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

TAX ON BONUSES RECEIVED FROM CERTAIN TARP RECIPIENTS

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

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

Pending:

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

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time
until 4:30 p.m. will be for debate only, with the time equally divided
and controlled between the Senator from West Virginia and the Senator
from Texas.
The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous
consent that the time be divided equally.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, this evening, there is a vote scheduled on
the Ensign amendment, which would amend an archaic regulation, called
the DCA perimeter rule, that has limited competition and travel options
for those who fly in and out of Ronald Reagan Washington National
Airport or DCA, as it is called.
More specifically, the DCA perimeter rule restricts the departure or
arrival of nonstop flights to or from airports that are beyond 1,250
miles from DCA. This restriction effectively forces passengers who are
coming from the Western States or going to the Western

[[Page S1791]]

States to use Dulles International Airport or to connect in some other
city and then come on in. Obviously, this is inconvenient and
discriminatory.
The rule was first codified as a Federal statute in 1985. But
actually it goes back to 1962. It first had existed as a Federal rule
in its various iterations since the 1960s when Dulles was first built.
The original purpose of the DCA perimeter rule was to establish Dulles
as the long-haul airport serving the Washington area, and that has
worked.
In 1962, Dulles only served about 52,000 passengers. But today Dulles
is thriving. In 2009, the airport served approximately 23 million
passengers. According to the Metropolitan Washington Airports
Authority:

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

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

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

The current 12 exemptions that exist----

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

There is no reason to believe that 30 additional beyond the perimeter
flights would be any more consequential to Dulles Airport.
The bottom line is, the Ensign amendment is not about changing the
character of Dulles International Airport as to the long-haul airport
for the region or increasing the amount of flights at DCA. It simply
would allow a limited number of direct flights out of DCA to reach the
Western States so that passengers have more choice. It would also allow
more tourists and business travelers from around the country another
option for visiting the Nation's capital and its surrounding States,
such as the State of Virginia.
My colleagues realize a lot has changed in 50 years, and they realize
the need that has previously existed to protect Dulles Airport has
lessened due to its own success. Thanks to a recognition of this fact,
and some assurances that have been made by Senators Dorgan and the
Acting President pro tempore, the Senator from Virginia, a vote on the
Ensign amendment may not be needed tonight. Instead, it is my
understanding that Senator Dorgan and other conferees will make a good-
faith effort to modify the DCA perimeter rule when the FAA
reauthorization bill is conferenced with the House. I know my friend
from North Dakota intends to pursue this matter in conference, and I
appreciate what he has said on this matter.
I also very much appreciate the spirit by which the Acting President
pro tempore has approached this issue. As his predecessors have done,
he has very much acted out of concern both for the traveling public and
also the airports in his State of Virginia, and I would expect him to
do nothing less. But I appreciate the open mind he has in trying to
deal with an issue that we out West have that, hopefully, could be
worked out in such a way that it would be a win-win and recognize the
fact that times have changed since the early 1960s.
Mr. President, unless the Senator from West Virginia has anything, I
will suggest the absence of a quorum, and I do.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for up to 5 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

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

Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I rise to share the stories, once again,
of some of our Nation's great Federal employees.
All throughout March, libraries across America have been celebrating

[[Page S1792]]

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

Amendment No. 3528

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the McCain
amendment No. 3528. I understand we are scheduled to consider that
amendment in a series of votes beginning at 5:30 p.m. The amendment
deals with commercial air tours over Grand Canyon National Park. I wish
to take a few minutes to explain the reasons for my opposition.
The Grand Canyon, of course, is one of the crown jewels of the
National Park System. It is one of the earliest areas that was set
aside for conservation purposes--originally in 1893 as a forest
reserve; later designated as a national monument by President Theodore
Roosevelt in 1908; and in 1919, it was designated by Congress as a
national park. The Colorado River winds its way over 275 miles through
the park, forming one of the most spectacular series of canyons
anywhere in the world.
The park is one of the most heavily visited sites in our country,
with just under 4.4 million visitors last year. Visitors come not only
to see the awe-inspiring views or to float down the Colorado River but
also to experience the quiet and the solitude that much of the park
offers.
In recent years, however, experiencing the natural quiet has become
more difficult as noise associated with aircraft flights over the park
has resulted in increased noise on the ground in the park.
Recognizing this fact, in 1987 Congress enacted the National Parks
Overflight Act. This law included a finding that ``noise associated
with aircraft overflights at Grand Canyon National Park is causing a
significant adverse effect on the natural quiet and experience of the
park . . .'' The 1987 Park Overflight Act directed the Secretary of the
Interior to submit to the Federal Aviation Administration
``recommendations regarding actions necessary for the protection of
resources in the Grand Canyon from adverse impacts associated with
aircraft overflights.''
It also went on to say:

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

Importantly, the act also directed the FAA to implement the
Secretary's recommendations unless the FAA Administrator determined
doing so would adversely affect aviation safety.
In response to the 1987 law, the National Park Service developed
recommendations which were implemented by the FAA and which remained in
place for several years. However, by 1996, both the Park Service and
the FAA concluded that the policies in place were not achieving the
goal of restoring the natural quiet in the Grand Canyon. In addition,
the projected increase in commercial air tours over the park would
result in even more noise at the park.
Since then, the agencies attempted to finalize new rules to improve
noise

[[Page S1793]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congress Should Not Foil Process

The plan to reduce aircraft noise at the Grand Canyon is
finally wrapping up. Suddenly, there's an attempt in Congress
to make a last-minute endrun around the process. This makes
no sense. The draft environmental document is weeks away from
being released. Multiple stakeholders have weighed in. After
years of work, we're on the verge of a plan to restore
natural quiet to one of the most majestic places on Earth.
But last week, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., introduced
legislation that would unilaterally set out rules for air-
tour operations at the Grand Canyon.
The measure, an amendment to another bill, was co-sponsored
by his fellow Arizona Republican, Jon Kyl, and Nevada's
senators, Democrat Harry Reid and Republican John Ensign.
McCain has been a longtime champion of park tranquillity.
He helped pass the National Park Overflights Act in 1987,
which directed the Federal Aviation Administration and the
National Park Service to reduce noise from low-flying
aircraft at the Grand Canyon.
Since then, the process of adopting a noise-management plan
often seemed to move at the same geological pace as the
forces shaping the Canyon. As 23 years rolled by, McCain
repeatedly expressed impatience. And we agreed.
But now is not the time for Congress to step in. The draft
environmental-impact statement, which will identify a
preferred noise-reduction strategy, is expected to be out by
the beginning of May. It will address such issues as the
number of flights, requirements for quieter aircraft and
hours of operation.
The public will have a chance to comment before a final
choice is made. The Federal Aviation Administration will then
adopt rules, which should be in place by early 2011.
We must achieve a delicate balancing act at the Grand
Canyon: giving visitors access, including by air, while
preserving as much of its wild solitude as possible.
Many groups and individuals from all sides have contributed
countless hours to the process, hunting for the best balance.
The amendment would ignore their efforts and set into law
such issues as operating hours, air-corridor routes and
flight allocations.
It would prohibit reducing the number of flights currently
allowed. It would exclude any consideration of noise from
regular commercial air traffic. It would decree that natural
quiet is restored if for at least 75 percent of the day, 50
percent of the park is free of sound from authorized air
tours.
Years of work on the environmental review may indicate that
different rules or more flexibility are in order. But if the
amendment passes, anything that doesn't conform to it will go
into the waste basket.
In his floor statement in the Senate, McCain said the
amendment reduces excessive aircraft noise ``without waiting
another 23 years for progress.''
But we don't have years to wait anymore. We'll see a noise-
management proposal within weeks.
Why the rush? Are air-tour operators--with a heavy presence
in Las Vegas--pushing to get rules to their liking in place,
trumping whatever is in the environmental-impact statement?
Congress should hold off. A plan to restore quiet at the
Grand Canyon is so close to completion. Let the process go
forward.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaufman). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as we approach a final vote on the
FAA reauthorization, which we are doing slowly--that will take place at
about 5:30--I wish to talk briefly about why I think this is so
important. I see my distinguished colleague from Texas is here, whom I
am going to praise so much in my final comments, but she will have to
wait for that. I wish to discuss why we have spent so much precious
time in the middle of a national debate on health care and jobs and the
economy to work on this bill, which we have been doing now for several
years. As I have often pointed out, it was sort of pushed forward 11
times without a final resolve. We want a final resolve

[[Page S1794]]

this evening, and we believe we are going to get one.
We are here today because FAA reauthorization is about so much more
than aviation. It has everything to do with safety for our people, it
is about jobs, it is about our economy, it is about, frankly, our self-
esteem as a nation in the world of aviation. Fifty percent of all the
flights that take place in the world are American planes, but we are
behind, in some ways, and we shouldn't be. The Congress has allowed us
to be behind because we haven't been able to put attention on this
because time is hard to get on the floor. So I appreciate Leader Reid's
willingness to give us this time, even as these momentous matters are
going on.
To me, this is all about improving commercial aviation air service to
small and rural counties, communities. You would expect that from me. I
represent my State. But as chairman of the committee, I represent the
country, too, as does my distinguished ranking member. It is also very
much about establishing better consumer rights protections for the
people who fly, whom we call passengers and whom we also call
consumers. But ultimately it is about improving safety and about
modernizing our system, which I have taken very seriously for years and
about which we have done precious little. In other words, it is about
people's lives every day.
I can remember years ago I could say a relatively few percentage of
the folks from my State flew. They just didn't fly. I mean a lot did
but most didn't. That has changed now. You can't do business in West
Virginia, and West Virginians can't do anything without getting on an
airplane, if you can find one to get on and if you cram yourself into
one--which would be a problem for the Presiding Officer as well as the
present speaker. In other words, our utmost priority always has to be
safety in the skies and for the passengers and their families. They
have to trust us to get this right.
There is a lot that goes wrong. There is a lot that isn't noticed
that goes wrong, but we do notice and we haven't corrected it and we
have a moral obligation to correct it. So let me say a word about
safety.
Statistically, as everybody says, we have the safest air
transportation system in the world. I always bridal a little bit when I
hear that. It is true. Our airlines talk about it, politicians talk
about it. But it is so much less safe than it could easily be if we
were to be a bit more farsighted and energetic. We have done that in
the Commerce Committee, and we have put forward a bill which does that
and creates a much more wholesome story and I will get into that.
It has been a little more than a year since the tragic crash in
Buffalo, NY, of flight 3407 that took the lives of 50 people. It is
clear we need to take serious steps to improve pilot training, to
address flight crew fatigue, which seems to be an esoteric subject
until you look at it. Senator Byron Dorgan, who is the chairman of our
subcommittee, had some charts which brilliantly showed what pilots in
some of these commuter airlines have to go through to get to work and
sometimes then go two nights with no sleep before they fly. Well, it
doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that is dangerous. And
then you have chatter in the cockpits. We have even had one instance of
an 8- or 11-year-old kid helping to land a plane. I mean it is
ridiculous. It is pathetic. It exists. We are trying to get rid of all
that.
Our bill does a lot to address these problems. We need to have
resources for all our airports, both large and small. This legislation
is about equality among airports and economic stability among airports.
We have to provide adequate resources to airports, both large and
small, both urban and rural. When people think of California, they
think of San Francisco and Los Angeles, but they don't think of the
dozens of places in between and above and below that are rural or the
inner part of California, where people need air transportation but have
a hard time.
The continuing economic crisis has hit the U.S. airline industry very
hard. That is easy to say, but it has been devastating for our legacy
airlines. They have been in and out of bankruptcy, mergers have taken
place, and they are always on the edge. I remember at one point they
were showing how they were going to move the seats about an inch closer
to each other and there was an uproar. So the pillows disappeared and
the pretzels and the potato chips disappeared and we have come to
understand that. They are not doing that because they want to treat us
badly. They are doing that because every penny is desperate for them,
and they have overwhelming problems with the recession. Even before the
recession, they were having overwhelming problems.
That is the whole question with the deregulation of airlines. A lot
of things happened, not all of them good. I can remember--and I hope my
ranking member will indulge me--when I went to West Virginia in 1964,
and I drove there, actually, but there were Eastern Airlines jets,
there were United Airlines jets, there were American Airlines jets, and
all the big jets at that time. Within 3 weeks of deregulation, they
were all gone. Now I take my 6 feet 6\1/2\ inches and pray I get an
exit row. I am a master at working the exit system, should that ever be
necessary, but I have to have that exit row, which is always No. 7, or
else I am in big trouble.
The continuing economic crisis has hit the U.S. airline industry
extremely hard and this affects the future of hundreds of our
communities and particularly rural communities because the rural
communities are always at the end of the food chain. When you are at
the end of the food chain, it is akin to being at the end of the line.
You are the one who is cut out. No more seats in the house, you are cut
out, cut off. I have witnessed that a lot in West Virginia and it
hurts. It hurts. I have seen, time and time again, how important a
lifeline it is for local communities, and therefore it continues to
hurt.
The Federal Government needs to provide additional resources and
tools for small communities to attract adequate airline service. That
is possible. It is not just a matter of the Federal Government
supplying a certain amount of money or the essential air service, it is
a matter of the local airports taking themselves very seriously as a
product. We discovered that in West Virginia. Others have discovered
it, perhaps before us or after us, but it makes no difference, you have
to market yourself. An airport is not just a place where planes land,
it is a consumer product and it has to be marketed.
It used to be that lots of our people drove to Cincinnati and took
Southwest, and there was nothing we could do about it. Of course, there
was something we could do about it, and that was to market our airport
in Charleston, WV, and we did that. They marketed on the air, in the
newspapers, and they marketed it in every way possible. Gradually, the
people who had been going to Cincinnati stopped going to Cincinnati
because they discovered they didn't have to spend the money on gasoline
and the overnight motel rooms. They could simply go to Charleston, to
Yeager Airport, and get to Huntington or Parkersburg or wherever it
was.
So it is a tough fight for local communities. It is easy if you are
in a big city. It is hard if you are in a small State, and the
Presiding Officer is familiar with that. So our legislation
accomplishes this business of new resources by building on the existing
programs and strengthening them.
There are some very good programs. I will not go into all of them
now, but there are some very good programs. The Airport Improvement
Program was started a number of years ago. It is absolutely superb at
what it does. It allows airports to expand, to build parking garages,
to expand runways, and build those sort of off-ramp safety places, as
they do for trucks, so that when they are speeding too much and
suddenly there is something which shoots up the hill. Airports have
something called EMASS, which is the same thing. At the end of a
runway, if the plane lands on a short runway--because most of our
airports are on the tops of hills--and they overshoot a little bit,
they can end up in an EMASS and they are safe. It is soft concrete
blocks. We had 34 lives saved in the last month and a half because of
that EMASS system which happened to be there, and that has to be
utilized all over the country.
Consumer rights. This bill also strengthens passenger protections by

[[Page S1795]]

incorporating elements of the Passenger Bill of Rights to deal with the
most egregious flight delays and cancellations. We are rather specific
about that. You never know exactly how things work out, but we have set
some rules. We have said nobody can wait more than 3 hours without
food, without medical attention, without bathroom facilities. They have
to take the passengers back, get them to unload so you don't have these
9-hour, 8-hour, 7-hour waits that always become national stories
whenever they happen. That is not a question of being practical, it is
a question of being humane. It makes sense. It takes away people's
anger, and it makes them more likely to want to fly.
Passengers, frankly, have really had it with endless delays--they
really have had it. They do not like the way they are being treated,
especially when they are stuck on a tarmac in the summertime. People
feel bad sometimes when they are just in an airplane--the white-knuckle
syndrome even if they are not flying, just being in an airplane. The
air is not always so good. People can come close to a point of panic.
You don't want that. We deal with that in this legislation. We do have
a responsibility to bring their rights back into the equation and take
them seriously.
Modernization. Our system is outdated. It is strained beyond its
capacity. I feel very passionate about this one and I have for years.
America's air traffic control system is literally using a World War II
technology. We are the only ones in the industrialized world who do
that. It is embarrassing beyond belief, it is costly beyond belief, it
is climate-unfriendly beyond belief, and it is dangerous beyond belief
because everything is based on radar. It is ancient, World War II. We
have not changed. Everybody else has. Mongolia has done it. We have
not.
On the committee, we decided we were going to get into it in a very
big way. The Next Generation Air Transportation System, called
NextGen--that is what we call it--will save our economy billions by
creating additional capacity and more direct routes, allowing aircraft
to move more efficiently. Why? Because it will be GPS, it will be
digitalized, and it will be real-time streaming of where airplanes are.
It will help the ground controllers. They will have to put equipage in
the airlines themselves so the pilots and the ground-control people
will know exactly where they are at all times. That means maybe they
will be able to bring planes closer together and can land more often or
fly a little closer together--things that cause the whole system to
purge itself of inefficiencies, but not unsafely but safely because you
are using a digitalized system which the rest of the world is already
using.
It has the further advantage, which I have indicated, of reducing
carbon emissions and noise emissions. Noise emissions are very
important. The noise emissions can be overestimated by some;
nevertheless, if people feel strongly about it, they feel strongly
about it, and people do feel strongly about it. You see that in our
local area here. So we want to be helpful on that.
A modern air traffic control system will provide pilots and their air
traffic controllers with a better situational awareness--I have said
that, but it is so important--giving them the tools to see other
aircraft, both at the same time, both streaming information real time.
Also, the weather maps, so they have precise knowledge--not just visual
knowledge of where there might be a thunderstorm but precise knowledge.
This kind of modernization requires sustained focus and substantial
resources. We have worked that out in our bill, and we will have a
nationwide system by, I believe it is, 2025. It seems like a long way
off, but considering where we are starting--we only have one in place,
in the gulf, which is working. We have to do the whole system. It costs
money, both by the Federal Government and by airlines--which are not
going to love that, but it is part of the deal. This authorization
takes steps to make sure we begin all of this now.
In closing, we have to move boldly. This is a huge subject. It is a
huge part of our economy. I guess 700 million people fly today, each
year. In the next 10 years, it will go over 1 billion, maybe 1.2
billion people in the air over the course of a year. At any given
moment, there are 36,000 planes in the skies. How do you keep track of
them all? How can you be sure that they are safe, that they are not
going? How do you shut off the chatter business where pilots are just
talking to each other about things. How far do you go on that without
invading privacy rights? On the other hand, if you don't go far enough,
you are invading consumer and passenger safety, and I lean in that
direction.
Last week, I spoke a little on the floor about the main four goals we
set out to achieve with this bill. No. 1 is to address critical safety
concerns. No. 2 is to establish a roadmap to implement NextGen, that
is, the modern system, so we can catch up with Mongolia and accelerate
the FAA's key modernization programs. No. 3 is to invest in airport
infrastructure. It is so important. If you look at what is happening at
Dulles Airport--that is sort of an extreme example because that is
preparing for the 23rd century, not for the 21st or 22nd. But they have
it right, they have all the land out there, they have bonding
authority, and they can do what they want. They have a good board. It
works very well for them. It needs to work for other airports, also, in
small communities as well. No. 4 is to continue improving small
communities' access to the nation's aviation system. You know I will
never deviate from that, coming from the State of West Virginia.
Frankly, I am proud of how far we have come and prouder still that we
got here in a truly bipartisan fashion. It is refreshing. It was quite
wonderful, working with Senators--obviously Senator Hutchison being the
key; Senator Dorgan, a terrific chairman of the aviation subcommittee,
absolutely terrific; also, Senator DeMint--toward a vibrant, strong
aviation system so fundamental to our country.
I urge my colleagues to give the FAA the tools, the resources, the
direction, and the deadlines to make sure the agency can provide
effective oversight of the aviation industry. This is a big-ticket item
that appears not so dramatic as events of the recent days, but over the
course of our country, it is extraordinarily dramatic.
I will at the proper time urge my colleagues to support
reauthorization. As I say, we have put this off now 11 different times.
This will last for 2 years after conference--it may be 3 years. I would
take more than that, myself. But we cannot afford to wait any longer.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 3528, Withdrawn

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Arizona,
Mr. McCain, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 3528 be
withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, let me say that I know Senator
Rockefeller and I will have a little time toward the vote to do a
summation of the bill. But while we are at this stage, I do wish to say
that I think we have taken a major step forward in FAA reauthorization.
As many who have worked on this project know, we have had 11 extensions
of FAA reauthorization since 2007--short-term extensions because we
have not been able to get the agreements that are necessary to propel
this bill from the floor.
There are some very important provisions of this bill that I hope we
will eventually have final passage and that we can all support.
However, we are not there yet. We are at the stage of getting it from
the Senate floor, but there are still some issues that will have to be
resolved even before we go to conference.
I think before we appoint conferees there will have to be some
agreements that have not yet been clearly reached. One of those is the
perimeter rule. I am going to talk a little bit more about that when my
colleague, Senator Ensign, comes because his amendment is the pending
amendment on that on the bill. But besides the perimeter rule, there
are issues that are addressed in this bill that are so important, that

[[Page S1796]]

will take us a major step forward for the traveling public in our
country.
There are safety provisions in this bill addressing issues throughout
all sectors of the aviation community. I think they are major
improvements in our airline safety, although we know we have the safest
system we have ever had. There are very few accidents. But I do think
the accidents we have had are still teaching us what can be done in the
area of fatigue of pilots and human factors, which has always been the
hardest part of the aviation system to address. We do have some
standards and a way forward that I think will improve aviation safety
because none of us wants to have anything less than 100 percent
aviation safety. That is what we are striving for.

The bill will also modernize our air traffic control system. Our air
traffic control system is using technology that is probably based back
in the 1960s. It is time for us to have a satellite-based system. This
is going to be expensive. Having the startup of this NextGen system is
essential for our country to stay in the forefront of efficient use of
our air traffic control system, and also eventually, hopefully, when it
is all in place, we will also be able to open more airspace so we can
better utilize our air traffic control system.
The bill will provide infrastructure funds for our airports. That is
one of the reasons we need to get this bill from the floor and assure
our airports that the airport trust fund money is available, it is
stable, and they can count on the funds flowing from the airport trust
fund in an orderly way so that the improvements to our airports can be
done.
The bill will improve rural access to aviation through the Essential
Air Service Program. This is a very important part of our whole system.
Not only do we have a great general aviation community, which does so
much for capabilities for volunteers and recreational pilots to use our
airspace, but also the business aviation--the smaller aviation
facilities that are private but also very important. And then, of
course, our regional airlines are a very important part of our overall
air service, and we will have improvements in those sectors.
The bill will improve passenger and consumer protections. There is no
doubt that the Passenger Bill of Rights is long overdue, and I think we
have come to a good place to protect passengers from sitting on the
tarmac for 5 hours without the ability to get off an airplane. Issues
such as that that have cropped up are being addressed in our new
Passenger Bill of Rights. It will strengthen aeronautics and aviation
research as well.
There is a lot that is good in this bill, and we still have a long
way to go to finish it, but I do look forward to working through
tonight, getting the bill passed from the Senate, and then working on
these issues that are not yet completely agreed to before we go to
conference. Then, from there, I hope we can take the next step, which
is not going to be an easy one, and that is resolving the differences
between the House and Senate bills. The differences are pretty big, so
I think we are going to have our jobs cut out for us. It means we are
not anywhere close to being finished yet, but we are certainly in a
better place than we have ever been since 2007 when FAA
reauthorization, the previous bill, lapsed, and we have been doing
short-term extensions since then.
I look forward to more after wrap-up and more of a discussion of the
perimeter rule as soon as Senator Ensign arrives.
I yield the floor.

Boise Terminal Radar Approach Control

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I appreciate the fact that the chairman and
ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee have created an Air
Traffic Control Modernization Board and tasked it with reviewing and
evaluating the Federal Aviation Administration facility and service
realignment proposals.
The Idaho delegation has been raising serious concerns with the FAA's
proposed transfer of the Boise Terminal Radar Approach Control, TRACON,
for several years. Despite the years of requests for transparency and
detailed cost and safety data, the agency has failed to clearly
demonstrate that the radar transfer would result in improved air
traffic control services for Boise air traffic users. In fact, the
evidence that the Idaho delegation has seen continues to indicate that
services would be diminished and efficiency and operational costs could
also be impacted.
The Idaho delegation requested the Department of Transportation's
Office of the Inspector General to initiate a study of the costs
associated with this radar transfer. In addition we have asked the Air
Traffic Safety Oversight Service, AOV, to determine whether FAA safety
risk management procedures have been followed in the proposed move.
The Idaho delegation remains unconvinced that physically relocating
the radar would be cost effective and question the assumptions that
have driven the FAA's proposal. Because these concerns have not been
adequately addressed, we believe the consolidation should be halted
until the new Air Traffic Control Modernization Oversight Board
completes its recommendations for realignment.
As I read the new section 308 language, the bill will halt the
consolidation of the Boise TRACON into the Salt Lake City TRACON until
after the board completes its recommendations for realignment even
though the FAA has sent an article 46 notification to move the Boise
TRACON to Salt Lake City. At this point, I ask to have printed in the
Record a letter from the National Air Traffic Controllers Association,
NATCA, that agrees with this position.
The letter follows.

National Air Traffic

Controllers Association, AFL-CIO,

Washington, DC, March 18. 2010.
Dear Senators Crapo and Risch: We write today to thank you
for your continued leadership in the U.S. Senate on behalf of
the air traffic controllers in Idaho.
As you know, the National Air Traffic Controllers
Association has a strong track record of support of
consolidations that do not compromise safety. Unfortunately,
the FAA has failed to collaborate with the controller
workforce during its most recent round of facility and
service realignments, including the agency's intentions to
remove local radar services from Boise. Your support for the
controllers in Idaho during this dispute has been critical
and has not gone unnoticed.
The language in Section 308 of the substitute amendment to
H.R. 1586, legislation to reauthorize the Federal Aviation
Administration, will protect the Boise TRACON and the city's
air traffic control facilities from the FAA's current plans
to transfer these services to Salt Lake City despite the
FAA's Article 46 notification of its intent to move forward
with the proposed transfer.
This language will ensure the local radar services will
remain at Boise until the Air Traffic Control Modernization
Oversight Board's recommendations are complete, or with the
full participation of and collaboration with the air traffic
controllers at Boise. Similarly, we at NATCA will not move
forward with negotiations with the FAA on the Boise TRACON
transfer without full cooperation with the Idaho
Congressional Delegation and other key stakeholders. Full
collaboration will ensure that this and all future ATC
facility and service realignments will only be considered if
the proposals serve the public good by improving safety,
efficiency and service.
The inclusion of this provision in the substitute amendment
is a direct product of your tireless efforts to compel the
FAA to work collaboratively with the air traffic controllers
and other vital aviation stakeholders in Boise. On behalf of
the air traffic controllers in Boise and throughout the
country, we want to thank you for your continued leadership
on this issue.
Sincerely,
Patricia Gilbert,
National Executive Vice President.
Mark Griffin,
President, Boise NATCA Local.
Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I completely agree with the distinguished
senior Senator from Idaho, and I associate myself with his statements
fully. Senator Crapo and I want to confirm with the chairman and
ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee that section 308
prohibits the FAA from proceeding with the consolidation of the Boise
TRACON into the Salt Lake City TRACON until after the board completes
its recommendations concerning all air traffic control facility
realignments and consolidations nationwide. From where we stand, it is
necessary to have a thorough review of the Boise consolidation and an
independent determination of the cost effectiveness of transferring the
Boise TRACON to Salt Lake City.

[[Page S1797]]

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Yes, that is correct. The FAA article 46
notification of its intent to move forward with the proposed transfer
would be stopped if section 308 is enacted into law, unless the
affected employees execute a written agreement regarding the proposed
realignment.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I concur with the Senator from West Virginia. No
realignments will be allowed to continue before the completion of the
board's recommendations, unless the affected employees and the FAA
agree in writing to do so.
Mr. CRAPO. Per this colloquy, Senator Risch and I will follow up with
the FAA that it is the clear intent of the Senate for the FAA to halt
its consolidation of the Boise TRACON until after the new board
completes its recommendations for realignment.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, FAA authorization expired in Octobeer of
2007.
For more than 2 years, we have been operating on short-term
extensions.
I thank Chairman Rockefeller and Senators Hutchison, Dorgan and
DeMint for working together to bring this bill to the floor.
The bill before us will improve the safety of air travel, modernize
our air traffic control system, boost the economy and create thousands
of jobs.
Senator Dorgan and Senator Rockefeller have had many hearings over
the last few years on aviation but each hearing had one theme: safety.
This bill will improve safety by creating an Aviation Safety
Whistleblower Investigation Office that can catch problems before they
result in serious accidents.
The bill also requires the FAA Administrator to re-evaluate flight
crew training and certification.
We also require FAA to establish safety standards for training
programs for flight crew members and aircraft dispatchers.
Another key component of this bill is NextGen.
NextGen is the term we use to describe our transition to a more
modern, satellite-based air traffic control system.
NextGen will give pilots and air traffic controllers the ability to
ccurately pinpoint aircraft in the sky--to avoid problems, to monitor
traffic, to move things more smoothly, safely and efficiently.
The FAA released its aviation forecast study last Tuesday.
Last year, we saw 704 million passengers carried on U.S. airlines.
Soon, hose numbers will increase significantly. The FAA reports we will
see more than 1 billion air passengers by 2023 and more than 1.2
billion passengers by 2030. We just do not have the capacity with our
current air traffic control sstem to handle this increase in traffic.
But with NextGen, we hope to triple the capacity of our national
aviation system.
This technology will allow planes to fly the straightest, quickest
route from point A to point B. And with more precise information and
better communication between the ground and the cockpit, we can fit
more planes safely in our airspace. Doing so will save airlines at
least 3.3 billion gallons of fuel a year or more than $10 billion
annually by 2025. NextGen should also reduce airport delays
significantly.
Chicago's Midway Airport was ranked dead last in January for on-time
departures among the nation's 29 busiest airports. Chicago's O'Hare
airport has won that dubious distinction more than once. One of the
main reasons for these delays is the lack of capacity in airspace.
Fully implementing NextGen should reduce delays by half.
This is a great investment. This bill will help airports and air
travelers in Illinois and nationwide save time and money.
In Illinois, we are in the middle of the largest airport expansion
project in U.S. history at O'Hare airport.
This $6.6 billion project will completely reconfigure the runways at
O'Hare to make sure we can move more traffic in and out of Chicago more
efficiently. Moving this project along means a lot to the people of
Chicago and Illinois. O'Hare already generates 450,000 jobs and $38
billion in economic activity for the Chicago region and the State of
Illinois. The O'Hare modernization project will create 195,000 more
jobs, and another $18 billion in annual economic activity. This bill
will allow O'Hare to keep moving forward by streamlining the passenger
facility charge application process.
And it isn't just O'Hare. Airports in Illinois will benefits from
more than $4 billion per year for the airport improvement program, AIP.
Last year, airports in the Quad Cities, Rockford, Decatur and
Springfield all used AIP funds to make critical improvements to their
airfields.
Keeping this funding flowing will allow these airports to handle the
traffic of today and the future increases of tomorrow.
The bill helps rural areas keep the commercial air service they have
now and attract new service in the future. For a long time, the
Essential Air Service, EAS, program was relegated to the back bench at
the Department of Transportation.
In Illinois, two air carriers provided subpar service for too long.
In 2007, the EAS carrier providing service from Quincy, Decatur and
Marion, IL, to St. Louis was shut down by the FAA. The next carrier
promised each community four round-trips each day and codeshare
agreement with a major airline. That carrier broke those promises and
left town as soon as they could. This administration is taking a
different approach and so is this Congress.
This bill fully funds the EAS program and puts in place important
reforms so the Department of Transportation works with businesses,
local communities and the airline industry to start and retain quality
air service to rural communities.
Without a robust EAS program, many rural communities would have no
commercial air service at all, and residents of smaller cities would
have to travel significant distances for flights. But with reliable and
safe commercial air service, communities can retain and attract
businesses.
The bill also helps smaller airports gain new commercial air service
by increasing funding for the Small Community Air Service Grant
program.
This program has helped airports in Illinois, including Rockford and
Springfield, bring new routes to their cities.
I want to thank Senator Rockefeller for including the Essential Air
Service and Small Community provisions in this bill and for creating an
Office of Rural Aviation within DOT to make sure rural areas are not
forgotten.
Safety, efficiency, capacity and even the connectivity in smaller
communities--all of these aspects of the FAA reauthorization also
generate jobs.
The FAA estimates commercial aviation is responsible for 5.2 percent
of gross domestic product and generates $1.142 trillion in economic
activity.
The aviation industry provides $346 billion in earnings and 10.2
million jobs.
And this bill will help grow those numbers. In 2010, DOT estimates
this legislation will support 150,000 jobs. The economist Mark Zandi
said, ``Aviation is the glue that keeps the global economy together.''
This bill will boost our economy now and lay the foundation to keep
the United States competitive in the global marketplace moving forward.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise in support of this legislation to
modernize our Nation's aviation system and I am especially pleased that
it includes Senate Amendment No. 3534 to protect the pristine beauty
and quiet of Crater Lake National Park.
This amendment offered by Senator Merkley and I would bring an end to
the bureaucratic stalemate that exists between the Federal Aviation
Administration and the National Park Service over implementation of the
National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000.
That act required the FAA and the Park Service to work together in
regulating air tours over national parks. Unfortunately, that is not
happening. After nearly a decade, these two agencies have yet to
complete a single required air tour management plan for those parks
with air tours.
Meanwhile, parks where air tours applications are pending are in
limbo over whether tours will operate and where. Efforts to provide
adequate safeguards to protect the parks' resources have stalled,
leaving places such as Oregon's Crater Lake National Park--the 6th
oldest national park in the Nation--lingering in needless uncertainty.
In short, the law is not working as it was intended and providing no
benefit to anyone.
When an air tour company applied last year for permission to fly
tours

[[Page S1798]]

over Crater Lake National Park, the public outcry in my state and
elsewhere was swift and dramatic--and for good reason. Anyone familiar
with Crater Lake knows that it is one of the crown jewels of the
Nation's system of national parks. It is a place that my constituents
care deeply about. It is visited by countless Oregonians and tourists
alike every year who come to see its deep-blue lake, dramatic lava
flows, towering trees and, perhaps most of all, to experience its
quiet.
While we cannot agree on what to do about air tours over every single
national park, we can agree that if we are going to ban them anywhere
it should be Crater Lake. Such a ban will guarantee future generations
the same pristine solitude that exists today.
Since Crater Lake represents one of the few places to escape the din
of everyday life, I and many others have serious concerns over what the
proposed helicopter over flights would do to that tranquility.
Yet that concern isn't able to be considered by the FAA and the Park
Service under the requirements found in the current National Park Air
Tour Management Act of 2000. Parks such as Crater Lake must go through
the costly and time-consuming process of attempting to craft an air
tour management plan before being able to deny an application for air
tours. As no such plans have been completed for any park in 10 years,
there is little prospect of getting any certainty any time in the near
future. This is uncertainty for air tour operators and for parks
visitors alike. Will there be over flights or won't there? The way
things work now, we'll never know and our treasured parks don't get the
certain protection they need.
My amendment would provide needed clarity regarding the
responsibilities of the FAA and the National Park Service so that air
tour management plans can finally be completed. It will speed
implementation of the act by ensuring that air tour management plans
are not required at Crater Lake, where it is clear that having them
would be unacceptable to park resources or visitor experiences.
I am pleased that Senator Rockefeller has worked with me to include
this amendment in the managers' package. I thank my colleagues Senator
Merkley who cosponsored this amendment and Senator Alexander who also
lent his support. This amendment will help ensure that our parks'
resources are protected.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate will vote on final
passage of the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety
Improvement Act. This 2-year reauthorization of FAA's programs provides
important funding increases and program improvements that will enhance
the safety and efficiency of our Nation's aviation system. In so doing,
it makes key investments in our Nation's aviation infrastructure and
creates jobs with these investments.
Our global economy depends on the smooth and efficient movement of
goods, services, and people from city to city and across international
borders. A safe and efficient aviation system goes hand in hand with a
strong economy. We are fortunate to have the best aviation system in
the world, and we must continue to make the necessary investments and
upgrades to keep it as such. The FAA reauthorization bill helps us to
do this by addressing problems of capacity, congestion, and delays that
have emerged to ensure our aviation system can adequately handle the
projected growth in airlines passengers.
The FAA reauthorization bill will create much needed jobs by
providing the funding and directives for safety improvements at our
airports and in the aviation industry. For instance, the FAA is
building two new air traffic control towers in Michigan: at Kalamazoo
and Traverse City. The FAA is also repaving two runways and various
taxiways at Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport. The FAA is also
constructing a new terminal building at Kalamazoo/Battle Creek
International Airport, and it is designing a new building for aircraft
rescue and firefighting and snow removal equipment at Pellston Regional
Airport in Emmet County. These are much needed upgrades and will make
flying into and around Michigan safer and easier.
A key component of this bill is to modernize our air traffic control
system by building the Next Generation Air Transportation System,
NextGen, of satellite-based navigation. The NextGen system will be more
accurate and more efficient than the current radar based air traffic
control system. It will also result in significant fuel efficiencies
and time savings by allowing aircraft to fly more direct routes. This
is good for the environment, good for air carrier's bottom line, and
good for the flying public. This bill accelerates the process and moves
the NextGen modernization process forward. The bill also provides
flexibility to airports regarding how Airport Improvement Program funds
can be utilized as well as studying ways to raise revenue for airport
projects through a pilot program.
I will vote in support of the FAA reauthorization bill, and I urge
its quick adoption and enactment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.

Health Care

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

Amendment No. 3476, As Modified

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

[[Page S1799]]

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

The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

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

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

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

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

Stewart L. Udall

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

[[Page S1800]]

fight him all the way. There were pickets and protests and
demonstrations and harsh words back and forth. But in the end, Stewart
Udall and President Kennedy prevailed. The Washington Redskins were
integrated. In fact, some of their first Black players ended up in the
Hall of Fame. Interior Secretary Udall did the Washington Redskins and
their fans quite a favor. That was in the early 1960s. Those who know
the fight song for the Washington Redskins may be surprised to learn
that the refrain that talks about ``fight for old DC'' before this
battle used to say ``fight for old Dixie.'' Things have changed in the
capital city, and Stewart Udall was part of that change.
In his life too he was a man who relished physical challenges, as his
son still does, my colleague Senator Tom Udall and his cousin Mark
Udall of Colorado. He was an all-conference guard on the University of
Arizona basketball team, climbed Mount Kilimanjaro and Mount Fuji,
headed up American delegations to many regions. At the age of 84,
Stewart Udall, at the end of his last rafting trip on the Colorado
River, hiked up the steep Bright Angel trail from the bottom of the
Grand Canyon to the south rim, a 10-hour walk at age 84. And it says in
the New York Times:

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

What an amazing man, an amazing life, a great contribution to
America. His passing is a reminder of some of the greats who have
served in so many different ways and have left a mark, an indelible
legacy, and a heritage.
Stewart L. Udall was one of those men, and among his legacy items
would include not only a great family but a great colleague in the
Senate, his son, Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico. We should honor his
service, note his passing, and remember his inspiration. His leadership
made America a better place. His legacy in conservation will serve
generations to come. We need more like Stewart Udall.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I want to thank Senate leadership for
bringing this bill to the floor. Our Nation's air traffic control
systems are in serious need of modernization, and this bill is the
right step forward in addressing those challenges. Improved safety, a
reduction in flight delays and more efficient routes resulting in less
fuel burned are all possible with a modern, 21st century air traffic
control system. I commend Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member
Hutchison and the Senate Commerce Committee for their commitment in
addressing these issues.
I want to take a few moments today to talk about an issue that is
important to me, the communities near Washington Reagan National
Airport and those communities throughout America who currently have
reliable service to the Nation's Capital. I am deeply concerned with
any attempts to modify the current agreement on the perimeter and slot
rules that currently apply to Reagan National Airport.
In 1987, Congress created the Metropolitan Washington Airports
Authority to run Reagan National and Washington Dulles International
Airports. The creation of the Airports Authority established a
professional organization to operate the airports efficiently and
represented a commitment to the surrounding communities regarding
aircraft noise and traffic. I think that bears repeating. Congress made
a commitment to the residents of Alexandria, Arlington and Fairfax
County on the operation of Reagan National Airport when it transferred
authority to the Airports Authority. Those commitments were codified by
Congress in the so-called perimeter and slot rules. Changes to these
rules threaten to seriously degrade service to Reagan National, Dulles
International, and Baltimore-Washington International airports. And
they break the commitment made to our surrounding communities.
The amendment that the Senator from Nevada has offered seeks
essentially to do away with the existing 1,250 mile perimeter rule that
governs flights into and out of Reagan National Airport. The Senator
from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, has argued that this will have a limited impact
on existing flights at DCA. On the contrary, if this amendment passes,
up to 75 existing flights that currently fly from DCA to other large
cities within the perimeter could be lost. Shifting these flights would
not only have a direct impact on the cities that stand to lose the
routes they currently have, but it would also have follow-on effects to
flights in smaller markets, as well as flights that now service Dulles
and BWI.
Furthermore, the flights that would be added at Reagan National would
be long-haul flights, which means bigger planes and more passengers.
That in turn means more congestion around and inside the airport: worse
traffic, longer lines at security, more difficulty parking large planes
at already crowded gates.
There are basic physical constraints at Reagan National Airport that
cannot be ignored, and the original slots and perimeter rules were
carefully crafted to take that into consideration. If you have ever
tried to fly out of Reagan National Airport during peak hours, you know
that parking can be impossible, ticket counters can be incredibly
congested and the number of gates for jets to park is limited.
More than 10 years ago, the Airports Authority rebuilt much of Reagan
National Airport, transforming it into one of the most efficient
airports in the Nation as the facilities constructed were matched to
the number of flights established by law. It did so with the slot and
perimeter restrictions in mind. Any significant change in those rules
will overburden critical airport facilities and infrastructure, causing
serious disruptions. New flights will create more demand for parking
where none is available. At the same time, gate access at Reagan
National Airport is limited, as airlines are currently sharing gates in
some areas. Flights coming and going would be delayed, an important
issue we happen to be addressing in this bill. We have laid out
policies to reduce the inconvenience of delays and sitting in grounded
aircraft because of air traffic congestion in this very bill.
These are significant issues that the Senate must consider before
making any changes to the perimeter rule. When members consider this
issue in the context of additional flights for them to get back to
their constituents, keep in mind there is a significant risk of greater
delays and, for many Senators here, a possible reduction in services to
their communities. With a change in the current structure at Reagan
National Airport, there will be potential impact for communities inside
the perimeter who could see their access reduced or eliminated. Flights
to cities like Miami, FL; Chicago, IL; New York City; and Boston, MA
could lose many of the flights they now have. Communities like
Charleston, WV; Des Moines, IA; Jackson, MI; Lexington, KY; Madison,
WI; Manchester, NH; or Omaha, NE; could eventually lose their access as
well, as airlines backfill their flights to more profitable routes.
It strikes me that the desire to change the slot and perimeter rules
at Reagan National Airport is not being driven by market demand, but
rather by a few airlines seeking a competitive advantage over others.
Allowing airlines to swap flights from hub airports inside the
perimeter to hub airports outside of the perimeter could be seen as a
special interest earmark for a select group of carriers, as the pool of
beneficiaries is identifiable and limited. By allowing existing rules
to be altered for a select class, Congress will be allocating this
scarce resource for the convenience of a few rather than the larger
community need. This is fundamentally anticompetitive behavior and we
need to end this periodic and detrimental practice.
Congress added 24 new slots in 2000 and another 22 slots in 2003. If
we get rid of the perimeter rule, or modify it in such a way that
causes loss of service or diminished service to communities inside the
perimeter, the affected communities will be back before Congress
seeking more slots to make up for lost service. The communities of
Northern Virginia should not have to continually suffer for the
convenience of a relative few. We have seen examples of service in
other congested airspaces where reasonable slots restrictions have
controlled or reduced growing delays in flight times.
The convenience of Reagan National comes at a heavy price for many
airport neighbors in the form of aircraft noise and airport related
traffic in Arlington, Alexandria and southern Fairfax County. Changing
current law only

[[Page S1801]]

further breaks the bond that was created with the neighbors of the
airports and unfairly burdens them for the sake of the convenience of
others. With some foresight in this body, we can avoid any greater
congestion whether in the air, on the tarmac or on our roads. The
position that the Senators from Maryland, Mr. Warner, and I hold is
consistent with local communities groups of Northern Virginia and that
of many previous Governors of the Commonwealth.
With regard to the perimeter rule, its value is evident in the
development taking place at Dulles Airport today. Because Dulles is
better situated to handle the demands of long-haul flying, Congress
wisely established the perimeter rule to move long-haul traffic to
Dulles where the space exists to handle the necessary parking and
infrastructure expansion. The multibillion-dollar Dulles Development
program, and the investments in rail service to Dulles, are all
predicated upon Congress keeping its word on the perimeter rule.
Eliminating or changing the perimeter rule will not only overburden
capacity at Reagan National Airport by overwhelming the facilities but
would significantly change the infrastructure improvements needed at
Dulles International Airport, many of which are already under
construction. Sizable business interests have located their operations
in Fairfax and Loudoun Counties based on their proximity to Dulles and
on assumptions about the stability of the slot and perimeter rules.
Service will suffer, infrastructure will be strained and the
communities surrounding the airport will face more noise and more
traffic. That is the last thing we need for Northern Virginia, or the
Nation's Capital.
I have laid out only the most significant arguments against changes
to the slot and perimeter rules. But here is one more: it is not
appropriate for Congress to meddle and manipulate the airports in my
home State. Congress no longer maintains this kind of silent hand in
the operations at any airports in my colleagues' home states. Let us
let the Airports Authority run Washington's airports as Congress agreed
to. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Ensign amendment and
reject changes to the perimeter rules at Reagan National Airport.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a March 17,
2010, letter to me from the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Metropolitan Washington

Airports Authority,

Washington, DC, March 17, 2010.
Hon. James H. Webb,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Webb: The Metropolitan Washington Airports
Authority (Airports Authority) is aware of several proposed
amendments to H.R. 1586, the legislative vehicle for the
Federal Aviation Administration Air Transportation
Modernization and Safety Improvement Act, which address
flight rules at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport
(Reagan National). The Airports Authority would like to
reiterate our commitment to maintaining the current High
Density Rule (or ``Slot'' Rule) and ``Perimeter Rule'', which
direct the allocation of a very scarce resource--take offs
and landings--at Reagan National.
Congress initially mandated the Slot and Perimeter rules in
1987, balancing the physical limitations of Reagan National
with the growth potential of Washington Dulles International
Airport (Dulles International) and Baltimore/Washington
Thurgood Marshall International Airport (Baltimore/
Washington). Over the years, Congress has made modest changes
to these rules, and Reagan National has been able to operate
with a high degree of arrival and departure reliability. Over
the past two decades, tremendous capital investments have
been made at Dulles International, as annual air traffic has
grown substantially.
Reagan National's facilities were rebuilt in the 1990s, at
a cost of $1 billion, to match the capacity established by
Congress in the Slot and Perimeter rules. Drastic changes to
the Slot and Perimeter rules that are currently under
discussion will add significant flight activity with the
potential to result in surface traffic congestion, passenger
delays, and security screening back-ups. Further, increases
in flights and passenger volumes could stress the air traffic
control system during poor weather, ground facilities,
baggage, gate and other terminal services. The Airports
Authority is also concerned about the possible, or perceived,
noise-related impact on the region resulting from additional
flights at Reagan National.
The Airports Authority urges the Congress to reject the
temptation to add flights to Reagan National without regard
to the ability of Reagan National to absorb this increase, or
to the impact on the neighboring community, and Dulles
International and Baltimore/Washington Airports.
Sincerely,
James E. Bennett,
President and Chief Executive Officer.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as we conclude this debate on this
reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration, I wish to thank
my colleagues for their hard work, and I wish to do so with some
specificity.
First, I thank Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, the ranking member of
the Commerce Committee. Senator Hutchison and I, in a sense, kind of
grew up together on the Commerce Committee. We have worked together, in
my judgment, entirely successfully on aviation issues. For much of the
last decade, Senator Hutchison and I have served as either chair or
ranking member of the Aviation Subcommittee. In 2009, I assumed the
chairmanship of the Commerce Committee, and she assumed the ranking
member position on the committee.
But, more importantly, we have a long history of producing strong,
bipartisan aviation legislation and working well, generally, starting
with the landmark AIR 21 bill in 2000--which greatly increased funding
for our aviation system--through the chaotic days after September 11,
9/11--which culminated in the Aviation and Transportation Security
Act--to this important reauthorization we are considering today.
I am profoundly proud of our work together over the years. I respect
her professionally. I respect her personally. I think our work is a
legacy we both can be very proud of. I know I am. She is an
extraordinary Senator who is deeply committed to making sure the United
States has the finest aviation system in the world. She has many other
interests, but that is one of them. Our Nation's aviation system is
demonstrably safer and more secure because of her efforts.
I also thank my good friend, Senator Byron Dorgan. In 2009, Senator
Dorgan became the chair of the Aviation Subcommittee--just a year ago--
but he has attacked it with such ferocity and intensity, typical of
him, that it seems like much longer than that. He has been a
magnificent chairman of that subcommittee. His laserlike focus on
making our aviation system safer has become a cornerstone of this bill.
He held, for example, eight hearings on aviation safety over the last
15 months. Eight hearings in 15 months does not seem like a lot, but
given our schedule around here, it is. He was totally focused, such as
on what happened in Buffalo and all other aspects.
As with every issue in which he is engaged--and there are many of
them--he has made a lasting contribution. I personally regret he has
chosen to retire at the end of this year. Not only will I miss him as a
friend, but the people of North Dakota and this country will lose one
of their most passionate and effective advocates. He should be
enormously proud of his work on this bill. I know I am.
I also recognize the work of Senator DeMint, who has championed a
number of important safety provisions and has been a strong advocate of
moving this bill forward. It is important to say, very important to
say.
Senator Baucus worked hard to develop a revenue title for this bill.
Through his efforts, the aviation system will have resources it needs
to build the modern digital air traffic control system our Nation
demands. We will be spending about $500 billion a year.
As with every bill that moves through this body, much, much, much of
the work is done by our staff who put in extraordinary hours.
First and foremost, I would like to recognize, among other people,
Gael Sullivan of my staff. Gael has served as a professional staff
member for the Aviation Subcommittee for almost a decade. For 3 years,
Gael has worked tirelessly on this bill. It would not be a reality
without his efforts.
I would also like to recognize Rich Swayze and Adam Duffy of my
staff, in addition to Jim Conneely, a detailee from the FAA, as it
turns out, to the Commerce Committee. He has been of invaluable
assistance.
I would like to thank Jarrod Thompson and Ann Begeman of Senator
Hutchison's staff. They are true and total professionals, without whose
work the bill would not be possible.

[[Page S1802]]

I would also like to thank Margaret McCarthy of Senator Dorgan's
staff, who worked seamlessly with the committee staff.
As always, Senator Baucus's staff was critical to getting the revenue
title in place.
Finally, I would be kind of remiss if I did not mention the hard and
constant work of Ellen Doneski, the staff director of the Commerce
Committee, who was my legislative director in a former life; Mr. James
Reid, who sits beside me, my deputy staff director; and the Commerce
Committee press team, Jamie Smith and Jena Longo.
The staff never gets enough credit. We talk about it. We say it. I
think they know we mean it. I wonder if they can guess how much we do
mean it--the hours they put in; their selflessness; their willingness
to work together; their willingness to work across party lines, where
sometimes their Members cannot as easily. So I am fortunate to have so
many talented people working with me and with Senator Hutchison.
But most of all, I thank Senator Hutchison.
Mr. President, I want to say just a few words about two very
important programs at the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA--the
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise and the Airport Concessions
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Airport Improvement Programs.
These programs have been critically important in helping to level the
playing field for minority and women owned businesses in the airport
industry and continue to be instrumental in addressing ongoing
discrimination. While it is true that our nation has made tremendous
progress against discrimination in the past five decades, there
continues to be a good deal more work to do.
Discrimination in the lending, bonding, and bid process, as well as
disparities in the treatment of DBE subcontractors once a contract is
awarded are real life problems faced by these businesses. For this
reason, I strongly support the provisions in this bill to improve the
DBE program, including provisions to adjust the personal net worth cap
for inflation and to require certification training for those who
review DBE applications.
We must not forget the true impact of DBE firms on the economy.
Minority and women owned businesses not only improve the vitality of
the airport industry, but they are important economic contributors to
their communities.
The statistical and qualitative evidence of discrimination is clear
and has been compiled in disparity studies that are conducted by state
and local governments around the country. These studies are well
constructed third party examinations that shed light on whether
qualified DBE firms in the area are being utilized, examine the
contracting and business activities of the state or local government,
review the corresponding private markets in the same geographic area,
and analyze anecdotal reports about discrimination from actual
stakeholders.
These studies, many examples of which were received during the
Commerce Committee's May 2009 hearing, and during a hearing in the
House of Representatives in March 2009, demonstrate that progress has
been made and that our efforts here in Congress are still necessary.
For example, studies have showed that airports operated by Denver,
CO, Phoenix, AZ, and the State of Maryland all have made progress, but
that significant hurdles remain. These studies demonstrate that
discrimination continues to exist in both the public contracting
process and in the private sector, such as in access to credit markets.
The inclusion of the DBE provisions in the bill will provide an
important on-the-ground benefit to businesses by helping to level the
playing field and enabling fairer competition. I am pleased that
Congress has recognized the continued need for these programs and these
new provisions as integral to the reauthorization of the FAA.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, let me say how much I appreciate the
remarks of the chairman. It has been truly delightful working with the
chairman on this bill. He and I used to be the chairman and ranking
member of the Aviation Subcommittee. Now we are the chairman and
ranking member of the full committee. So I think our views on
aviation--its importance, the importance of the NextGen air traffic
control system, the importance of safety, the Passenger Bill of
Rights--are one and the same, and I appreciate working with him.
I do have some closing remarks, but I wish to let Senator Ensign talk
about his amendment. It is the pending business. So I think I am going
to put my remarks to the side for now and let Senator Ensign speak on
his amendment. I do have comments, following his comments, on his
perimeter amendment. Then, if we have time, I would like to make my
closing statement. But if not, in order for us to stay on time, I will
stay and do it after the vote.
With that, I yield to the Senator from Utah--I am sorry, the Senator
from Nevada.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, tourism is the backbone of the economy of
my State of Nevada. It has taken a nosedive over the last year with the
crash of the Nation's economy. More than ever, the industry has needed
a lifeline that was recently given to my State when the legislation I
authored with Senator Dorgan, the Travel Promotion Act, was signed into
law by the President. Our legislation will revitalize the tourism
industry across our country and in my State of Nevada by reintroducing
our rural class destinations to people all over the world.
On the piece of legislation before us, I have offered two important
amendments to the FAA bill that will also help tourism in my State and
will create jobs in this important industry.
Last week, Senator Reid and I sponsored an amendment that will
encourage more construction on land around McCarran International
Airport in Las Vegas, which will ultimately create more jobs for the
area. Our legislation lifts an outdated deed restriction for land
surrounding McCarran International Airport which previously prevented
development on this land because of an agreement with the Bureau of
Land Management that enforced noise mitigation for airlines flying
overhead.
However, because of technology, aircrafts are not as noisy as they
were 10 years ago, when this restriction was put in place. While our
amendment does not alter the noise threshold in the area, it does
broaden the types of buildings that can be constructed on the land
because airline noise no longer threatens to violate the threshold.
Clark County can now sell the lands to be used for hotels, arenas,
auditoriums, and concert halls. Not only are we making this land more
attractive and more valuable, we are creating jobs by increasing
construction in the area and increasing the use of the land. I was
happy this amendment was accepted by both the majority and the
minority.
The second amendment Senator McCain has been working on for a long
time, as well as myself, Senator Reid, and others was unfortunately
pulled, but it deals with the issue of flights--helicopter flights,
especially, and fixed-wing flights--over the Grand Canyon, which is
something I have been working on since I was in the House of
Representatives. I thought we were close to getting this amendment
finalized because it is very important not only for tourism, but it is
also important for those who cannot necessarily hike the Grand Canyon,
who cannot experience the wonderful aspects of it--those in
wheelchairs, the elderly--and this amendment would have made sure they
would have continued to have access.
I hope we can work on that and get that amendment either in
conference or in some other way. It is not only good for the economy,
but it is also good for those who are disabled or those who for other
reasons cannot go and enjoy the Grand Canyon such as hikers and others
can.

Amendment No. 3476, as Modified

The last piece I wish to talk about is the amendment we have before
us today. It is called the DC perimeter amendment. Once again, this is
something I have been working on for many years. The initial rule was
put into place in 1966, to put a limit on how far flights could fly out
of Reagan, then

[[Page S1803]]

known as Washington National Airport. It was to divert air traffic over
to the new Dulles Airport, basically making National a short-haul and
Dulles a long-haul airport.
To carry out this purpose, there was a restriction of 1,250 miles put
from National Airport. While Congress has granted certain limited
exceptions to the perimeter rule over the years, the rule continues to
place arbitrary limits that restrict air traffic between the airport
and the Western United States. Today, there are only a dozen nonstop
flights between Reagan National and the entire Western United States. I
encourage my colleagues to work on this amendment in conference. In a
little while, we are probably going to be withdrawing the amendment,
but we want to work on it in conference so that more areas, more places
in the United States will have direct access to Reagan National
Airport, which is much more convenient to use than Washington Dulles or
the Baltimore airport.

I will say this: It really is a matter of fairness. Should only the
east coast or the Midwest have access to Reagan National or should the
rest of the country have the convenience of flying into Reagan
National?
My amendment actually would not have increased the number of landing
slots available. My amendment would have allowed airlines to take the
slots. They fly from certain airports, the large hub airports, and
transfer those to other slots that work better for their business plan
as well as gives other people in America the right to fly into Reagan
National Airport, which is, as I mentioned, so much more convenient.
So after 40 years of implementation of the perimeter rule, it is
outdated. The last time I checked--and I fly Dulles all the time--
Dulles is thriving. As a matter of fact, it is packed. I circled for
over an hour today because of the number of flights coming into Dulles.
It is an extremely busy airport. I don't think we have to make sure
Dulles stays busy any longer. It has more than it can actually handle.
But it is time to scale back the perimeter restrictions at Reagan
National.
So I really hope in conference we can get together and work on
reasonable changes to the DC perimeter rule that will give other
Americans, other than those living within the perimeter rule today,
access to the closest airport to our Nation's Capital.
With that, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their
willingness to work with us on this amendment as well as generally.
This is important legislation they have worked on. We have a lot of
outdated technology in our current FAA system, and this is a very
important piece of legislation. I applaud the efforts they have made in
bringing the legislation to this point.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, expanding air service to metropolitan
airports is always a very contentious issue. I believe it is important
that we give due consideration to local interests when considering the
addition of slots, particularly at National Airport. Senators Warner
and Webb have significant reservations about moving forward on any
changes to existing policy at this time, and I have worked to address
these concerns.
I believe the agreement reached between Senators Dorgan, Warner,
Hutchison, Kyl, Ensign, and DeMint is a reasonable way forward. It will
allow us to balance the desire for additional slots against the
opposition from local residents.
Pursuing a more abrupt policy change such as eliminating the
perimeter rule altogether has significant implications for competition,
small community air service, congestion, and delay. Going forward, we
need to make sure there are not unintended consequences from such
changes and that service to small communities is preserved. Obviously,
service to small communities is very important to me.
I also wish to make clear that the Federal Government's role in this
process is specific. Air carriers sometimes treat airport slots as
though they are their own property. It is not. It is their privilege.
The air transportation system is operated for the benefit of the public
interest, not for the private interests. Too often, the air carriers
abuse the rights they have been granted. They schedule too many flights
at congested airports, and the result is gridlock. This is part of the
reason there is a cap on slots at National.
The air transportation network requires that capacity be managed
carefully so the entire system functions rationally. It is the
responsibility of the Federal Government to make sure it operates well,
and I take this role very seriously. If the air carriers cannot manage
their slots in an effective manner, the Federal Government will have to
step in and do it for them.
Crafting a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the FAA has been my long
and difficult journey, together with the ranking member, Senator
Hutchison. I recognize that many of my colleagues have a strong
interest in expanding service at National. I appreciate the work they
have done. But I do believe that what has been discussed here and will
be discussed later in conference is a balanced approach. I look forward
to working with my colleagues in a conference with the House that will
achieve an appropriate agreement that is acceptable to everybody.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleagues for
their work on the Reagan National perimeter rule issue.
Last week, I sat down with several interested colleagues in an effort
to try to find a path forward on this issue, and the result is the
modified Ensign amendment before us. I wish to say a few words about
the intent of the amendment.
I sympathize with the concerns of my friend from Virginia, Senator
Warner, who is also a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, and our
colleague, Senator Webb. While in a somewhat different position in the
past, I have had similar issues raised concerning my home State of
Texas with Love Field and DFW Airport, and I recognize the impact of
dealing with the decision to change the status quo. It is difficult.
I also recognize the views of western State Senators concerned about
the few opportunities for their constituents to have direct access to
Reagan National Airport. There are now only 12 flights a day. That
really should be expanded, but it needs to be expanded in a way that
does not have the harmful effects on National and the Virginia
residents who live in and around the airport.
With that in mind, I think we have come up with a compromise proposal
that meets the concerns of the western State colleagues and others, as
well as addressing the concerns of the Virginia Senators. The modified
Ensign amendment is a simple solution that allows air carriers with
existing inside-the-perimeter large hub airport slots into Reagan
National the ability to convert those slots to any community outside
the perimeter, with each air carrier being kept at 15 roundtrip
operations eligible for conversion. By utilizing the conversions, we
don't add any new flights at all to the airport, but we do give the air
carriers the opportunity to better utilize their networks. I am hopeful
we can take that concept and message to the House in the next round of
the legislative process on this bill.
I thank Senators Ensign and Kyl, Senators DeMint, Boxer, McCain,
Rockefeller, Dorgan, and Warner for their work on this very important
issue. I remain hopeful that the final version of this FAA
reauthorization bill will include a consensus agreement on this issue
that allows the opportunity for direct service to our Nation's Capital
for a number of our communities that are eager for that service. It is
time for some expansion, but I think we can do it in a way that will
not impact the quality of life in and around Washington National
Airport.
I also wish to take a moment to commend my colleagues who have worked
so hard on this bill. We are coming to the point when we will pass this
bill out of the Senate. We have been able to accommodate the amendments
that have been offered, both relevant to the bill as well as those that
are outside the purview of the bill. It has been an open process. It
has been a whole week, but we have been able to make slow progress and
accommodate the amendments that have been offered, and I think we are
at a very good place now with everyone's cooperation.

[[Page S1804]]

I mentioned that it has really been a very good experience working
this bill because we have been able to work out some of the problems
that are on both sides of the aisle, and I think in a constructive way.
With the passage of this bill, we will now go to work with the House.
We are very different from the House in many respects, but in FAA
reauthorization we are in many more respects very different from the
House in that they have passed a bill and we are getting ready to pass
a bill that is very different. So we still have a long way to go on
this legislation. But I think we can do it. With the same cooperation
we have seen in the Senate, I hope we can get a bill agreed to that the
Senate will approve as well as the House.

I thank Senator Rockefeller and his staff. They have been very
diligent in this process. As I said, we have worked since 2007 to get
this bill done. I think we are in a very good position now. Ellen
Doneski has been great, his chief of staff of the committee; James
Reid, Gael Sullivan, Rich Swayze, Jim Conneely, and Adam Duffey on
Senator Rockefeller's staff are to be commended.
Senator Dorgan, the chairman of the aviation subcommittee, has been
great. I appreciate all he has done on this bill to keep it moving, to
work with both Senator Rockefeller and myself and Senator DeMint. I
appreciate Senator Dorgan's work and his commitment to this. When he
leaves the Senate at the end of the year, I hope he will have this
significant FAA reauthorization as one of his achievements he can
claim. His staffer, Margaret McCarthy, has been also very helpful.
Senator DeMint is the ranking member of the aviation subcommittee,
and he, too, has been very constructive in this effort, moving the bill
forward along with his staff and Tom Jones, who has really helped move
the ball forward on this bill that is right out of their subcommittee.
On my staff, Jarrod Thompson has been wonderful. He knows this issue
backward and forward and has worked on many of these aviation
reauthorizations through the years on the Commerce Committee. I look to
him for the knowledge he has gained over the years in all facets of
FAA, including safety, NextGen, and all of the relevant issues that
come under this subcommittee and this bill. My chief of staff for the
committee, Ann Begeman, has been solid as a rock, helping to move the
ball forward, going through the different issues and settling many of
them. She has been great, as well as Dan Neumann; Patrick Mullane, also
in my office, who does all of my transportation work; Brian Hendricks,
the general counsel of the Commerce Committee on our side, the ranking
general counsel; and Matt Acock, my legislative director, who also is
going to be leaving in a few weeks. This is something he has worked on
and he knows about as much as any of us, and he has done a great job as
well.
Having said all of that, I thank the distinguished chairman and look
forward to having a vote in just a few minutes, as soon as we dispose
of the Ensign amendment and move forward to final passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator what does the amendment
do?
Mr. ENSIGN. The amendment allows any carrier which currently has
slots at DCA to convert flights now serving large hub airports inside
the perimeter into flights serving any airport outside the perimeter.
This would mean that more passengers travelling from the West could
fly into and out of National, avoiding the inconvenience and additional
expense associated with getting into the city from Dulles.
Mr. KYL. Does the amendment add any flights to DCA?
Mr. ENSIGN. The amendment does not reduce the number of flights
between DCA and small cities within the 1,250-mile perimeter; it does
not affect the slot regulations at DCA; it does not increase the number
of allowable flight operations at the airport; and it does not impact
the small and medium size airports inside the perimeter.
Rather, the amendment is a reasonable pro-competition solution that
gives tourists and business travelers from around the nation another
option for visiting the nation's Capital.
Mr. KYL. How many flights at DCA are currently exempted from the
perimeter rule?
Mr. ENSIGN. There are only a dozen nonstop flights between Ronald
Reagan National Airport and the entire western United States. To put
that number in perspective, that is 12 beyond the perimeter flights at
DCA out of approximately 400 flights daily. The beyond the perimeter
flights represent just 3 percent of all daily, domestic operations at
DCA.
Mr. KYL. Does Dulles need to be protected by the perimeter rule?
Mr. ENSIGN. No. In 1962, Dulles only served approximately 52,000
passengers. Today, however, Dulles is thriving. In 2009, the airport
served approximately 23 million passengers. According to the
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, ``Dulles has emerged as one
of the fastest growing airports in the world and a major East Coast
gateway for domestic and international travelers as well as cargo
activities.''
Mr. KYL. Is there any legislative language to support amending the
DCA perimeter rule?
Mr. ENSIGN. Yes, the Wright amendment of 1979 was a Federal law
restricting flights at Dallas' Love Field Airport. It originally
limited most nonstop flights from Love Field to destinations within
Texas and neighboring States. In 2006, Congress passed the Wright
Amendment Reform Act, which issued a full repeal of the Love Field
perimeter rule with conditions. Lifting the restrictions at Love Field
gave the traveling public more flight options, cut prices, and made
traveling more efficient.
Mr. KYL. How does the Ensign amendment affect service to small and
medium hub airports inside the perimeter?
Mr. ENSIGN. The slot conversion provision ensures that service to
small and medium hub airports within the perimeter would not be
affected. There is no restriction, however, on converting a flight that
currently serves a large hub airport within the perimeter to a small or
medium hub airport beyond the perimeter. So, presumably the Ensign
amendment could expand service to small and medium hub airports beyond
the perimeter.
Mr. KYL. Does the Ensign amendment increase slot allocations at DCA?
Mr. ENSIGN. No. The number of flights currently serving DCA remains
the same. Residents around the airport will not hear an increase in
noise from takeoffs and landings and will not see larger planes
operating at DCA. The only change is that a few of the planes would
have a different destination.
Mr. KYL. Do you intend to withdraw your amendment?
Mr. ENSIGN. Yes, because Senator Dorgan and our other colleagues have
agreed to address the DCA perimeter rule as the FAA reauthorization
process moves forward.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong concerns
over efforts to expand service at Washington-Reagan National Airport--
National. I would first like to remind my colleagues that this Congress
passed legislation in 1986 to create the Metropolitan Washington
Airports Authority so that a professional group of aviation experts
would manage both National and Dulles airports. The Airports Authority
has done its job well: Dulles has blossomed as an international gateway
to the region and National remains an efficiently run airport.
I recognize the value of National Airport and the critical role it
plays in serving our Nation's Capital. It is a key component of the
transportation system in this region and it provides excellent access
to the rest of the country for my colleagues.
At the same time, the citizens of my State are the ones who are most
directly affected by National's operations, and we must take a balanced
approach in considering any changes at the airport. My constituents are
the ones who have to deal with the consequences of any decision--
additional aircraft noise, growing traffic congestion, and airport
emissions that will affect them on a daily basis.
I appreciate that some of my colleagues want direct service from
National to destinations in their State, but we must be even-handed in
moving forward on this issue. We must avoid making wholesale changes
that would have an impact on the important economic balance between
National, Dulles and BWI. The airport authorities

[[Page S1805]]

that manage these airports, and the airlines that fly to them, have
made long-term investment decisions based on the current rules.
Dramatic changes to the rules would have a negative financial and
economic impact on those airports and the communities that depend on
them for economic growth.
In addition, any new capacity must be allowed through a fair process
that does not favor any one airline or class of airlines. The limited
new capacity needs to be allocated in an open and transparent process
that benefits the most potential passengers, promotes competition and
does not tip the scales for any airline or class of airlines.
I believe strongly that the rules currently in place at National
Airport serve my state and our region well. I also recognize and
respect the interests of the sponsors of the Ensign amendment and will
work with Chairman Rockefeller and Ranking Member Hutchison to try to
address them in conference.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Expanding air service to metropolitan airports is
always a contentious issue and I believe it is important that we give
due consideration to local interests when considering the addition of
slots at National Airport. Senators Warner and Webb have significant
reservations about moving forward on any changes to existing policy at
this time, and I have worked to address these concerns.
I believe the agreement reached between Senators Dorgan, Warner,
Hutchison, Kyl, Ensign and DeMint is a reasonable way forward. It will
allow us to balance the desire for additional slots against the
opposition from local residents.
Pursuing a more abrupt policy--change such as eliminating the
perimeter rule altogether--has significant implications for
competition, small community air service, and congestion and delay.
Going forward we need to make sure that there are not unintended
consequences from such changes, and that service to small communities
is preserved. Service to small communities is critical to me, and I
cannot support any proposal that will adversely affect such service.
I also want to make the Federal Government's role in this process
clear. Air carriers treat airport slots like it is their own property--
it is not--it is a privilege. The air transportation system is operated
for the benefit of the public interest--not the private interest. Too
often the air carriers abuse the rights they have been granted--they
schedule too many flights at congested airports and the result is
gridlock. This is part of the reason why there is a cap on slots at
National.
The air transportation network requires that capacity be managed
carefully so the entire system functions efficiently. It is the
responsibility of the Federal Government to make sure it operates well,
and I take this role seriously. If the air carriers cannot manage their
slots in an effective manner the Federal Government will have to step
in and do it for them.
Crafting a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the FAA has been a long and
difficult journey. I recognize many of my colleagues have a strong
interest in expanding service at National. I appreciate the work they
have done to reach a compromise on this issue.
It is a balanced approach and I look forward to working with my
colleagues in conference with the House that will achieve an
appropriate agreement that is acceptable to everyone.
Mr. DORGAN. The issue of slots and the perimeter rule at Reagan
National Airport has a long and very complicated history. Many of my
colleagues have interests on both sides of this debate. I have been
pleased to work closely with Senator Warner, a member of the Aviation
Subcommittee that I chair, on this matter, which has the most immediate
impact on his constituents in Virginia. I can also sympathize with my
colleagues from Western States who would like the opportunity for their
constituents to be able to access National Airport.
The FAA reauthorization bill that was approved by the Senate Commerce
Committee and is before the Senate today does not make any changes at
National Airport. However, the House FAA reauthorization bill does
increase the number of slots at National Airport. So we know that this
is an issue that will need to be addressed in conference with the House
and that the end result will be some change to the status quo.
But after spending more than 5 days on this FAA reauthorization bill
in the Senate, I fear that a protracted debate on this contentious
issue will derail the good bipartisan bill we are so close to passing.
A number of my colleagues have filed amendments on slots and the
perimeter rule. We understand that the Senate position needs to address
access for citizens outside the current perimeter.
We cannot forget that this bill is about the safety and modernization
of our nation's aviation system. This legislation takes important
strides to bring our air traffic control system into the 21st century
with the Next Generation Air Transportation System, NextGen. It
includes provisions to ensure one high level of safety across the
entire industry. After 11 extensions instead of a reauthorization bill
that addresses these issues, it is time for the Senate to pass this
legislation.
Mr. DeMINT. The current perimeter rule at Ronald Reagan Washington
National Airport stands as an artificial and antiquated barrier to
competition and an impediment to choice. I am strongly supportive of
this amendment and others that provide travelers with more choices in
air travel.
The Ensign amendment provides a needed improvement by allowing
carriers traveling out of DCA to respond to market demands and provide
their customers with the air travel choices they demand most, instead
of being confined by an antiquated statutory restriction. I am
optimistic that as this bill moves forward that we can keep customer
choice at the forefront and continue to open the skies to competition.

Amendment No. 3476, as Modified Withdrawn

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

Amendment No. 3527

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

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

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, pursuant to the order of March 19
regarding a managers' package of amendments, I send to the desk the
managers' package, with the other provisions of the order with respect
to the amendments remaining in effect.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The managers' amendment at the desk is agreed to, and the motion to
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table.
The amendments are as follows:

Amendment No. 3469

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

At the end of title VII, add the following:

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

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) County.--The term ``County'' means Clark County,
Nevada.
(2) Public land.--The term ``public land'' means the land
located at--
(A) sec. 23 and sec. 26, T. 26 S., R. 59 E., Mount Diablo
Meridian;
(B) the NE \1/4\ and the N \1/2\ of the SE \1/4\ of sec. 6,
T. 25 S., R. 59 E., Mount Diablo Meridian, together with the
SE \1/4\ of sec. 31, T. 24 S., R. 59 E., Mount Diablo
Meridian; and
(C) sec. 8, T. 26 S., R. 60 E., Mount Diablo Meridian.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(b) Land Conveyance.--

[[Page S1806]]

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

amendment no. 3488

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

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

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

Amendment No. 3492

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

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

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

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

AMENDMENT NO. 3494

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

At the end of title VII, add the following:

SEC. 723. TECHNICAL CORRECTION.

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

AMENDMENT NO. 3511

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

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

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

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

Amendment No. 3479, as modified

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

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

SEC. 219. DESIGNATION OF FORMER MILITARY AIRPORTS.

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

amendment no. 3483, as modified

At the end of title II, add the following:

SEC. 2 AIRPORT SUSTAINABILITY PLANNING WORKING GROUP.

(a) In General.--The Administrator shall establish an
airport sustainability working group to assist the
Administrator with issues pertaining to airport
sustainability practices.
(b) Membership.--The Working Group shall be comprised of
not more than 15 members including.--
(1) the Administrator
(2) 5 member organizations representing aviation interests
including: (A) an organization representing airport
operators; (B) an organization representing airport
employees; (C) an organization representing air carriers; (D)
an organization representing airport development and
operations experts; (E) a labor organization representing
aviation employees.
(3) 9 airport chief executive officers which shall include:
(A) at least one from each of the FAA Regions; (B) at least 1
large hub; (C) at least 1 medium hub; (D) at least 1 small
hub; (E) at least 1 non hub; (E) at least 1 general aviation
airport.
(c) Functions.--
(1) develop consensus-based best practices and metrics for
the sustainable design, construction, planning, maintenance,
and operation of an airport that comply with the guidelines
prescribed by the Administrator;

[[Page S1807]]

(2) develop standards for a consensus-based rating system
based on the aforementioned best practices, metrics, and
ratings; and
(3) develop standards for a voluntary ratings process,
based on the aforementioned best practices, metrics, and
ratings
(4) examine and submit recommendations for the industry's
next steps with regard to sustainability
(d) Determination.--The Administrator shall provide
assurance that the best practices developed by the working
group under paragraph (a) are not in conflict with any
federal aviation or federal, state or local environmental
regulation.
(e) Unpaid Position.--Working Group members shall serve at
their own expense and receive no salary, reimbursement of
travel expenses, or other compensation from the Federal
Government.
(f) Nonapplicability of FACA.--The Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the Working
Group under this section.
(g) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of
enactment the Working Group shall submit a report to the
Administrator containing the best practices and standards
contained in paragraph (c). After receiving the report, the
Administrator may publish such best practices in order to
disseminate the information to support the sustainable
design, construction, planning, maintenance, and operation of
airports.
(h) No funds may be authorized to carry out this provision.

amendment no. 3506, as modified

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

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

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

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

amendment no. 3514, as modified

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

At the end of title II, add the following:

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

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

amendment no. 3520, as modified

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

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

amendment no. 3538, as modified

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

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

Amendment No. 3543

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

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

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

(a) In General.--The Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration may enter into agreements to fund the costs of
equipping aircraft with communications, surveillance,
navigation, and other avionics to enable NextGen air traffic
control capabilities.
(b) Funding Instrument.--The Administrator may make grants
or other instruments authorized under section 106(l)(6) of
title 49, United States Code, to carry out subsection (a).

amendment No. 3527, as modified

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

SEC. 319. REPORT ON FUNDING FOR NEXTGEN TECHNOLOGY.

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

amendment no. 3541, as modified

At the end of title V, insert the following:

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

(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration shall initiate a study of air quality
in aircraft cabins to--
(1) assess bleed air quality on the full range of
commercial aircraft operating in the United States;
(2) identify oil-based contaminants, hydraulic fluid
toxins, and other air toxins that appear in cabin air and
measure the quantity and prevalence, or absence of those
toxins through a comprehensive sampling program;
(3) determine the specific amount and duration of toxic
fumes present in aircraft cabins that constitutes a health
risk to passengers;

[[Page S1808]]

(4) develop a systematic reporting standard for smoke and
fume events in aircraft cabins;
(5) identify the potential health risks to individuals
exposed to toxic fumes during flight;
(6) determine the extent to which the installation of
sensors and air filters on commercial aircraft would provide
a public health benefit; and
(b) Authority To Monitor Air in Aircraft Cabins.--For
purposes of conducting the study required by subsection (a),
the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
shall require domestic air carriers to allow air quality
monitoring on their aircraft in a manner that imposes no
significant costs on the carrier and does not interfere with
the normal operation of the aircraft.

Amendment No. 3539, as modified

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

At the end of Title II, add the following:

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

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

amendment no. 3532

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

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

Amendment No. 3525, as modified

At the end of title VII, add the following:

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

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

Amendment No. 3534, as modified

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

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

(I) in subparagraph (A)--

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

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

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

(IV) by adding at the end the following:

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

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

[Rollcall Vote No. 61 Leg.]

YEAS--93

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

NOT VOTING--7

Bennett
Byrd
DeMint
Isakson
Sanders
Udall (NM)
Wicker
The bill (H.R. 1586), as amended, was passed, as follows:

[[Page S1809]]

(The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The title amendment at the desk is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3555) was agreed to, as follows:

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

The Senator from West Virginia.

Corrected Amendment No. 3479, As Modified

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

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

At the end of title II, insert the following:

SEC. 219. DESIGNATION OF FORMER MILITARY AIRPORTS.

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

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, the vote just taken was unanimous, which
is interesting. We were able to work on this for 5 days here on the
floor of the Senate. But I also want to say we always talk about good
staff work. We do have an exceptionally fine staff at the Commerce
Committee and I want to say that Senator Rockefeller's work and Senator
Hutchison's work was so important in order to move us in this direction
to get this completed.
I think they would agree as well that the staff director Ellen
Doneski, deputy staff director James Reid, Gael Sullivan, Rich Swayze
on the Aviation Subcommittee staff, and I know Senator Hutchison's
staff, Ann Begeman, staff director, Jarrod Thompson, and Tom Jones for
Senator DeMint, is a fine staff.
The reason I wanted to say a word about this piece of legislation--I
just got off an airplane myself, just came back from North Dakota. But
I wanted to say that this piece of legislation, while not getting the
attention that some other pieces of legislation are getting these days,
notably health care, among others, is a very important piece of
legislation, and it has some very important critical changes that I
think will be beneficial and will save lives. I wanted to mention a
couple of them.
No. 1, for the irritants that exist in air travel these days, and
there are a lot of them, this includes the Passenger Bill of Rights--a
lot of people probably do not know that, but just common sense, sound
thinking about what are the rights of passengers here.
We worked with the airlines and the passenger groups and so on. This
includes the Passenger Bill of Rights, the 3-hour limit. If you are on
an airline some place and they want to have you sit on the end of a
runway or on the tarmac for 5 or 6 hours, it is not going to happen,
not when this legislation passes. We have a 3-hour limitation. That is
just the start of it. But the Passenger Bill of Rights is important.
Most important to me are the safety issues. I held a number of
hearings on safety in our subcommittee, and I appreciate very much the
work of Senator Rockefeller. He was very interested in making sure that
we pursue these safety issues in order that they can become a part of
the FAA reauthorization bill.
A significant part of this bill is modernization of the air traffic
control system. But this bill also is about aviation safety, and so I
want to mention the safety provisions. We held a number of hearings to
try to understand what could we learn from the tragedy that occurred at
the Colgan crash in Buffalo, NY. We learned a lot, and a lot of things
that were frankly, to me, very troubling. We have addressed a number of
those provisions in this legislation.
Pilot training and experience. Frankly, were it not for the families
of the victims of the Colgan crash who have witnessed here at every
opportunity, in every circumstance, where there has been a hearing or
something in which aviation safety was discussed, they were here
pushing and prodding and asking the right questions.
We do advance the interests of aviation training and experience in
this legislation. The FAA must revisit flight and duty-time limitations
to address pilot fatigue in this legislation.
We do not yet and have not addressed the commuting issue which I
think is an issue, but we have not yet addressed that, and could not in
this bill, but that will continue to be an issue we will work on. We
have an FAA-required report to the Congress now, annually every year,
of all of the safety recommendations from the NTSB, and which have been
followed and which have not.
This issue of the most-wanted list of safety recommendations, which
in some cases has been on the list for 10 and 15 years, it is
unforgivable that that has happened. We are not going to let that
happen again.
Obviously, we prohibit the use of wireless communications devices and
laptop computers in the cockpit that are not used for the purpose of
the operation of the airplane. When I say obviously, an airplane that
overflies its destination with a couple of pilots working on laptops,
overflying the destination by 150 miles or so, does not make much sense
to me that we do not have a prohibition in the FAA manuals to prohibit
in every circumstance the use of these kinds of personal wireless
communications devices for personal use in the cockpit during flight.
We enhance safety oversight of foreign repair stations, which is very
important. It mandates two inspections per year by the FAA. A lot of
people do not understand that a lot of the maintenance now is being
done in some cases overseas, and in other cases, they are being done,
farmed out and contracted out, to someone outside of the airline
itself.
We require the disclosure of the airline operating flights. When a
consumer buys a ticket on an airline, we want them to understand who is
the company that is carrying them, not what is the brand on the
airline, but what company is this, so they have some sense of who is in
charge of that flight.
Access to all pilots records. You know regarding the captain in the
Colgan flight, the CEO of Colgan Air said: Had I known the failures of
that captain in certain exams and tests along the way, in certifying
these various licenses, we would not have hired that captain. And yet
the company did not know. That will not be the case in the future.
Those are just some, not all, of the safety issues. They are very
important. I am convinced that lives will be saved. I do not suggest
this is the entire set of issues that has to be resolved. More remains
to be done and we will remain on the case to do that. We will continue
even now with additional hearings.
Finally, I want to say on the issue of modernization, this too is so
important. It relates to safety, but it relates to other things. It
relates to the reduced use of fuel, more direct routing, better
timelines for trips for passengers, because they will get to their
destination more quickly; less spacing between airplanes in the sky.
That is because, rather than fly to the old ground-based radar system,
where you know about where an airline is, you only know about where it
is when the transponder flashes a dot on that screen in front of the
air traffic controller, and the next 7 or so seconds that airplane is
somewhere else.
Well, using the GPS system which all of us, or at least some of us--I
do not have, but many people use it in their car, use it on their cell
phone. The common use of the GPS is all over the world these days,
except we do not use it, by and large, for commercial airlines, and we
should.
Air traffic control modernization means ground-based systems that
need to be built, it means protocols that have to be developed, it
means equipage in the cockpit. But we must get there not in 15 or 20
years, we must get there soon. So this piece of legislation
dramatically advances those timelines.
Some talk about waiting and finishing this job in 15 years. We
substantially truncated the time to say: No, let's get this done. So
those are the significant issues.
Again, I want to thank Margaret McCarthy on my staff, along with the
other staff I have previously mentioned.
I especially again want to say, I have served on the Commerce
Committee for

[[Page S1810]]

a good many years, and we have worked on a lot of issues. It has such a
wide jurisdiction, a wide range of interests and issues. Senator
Rockefeller assumed control of the Commerce Committee just this
Congress, and I think has done an extraordinary job. I appreciate his
leadership. I appreciate the fact that he gave us not only directions
but the reins to work in the subcommittee, and then he and the ranking
member worked very hard at the full committee to put this piece of
legislation together.
It is rare indeed in this day and age to find a piece of legislation
that passes the Senate in a record vote, that is a piece of legislation
of great consequence, that deals with many issues, some of them
controversial, to be passed by the Senate with no negative votes at
all. Think of that. No negative votes cast on this bill today.
Would not it be nice if we could see more of that kind of
togetherness, coming together on public policy that all of us think is
good for this country and its future.
I wanted to again say how proud I am of this legislation and how
important it is to this country. I am pleased that this is the next
step, an important step, and then we would conference with the House
and bring a conference report back, and it will be signed by the
President. We will have all done something to advance safety and
modernization in aviation in this country; not just for commercial
aviation, but for general aviation, which is an increasingly important
part of our aviation system.
Madam President, I also want to take this opportunity to say a few
words about the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise--DBE--Program and the
Airport Concessions Disadvantaged Business Enterprise--ACDBE--Program,
or the DBE Programs. As the Senate is well aware, this program was
originally enacted by Congress to level the playing field for minority
and women contractors working in airport related businesses.
While we have made considerable progress toward that goal over the
years, unfortunately a good deal more work remains. The Commerce
Committee examined disparity studies documenting the existence of
discrimination in public contracting while considering and drafting FAA
reauthorization legislation. We concluded that the DBE Program remains
necessary to thwart ongoing discrimination and determined that several
improvements to the DBE Programs were necessary. I am pleased that the
FAA Reauthorization bill includes provisions to adjust the personal net
worth calculation for inflation, to require certification training of
officials involved in the review of DBE applications, to prohibit
excess bonding requirements, and to ensure that retirement savings are
not included in the personal net worth calculation.
The evidence of discrimination included in disparities studies makes
clear that discrimination against minority and women owned businesses
is still a serious problem in airport-related businesses and beyond.
This is unacceptable. The DBE and ACDBE Programs are the only current
safeguard against the problems of business discrimination in the
airport context. I am encouraged that this bill includes provisions to
ensure the continued health of the program and to promote a level
playing field within the industry.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________