I think it would be redundant for me to 
go back and repeat what I said before. The Senator from Texas talked 
about the X on the runway. I made it very clear by the time you can see 
the X on the runway when you are cleared to land and you have a 
sophisticated plane that is full of passengers, there is a point beyond 
which you can't go in terms of your plane is dirtied up making a go-
around. Obviously it wasn't necessary because I had 7,000 empty feet to 
come around, but that is not important because that is not the issue.
  I recognize and respect Senator Hutchison in the fact that she was on 
the NTSB, and I know that obviously is meaningful to her, as it is to 
Senator Rockefeller.
  What we are dealing with here is we have a committee--and I have a 
lot of respect for the committee for which Senator Rockefeller is the 
chairman and Senator Hutchison is the ranking member, and this 
committee is the committee of jurisdiction.
  Now, what did I do? I introduced this bill a year ago. I talked about 
it. We had 25 cosponsors at that time. We had endorsements from all 
over the country. We had the National Air Traffic Controllers 
Association come in. We sent out ``Dear Colleagues'' to talk to people. 
Again, we sent a letter to the Commerce Committee that Senator 
Hutchison was on at that time requesting a hearing. We had 32 
cosponsors signing that letter, requesting a hearing, some of which 
were on the Commerce Committee. Nothing happened.
  On September 20, as the months go by, we made more requests. We 
talked about this, and every time they said we are going to be doing 
this. You finally get to the point where you have to go ahead and get 
it done. And that is why we have a rule XIV. I am not a 
Parliamentarian, and I don't know exactly how things work.
  I remember I had experience with this when I worked in the House of 
Representatives, that when something is bogged up in a committee we had 
what is called the discharge petition reform of 1994. It was considered 
by the Wall Street Journal, or perhaps Business Daily, as the single 
greatest reform in the history of the U.S. House of Representatives. It 
addressed this same thing. It is a way of bottling up bills in 
committees so they could never have hearings and never be able to get 
on the floor for a vote. That discharge petition reform became a 
reality, and now the light is shining and everything is great.
  But when you have been trying to get a hearing before a committee for 
a year and you have 66 cosponsors, you have to resort to whatever is 
out there available to you for a remedy. That remedy happens to be rule 
XIV. Rule XIV will allow me to do this, and with the two people holding 
the bill up, Senator Rockefeller and Senator Hutchison, I will have no 
choice but to file cloture and to go ahead and get a

[[Page 9104]]

vote on this bill, recognizing it takes a supermajority when you file 
cloture. So I would do that.
  I didn't think I would get into this or need to enter it into the 
Record. I have an article which I will find here and will submit for 
the Record. I think it is very important. It goes into detailed 
documentary cases where they have been unable to get fairness through 
this system.
  How many cases would ultimately go to the district court? I think 
very few. The idea that there is going to be an opportunity for a pilot 
to take what he is accused of to the district court to see it in a 
sense of fairness has nothing to do with how many pilots are sitting on 
that district court. It is a sense of fairness, and that is what they 
deal with. The people in the district court system don't have expertise 
in all of these areas, but they can look at fairness. And I can tell 
you in my case, if they had looked at that and said, wait a minute, the 
FAA has cleared him to land and there are no NOTAMs published, he 
didn't do anything wrong. It finally gets to the point--and I have been 
very patient. I have waited a whole year for this and finally I have 
come to the point where I have flat given up, so I decided that we are 
going to have to do it this way since it is clearly the will of the 
Senate to pass this legislation.
  So, with that, I have some things I want to have printed in the 
Record. First of all, I have the sequence of events, the request that 
we made of the Commerce Committee to hear this legislation.
  I have an article that was in Pilot magazine by John Yodice, who is 
considered to be the single foremost legal authority in this area.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have both items printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         S. 1335, Inhofe-Begich Pilot's Bill of Rights Summary


              The Pilot's Bill of Rights Does Three Things

       1. Makes the FAA Enforcement Process Fairer for Pilots--
     Requires that in an FAA enforcement action against a pilot, 
     the FAA must grant the pilot all relevant evidence 30 days 
     prior to a decision to proceed with an enforcement action. 
     This is currently not done and often leaves the pilot grossly 
     uninformed of his violation and recourse. Eliminates the NTSB 
     rubber stamp review of FAA actions. Too often the NTSB, which 
     hears appeals from the FAA, gives wide latitude to the FAA, 
     making the appeals process meaningless. In FY10, of the 61 
     appeals of FAA certificate actions considered by the NTSB, 
     only five were reversed. Of the 24 petitions seeking review 
     of emergency determinations considered by the NTSB, only one 
     was granted and 23 were denied. The bill clarifies the 
     deference NTSB gives to FAA actions. Allows for federal 
     district court review of appeals from the FAA, at the 
     election of the appellant. Makes flight service station 
     communications available to all airmen. Currently, the FAA 
     contracts with Lockheed Martin to run its flight service 
     stations. If a request is made for flight service station 
     briefings or other flight service information under FOIA, it 
     is denied to the requestor because Lockheed Martin is not the 
     government, per se. However, they are performing an 
     inherently governmental function and this information should 
     be available to pilots who need it to defend themselves in an 
     enforcement proceeding.
       2. Improves the Notices to Airmen System--Requires the FAA 
     undertake a NOTAm Improvement Program, requiring 
     simplification and archival of NOTAMs in a central location. 
     The process by which Notices to Airmen are provided by the 
     FAA has long needed revision. This will ensure that the most 
     relevant information reaches the pilot. Non-profit general 
     aviation groups will make up an advisory panel.
       3. Requires a Review of the Medical Certification Process--
     The FAA's medical certification process has long been known 
     to present a multitude of problems for pilots seeking an 
     airman certificate. In fact, 28% of all requests for 
     assistance received by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots 
     Association relates to the medical certification process. The 
     bill requires a review of the FAA's medical certification 
     process and forms, to provide greater clarity in the 
     questions and reduce the instances of misinterpretation that 
     have, in the past, lead to allegations of intentional 
     falsification against pilots. Non-profit general aviation 
     groups will make up an advisory panel.
                                  ____


                    Action on Pilot's Bill of Rights

       July 6, 2011--Introduced Pilot's Bill of Rights with 25 
     cosponsors and endorsements from Aicraft Owners and Pilots 
     Association and Experimental Aircraft Association.
       July 11--National Air Traffic Controllers Association 
     endorses.
       July 28--Dear Colleague from Begich and Pryor sent to 
     Democrats requesting cosponsorship.
       July 30--Presented PBOR at OshKosh Airventure.
       September 15--Sent letter (with 32 signatures) to Commerce 
     Committee requesting hearing.
       September 20--EAA sends e-Hotline to members regarding 
     hearing request.
       November 10--Roundtable event with Harrison Ford, endorses 
     PBOR.
       November 17--Acquires 60th Cosponsor.
       November 19--AOPA makes PBOR front-page story on website.
       January 19, 2012--Staff meeting with Gael Sullivan 
     (Rockefeller), Jarrod Thompson (KBH), and Michael Daum 
     (Cantwell) to discuss committee consideration of PBOR (staff 
     requested hearing).
       January 25--Sam Graves introduces H.R. 3816, a companion 
     measure.
       March--AOPA publishes story highlighting Pilot's Bill of 
     Rights.
       May 5--Acquires 66th cosponsor.
                                  ____


                         [From the AOPA Pilot]

                  NTSB: An Impartial Forum for Pilots?

                          (By John S. Yodice)

       Under the Federal Aviation Act, the National Transportation 
     Safety Board functions as a court of appeals for pilots when 
     the FAA has suspended or revoked a pilot or medical 
     certificate. In our increasingly complex airspace system and 
     the more intensive regulation of our flying activities, no 
     pilot is immune. This appellate function is given to the NTSB 
     because it is independent of the FAA, and presumably able to 
     provide a fair and impartial forum for the hearing of such 
     appeals. Under the Act, an appealing pilot is entitled to 
     ``an opportunity for a hearing.'' It also provides that an 
     FAA order of suspension or revocation must be reversed if the 
     NTSB finds after a hearing that ``safety in air commerce or 
     air transportation and the public interest do not require 
     affirmation of the order.''
       Decisions of the current NTSB cause us to question its 
     fairness and impartiality in pilot appeals. Many of these 
     decisions have been reported in this column, one as recently 
     as last month (``Pilot Counsel: No `Statute of Limitations,' 
     '' July AOPA Pilot). Here is another case that raises doubts.
       The FAA ordered the suspension of a private pilot's 
     certificate for 30 days for piloting a Piper Cherokee 140 
     into the Washington, D.C., Air Defense Identification Zone 
     (now the ``Special Flight Rules Area''). The FAA said that 
     the pilot failed to comply with the special security 
     procedures of the relevant notam, and was ``careless or 
     reckless'' in the operation. The pilot appealed the order of 
     suspension to the NTSB. He filed an answer to the FAA's order 
     admitting the inadvertent incursion, but defending that ``the 
     special procedures required pursuant to FDC notam 7/0206 are 
     unique, complex, and ambiguous.'' (To prove the pilot's 
     point, although it never came up in the case, there have been 
     thousands of such inadvertent incursions, as opposed to very 
     few, if any, intentional ones.) He also adamantly denied that 
     he was ``careless or reckless'' in his operation.
       The result of the appeal to the NTSB was that the pilot was 
     denied a hearing to contest the FAA charges; he was denied a 
     waiver of the suspension even though he timely filed a report 
     with NASA under the Aviation Safety Reporting Program 
     (``Pilot Counsel: ASRP,'' June AOPA Pilot); and he wound up 
     with a ``careless or reckless'' violation on his public FAA 
     airman record.
       This result was achieved by a series of procedural, 
     regulatory, and policy interpretations by the NTSB, all one-
     sided. To start with, the NTSB has a procedural rule allowing 
     summary judgment, i.e., no hearing, if there are no factual 
     issues to be heard. (In my experience the only party 
     routinely granted summary judgment is the FAA, never the 
     pilot.) Based on the pilot's admission that he inadvertently 
     entered the ADIZ, the FAA moved for summary judgment, and the 
     board granted the motion. What the FAA and the board ignored 
     in denying a hearing were the three issues raised by the 
     pilot: one, that he was not ``careless or reckless;'' two, 
     that ``the special procedures required pursuant to FDC notam 
     7/0206 are unique, complex, and ambiguous;'' and three, that 
     he was entitled to a waiver under ASRP.
       The FAA has a catchall regulation, FAR 91.13(a), that 
     provides: ``No person may operate an aircraft in a careless 
     or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of 
     another.'' In a one-sided interpretation, the NTSB has 
     written out of the rule the required element of proof that 
     life or property has been endangered. The pilot was never 
     afforded the opportunity to prove that there was no danger to 
     anyone or anything. In another one-sided interpretation of 
     the same rule, the board held that the ``careless or 
     reckless'' part of the charge is merely ``residual'' to the 
     ADIZ incursion charge and therefore does not warrant a 
     hearing.
       The board rejected without serious discussion, the pilot's 
     defense that the security

[[Page 9105]]

     procedures are unique, complex, and ambiguous. Apparently the 
     board could not bring itself to acknowledge that there could 
     be something wrong with a rule that is unintentionally 
     violated by thousands of otherwise law-abiding and safety-
     conscious pilots.
       The pilot timely filed a report with NASA under ASRP that 
     should have entitled him to a waiver of the 30-day 
     suspension. Most pilots charged with inadvertent incursions 
     have been granted waivers. The board, although conceding that 
     the pilot raised this issue in his reply to the FAA's motion 
     for summary judgment, denied that this was an issue for 
     hearing because, technically, the pilot did not raise it in 
     his answer. Merely raising it in a different pleading filed 
     with the board was not sufficient.
       Notice that every one of these issues, without exception, 
     went against the pilot and in favor of the FAA, all without 
     granting the pilot the hearing, which the Act contemplates, 
     to put on his side of the case. This case would not be so 
     remarkable if it stood alone, and not in context with the 
     many other cases we have seen, many of which we have 
     reported, in which the NTSB one-sidedly seems to favor the 
     FAA and disfavor pilots.

  Mr. INHOFE. He talks about the decision of the current NTSB calls 
into question its fairness and impartiality in pilot appeals. And he 
talks about all the notices that have gone out and the problems they 
have had with this.
  Of the 100,000 pilots who are interested in this today--actually, 
well over that--but just those who are involved in this process right 
now, they have had documented cases where the fairness is not there. 
This would offer fairness, and that is all we are asking, just to be 
treated as fairly as every other citizen in the United States.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, on the point of the hearing, Senator 
Rockefeller and I have agreed certainly with Senator Inhofe to hold a 
hearing, which we notified Senator Inhofe we would, and I expect it to 
be next month for the hearing schedule. I just hope we can pass a good 
part of his bill, which I would like to work with him on, but I think 
the motivation should be safety and assuring safety. I know the 
personal conflict Senator Inhofe has with what happened to him, and I 
am sympathetic, but I don't think passing legislation that could hurt 
the aviation safety community is the right approach to meet the 
objections of Senator Inhofe.
  I would love to have a hearing and have all the witnesses he would 
put forward to get an objective look at what this would do to taking 
the expertise and the mission from FAA and allow it to be bypassed at 
the NTSB level and go to Federal courts where there is not the 
experience and the aviation safety mission that is well protected 
today.
  I hope we can work together on this. I understand the Senator's 
frustration, but I don't think this is the right solution for what 
happened to him with one incident.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. First of all, I am not aware that I was offered a 
hearing. But let me make sure I have in the Record, and I ask unanimous 
consent to have printed in the Record a letter dated September 15, 
2011, which was 9 months ago, signed by 32 Members of this Senate, 
including the occupier of the chair right now, the Senator from West 
Virginia.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                               Washington, DC, September 15, 2011.
     John D. Rockefeller,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
         Transportation, Dirksen Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
     Kay Bailey Hutchison,
     Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
         Transportation, Dirksen Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Rockefeller and Ranking Member Hutchison: A 
     bill that was recently introduced by Senator Inhofe, S. 1335, 
     the Pilot's Bill of Rights, has been referred to your 
     committee. It currently has 32 cosponsors, 13 of which are 
     members of the Commerce Committee. With a majority of 
     committee members having already voiced their support for 
     this legislation, we respectfully request that you hold a 
     committee or subcommittee hearing and markup of this 
     legislation.
       During the drafting of this legislation, Senator Inhofe 
     worked extensively with the Aircraft Owners and Pilot's 
     Association and the Experimental Aircraft Association, both 
     of which have strongly endorsed this bill, as well as private 
     aviation attorneys. It became clear during this process that 
     several common sense changes should be made to enhance the 
     relationship between the FAA and general aviation, and those 
     were incorporated into the bill.
       First, the bill requires that in an FAA enforcement action 
     against a pilot, the FAA must grant the pilot all relevant 
     evidence, such as air traffic communication tapes, flight 
     data, investigative reports, flight service station 
     communications, and other relevant air traffic data 30 days 
     before the FAA can proceed in an enforcement action against 
     the pilot. This is currently not done and often leaves the 
     pilot grossly uninformed of his alleged violation and 
     recourse.
       Second, the bill also allows for federal district court 
     review of appeals from the FAA, at the election of the 
     appellant, and states that the NTSB shall not grant deference 
     to the FAA in an appeal, should the pilot choose to go the 
     NTSB route. Both of these things are done because too often 
     the NTSB rubber stamps a decision of the FAA, giving wide 
     latitude to the FAA and making the appeals process 
     meaningless.
       Third, this bill requires that the FAA undertake a Notice 
     to Airmen Improvement Program, requiring simplification and 
     archival of NOTAMs in a central location. The process by 
     which Notices to Airmen are provided by the FAA has long 
     needed revision. This will ensure that the most relevant 
     information reaches the pilot. Non-profit general aviation 
     groups will make up an advisory panel, which we believe will 
     give pilots a seat at the table when deciding how the NOTAM 
     system can be improved.
       Fourth and finally, the FAA's medical certification process 
     has long been known to present a multitude of problems for 
     pilots seeking an airman certificate. The bill simply 
     requires a review of the FAA's medical certification process 
     and forms, to provide greater clarity in the questions and 
     reduce the instances of misinterpretation that have, in the 
     past, led to allegations of intentional falsification against 
     pilots. Non-profit general aviation groups, aviation medical 
     examiners, and other qualified medical experts will make up 
     an advisory panel to advise the Administrator, again giving 
     the right people a voice in the overall determination.
       Again, we hope that you will schedule a hearing and markup 
     of this legislation that is extremely important to the 
     general aviation community. As many of us sit on your 
     committee, we look forward to being an active part of this 
     process.
           Sincerely,
         James M. Inhofe; John Hoeven; Jim DeMint; Roger F. 
           Wicker; Dean Heller; Pat Toomey; Joe Manchin III; Lisa 
           Murkowski; Mark Begich; Kelly Ayotte; Jerry Moran; 
           Lamar Alexander; Roy Blunt; John Boozman; Marco Rubio; 
           John Cornyn; Olympia J. Snowe; Michael B. Enzi; James 
           E. Risch; Richard Burr; John Barrasso; Pat Roberts; 
           Mike Crapo; Mike Johanns; Tom Coburn; Ron Johnson; 
           Saxby Chambliss; Mark L. Pryor; Debbie Stabenow; Susan 
           M. Collins; Daniel Coats; Jeff Sessions.

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I don't think anyone is going to say we 
haven't done everything we could to go through the committee process to 
get a hearing. I just flat gave up. That is why we have this rule.
  I will be looking forward to taking the next steps. I know there are 
a lot of people out there who want to have this type of justice 
afforded the pilots of the United States of America, the same as every 
other citizen enjoys.
  With that, I appreciate the patience of my colleagues, because I know 
we have other business, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. I rise to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Ending Veteran Housing Discrimination

  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a 
terrible shortcoming in our housing discrimination laws and legislation 
which I have introduced and which I encourage the Presiding Officer to 
sign on to.
  Last week, the Boston Herald reported that a veteran of Iraq and 
Afghanistan had been forced to file suit in Massachusetts because a 
political activist landlord allegedly discouraged him from renting 
because of his military background, claiming the situation would be 
``uncomfortable.''
  This brave veteran brought his fight to the press and to the courts 
of Massachusetts, where State law makes it illegal to discriminate 
against veterans who are seeking housing. In Massachusetts, that is, in 
fact, the law. It is illegal. When I read this, I was angry, as I know 
the Presiding Officer would be angry if it happened in his State. That

[[Page 9106]]

this could happen today is mind-boggling. So my staff and I started 
working to see what we could do to right this wrong and see if it was 
something that was systemic throughout the country. We started digging 
into this issue and found that when it comes to housing, it is 
apparently not illegal--let me repeat that, it is apparently not 
illegal--under Federal law to discriminate against a veteran or a 
member of our Armed Forces on the basis of their brave service to our 
Nation.
  Back when I was a State senator and State representative in 
Massachusetts, at the statehouse, we took action, as I referenced, to 
ensure our veterans are protected, whether it is a welcome home bonus 
for first- and second-time soldiers who have served, antidiscrimination 
reemployment or educational benefits. I could go on and on.
  Quite frankly, I think Massachusetts does it better than any other 
State in the country. So it came as a surprise to learn that fewer than 
one-half dozen States have similar protections. With tens of thousands 
of veterans returning home in the next few years and the size of our 
Armed Forces actually shrinking dramatically, now is clearly the time 
to fix the problem. I know the Presiding Officer as well does not want 
to hear more stories such as this one because I recognize how important 
that issue is for the Presiding Officer.
  No one who puts on the uniform of our Nation and serves should be 
faced with discrimination. There is no one who should ever face that 
discrimination when they are trying to put a roof over their head and 
the heads of their family. The idea that anyone would deny a home to 
someone who has put their life on the line for our freedom is, quite 
frankly, un-American. It should be condemned by every Member of this 
body.
  In order to understand today's problem, however, we must go back to 
1968, when I was 9 years old, when one of my predecessors, Senator 
Edward Brooke, a great legislator from my home State of Massachusetts--
a gentleman whom I still speak with--helped author the Fair Housing Act 
which was signed into law by then-President Johnson. That civil rights 
legislation broke new ground by banning housing discrimination on the 
basis of race, color, religion or national origin. Another great 
Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Ted Kennedy, joined Senator Brooke 
in urging the bipartisan passage of that very important piece of 
legislation.
  Then, in 1974, closer to the Presiding Officer, Senator Bill Brock of 
Tennessee amended the act to prevent housing discrimination on the 
basis of gender. Then, in 1988, Senator Kennedy extended the act's 
protections to those Americans with disabilities and families with 
children. Both of these expansions received broad bipartisan support 
and were actually signed into law.
  As Senator Brooke said 44 years ago:

       Fair housing is not a political issue, except as we make it 
     one by the nature of our debate. It is purely and simply a 
     matter of equal justice for all Americans.

  Well said by Senator Brooke 44 years ago.
  Fair housing has a bipartisan history and we have a chance to do it 
again. We can do it by protecting two additional groups from housing 
discrimination. My Ending Housing Discrimination Against Servicemembers 
and Veterans Act, S. 3283, is needed and it is needed right now. It 
amends the Fair Housing Act to protect veterans and servicemembers from 
housing discrimination.
  By passing this bill right away, the Senate can say affirmatively and 
immediately that veterans and servicemembers deserve the same rights to 
housing as anyone else. This is a no-brainer. The Commander in Chief of 
the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States has endorsed my bill, 
as referenced for people looking on, saying:

       Senator Brown's work to protect servicemembers and veterans 
     from housing discrimination is very positive. It is 
     unconscionable that members of our military and veterans 
     should fear not being able to rent or buy a home because of 
     their status as a veteran.

  This bill will correct the issue.
  By passing this bill right away, we can, once again, say to those 
veterans and servicemembers that they have our pride and respect. We 
need the action right now. No veteran or servicemember should ever face 
the indignity of being denied housing solely on the basis of their 
service.
  The Fair Housing Act of 1968 and Senator Kennedy's amendments in 1988 
passed with overwhelming support. We should be able to do the same. I 
urge all my colleagues to cosponsor this important piece of legislation 
and work for its immediate and unanimous passage. It is time to fix 
this shortcoming in our Nation's housing laws and it is, quite frankly, 
the right thing to do.
  I would like to also take this opportunity to wish the U.S. Army a 
happy 237th birthday. I was honored to go to the cake-cutting last 
night and honor those who have done so much for our great country.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield back all postcloture time on the 
nomination of Mari Carmen Aponte.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Mari Carmen Aponte, of the District of Columbia, to be Ambassador 
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to 
the Republic of El Salvador?
  The nomination was confirmed.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no 
intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to 
the nomination; that any statements related to the nomination be 
printed in the Record; that President Obama be immediately notified of 
the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________