To exclude employees of the Transportation Security Administration from the collective bargaining rights of Federal employees and provide employment rights and an employee engagement mechanism for passenger and property screeners.

FAA AIR TRANSPORTATION MODERNIZATION AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of S. 223, which the clerk will
report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 223) 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.

Pending:

Wicker amendment No. 14, to exclude employees of the
Transportation Security Administration from the collective
bargaining rights of Federal employees.
Blunt amendment No. 5, to require the Under Secretary of
Transportation for Security to approve applications from
airports to authorize passenger and property screening to be
carried out by a qualified private screening company.
Nelson (Fl) amendment No. 34, to strike section 605.
Paul amendment No. 21, to reduce the total amount
authorized to be appropriated for the Federal Aviation
Administration for fiscal year 2011 to the total amount
authorized to be appropriated for the Administration for
fiscal year 2008.
Rockefeller (for Wyden) amendment No. 27, to increase the
number of test sites in the National Airspace System used for
unmanned aerial vehicles and to require one of those test
sites to include a significant portion of public lands.
Inhofe amendment No. 6, to provide liability protection to
volunteer pilot nonprofit organizations that fly for public
benefit and to the pilots and staff of such nonprofit
organizations.
Inhofe amendment No. 7, to require the Administrator of the
Federal Aviation Administration to initiate a new rulemaking
proceeding with respect to the flight time limitations and
rest requirements for supplemental operations before any of
such limitations or requirements be altered.
Rockefeller (for Ensign) amendment No. 32, to improve
provisions relating to certification and flight standards for
military remotely piloted aerial systems in the National
Airspace System.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from West Virginia is
recognized.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I have comments of my own, but I will
yield to the Senator from Maryland. He has been down here waiting. He
is interesting, provocative, thoughtful, and always right. I yield to
him such time as he may feel comfortable with, provided it doesn't go
past 5 o'clock.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland is
recognized.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and congratulate him
on the reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration. It is a
bill that we can all be proud of. I thank him for his good work.
Mr. President, I rise to speak today on the legislation to
reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration.
Our Nation's economy is recovering from the worst economic recession
in decades. Critical to getting our economy moving forward and getting
Americans back to work is building an efficient and modern intermodal
transportation system built to handle growing commerce in the 21st
century.
I am pleased to see that this legislation, which is estimated to
create 280,000 jobs in airports around the country, is one of the first
orders of business for the Senate in the 112th Congress. It
demonstrates this body's focus on job creation and helping get
Americans back to work while updating the Nation's aviation
infrastructure to ensure that America is ready for business.
The airline industry accounts for nearly 11 million U.S. jobs and
$1.2 trillion in annual economic activity. This bill provides the
airline industry the essential infrastructure it needs to succeed and
remain strong and competitive in the global airline industry.
Every day, the Federal Aviation Administration faces the daunting
task of marshalling thousands of airliners, and the air travelers on
those planes, across the country from airports and airfields both large
and small located in nearly every corner of the United States. These
members of the Federal workforce safely guide thousands of airplanes,
serving tens of thousands of air travelers, across America's skies
every day.
I applaud Senator Rockefeller's dedication to getting this much
needed legislation to the floor of the Senate. I greatly appreciate his
willingness in the last Congress to incorporate a provision of mine
that is important to keeping small rural airports in Maryland and in
other parts of the country in operation. I look forward to continue
working to build upon the great work he has done to get this important
bill moving forward.
This bill is not just important to our big airports; it's important
to all airports in this country. There are many challenges facing the
FAA and air travelers. This bill sets a clear path towards addressing
these challenges, not the least of which is working to reduce the
number of flight cancellations and the frequency of flight delays that
can range anywhere from 10 minutes to 9 or more hours that air
travelers experience.
This bill will reduce delays by more than 20 percent--save passenger
time, money and reduce airline fuel consumption, making our country
more energy secure and reducing harmful greenhouse gas emissions.
While air travel remains a safe and fast way to travel between
distant destinations, the technology is readily available to make
essential improvements to our Nation's aviation infrastructure to make
it even safer and faster.
The bill's authorization of facility and equipment funding reinforces
the FAA's commitment to overhauling the guidance systems used to direct
flights across the country. The deployment of NextGen flight systems
will cut travel times and save energy by directing flights to take
shorter routes that use less fuel.

[[Page S587]]

Domestic commercial flight routes follow the same terrestrial based
guidance air traffic control system that was put in place more than
half a century ago. The paths planes follow between airports is not
based on the shortest most efficient routes, but instead based on the
location of broadcasting points on the ground. That no longer makes any
sense. We know that we now have a GPS system that could put our planes
on a much more direct route, which is faster and will save time and
energy.
For example, air travelers flying from National Airport, across the
Potomac in Arlington, VA, to Boston's Logan International Airport
currently follow a route north through central Pennsylvania, east
across New York State and the entire State of Massachusetts to Boston
located on the Atlantic coast.
This flight pattern goes 537 miles, takes an hour and 15 minutes to
fly, and burns 7,376 pounds of fuel.
Alternatively, NextGen's satellite-based guidance system, using
global positioning systems, would guide that same flight on a 367 mile,
northeasterly route directly up the Atlantic coast, that takes less
than an hour, and use 5,883 pounds of fuel.
That's a 1,493 pound savings of expensive, carbon emission intensive,
jet fuel.
These are significant savings that benefit the environment and the
consumer. The Air Transport Association estimates that ``even a 6%
fleet-wide reduction in fuel burn results in fuel savings of 1.16
billion gallons of jet fuel and emissions savings of nearly 11 million
metric tons or 24 billion pounds of CO<inf>2</inf>.'' We would be
saving fuel and costs and would be polluting much less.
NextGen is essential to achieving these types of greenhouse gas
emissions reductions from the aviation sector.
NextGen is also critical to meeting future air travel demands and
will go a long way to alleviating the actual ``air traffic'' that is
responsible for much of the delays air passengers experience when
travelling.
The research, engineering and development funding is set to advance
undergraduate and technical school programs for aircraft maintenance
focusing on new technology job training for pilots and air traffic
controllers. This includes essential job training programs for the next
generation of air traffic controllers that will use NextGen systems to
guide America's airline fleets.
Job training and education are important for preparing America's
workforce to advance into well paid and skilled jobs and are essential
to the Nation's economic recovery.
The operations and maintenance, Airport Improvement Program and
facilities and equipment funding authorizations give the green light to
hundreds of airports across the Nation to advance pressing maintenance,
facilities, security and new construction projects that will create
thousands of jobs in the engineering, computer science, construction,
and software development sectors and much more.
For example, at Baltimore Washington International-Thurgood Marshall
Airport in Anne Arundel County, the Maryland Department of
Transportation has nearly $400 million in Airport Improvement Program
projects that are ready to go. These projects will help improve runway
safety, tarmac capacity and terminal efficiency at Maryland's largest
airport.
BWI-Thurgood Marshall served 21 million passengers in 2009 and was
ranked first out of 140 international airports, worldwide, that serve
15-25 million passengers annually by the Airports Council
International's Airport Service Quality survey. We are proud of that
and want to maintain that service at BWI. The reauthorization of these
programs is critical to our doing that.
I appreciate the opportunity this bill gives me to show my support
for Maryland's flagship airport and the 35 other commercial, municipal,
regional and general aviation airports across my State.
I mentioned earlier my colleague's willingness to work with me to
incorporate an amendment to help small commercial airports. The program
I am referring to is the Essential Air Service Program, which provides
funding to keep the small yet critical commercial airports serving
rural communities viable.
This program assures that rural communities are provided a minimal
level of service to preserve their connection to the national air
transportation system.
Western Maryland's Hagerstown Airport has benefitted greatly from
this program and has allowed the airport to secure service contracts
with Cape Air to fly four daily flights from Hagerstown to Baltimore.
Without Hagerstown's daily flights to BWI, western Maryland residents,
as well as people living in eastern West Virginia and southern
Pennsylvania, would have to drive anywhere from 75 to more than 150
miles to get to the nearest airport with commercial service.
There are many other rural communities where major commercial air
passenger service is located at even greater distances and the
Essential Air Service helps alleviate the travel isolation of these
communities. I am pleased that this bill addresses the needs of
Hagerstown Airport and others like it.
Another issue critical to the success of Maryland's airports that
will surely come up during the debate of this bill is changing the slot
and perimeter rule at Reagan National Airport. This is an issue that I
care deeply about because it has a specifically targeted effect on the
economic success and job growth potential at BWI-Thurgood Marshall
airport and the surrounding area.
In the 111th Congress, the proposed changes to operations at National
Airport were made by Senators representing States well beyond the
Greater Washington region. Changing the slot and perimeter rule in this
fashion subverts the established process for altering these rules and
undermines the authority of local transportation experts.
Restricted service at National Airport lends itself to the steady
growth at the region's major hub airports, which has been at the heart
of the region's business communities' economic development plans.
Companies such as Northrop Grumman, L3, General Dynamics, IBM,
Deloitte, and other major employers in the Baltimore-Washington area
strategically located themselves around BWI. The growth of that airport
is critically important to our economic progress.
The steady growth in service at the region's large international
airports helped create an attractive business climate for these major
companies. This would not have been possible without Congress's
agreement to maintain the status quo of service at National Airport
that, in turn, made Dulles and BWI the region's growth airports.
Based on existing service and prior historical evidence of the
impacts of increased slots at DCA, allowing flights to be converted
from within the perimeter to beyond the perimeter would have a direct
impact on the service offered out of BWI Marshall.
Under any slot-change scenario, service reductions at BWI Marshall
will reduce the value and return on Federal and State infrastructure
investments made at BWI. Maryland has invested more than $1.5 billion
in the airport over the last 10 years and plans to invest $684 million
in the next 6 years. I welcome a collaborative and open process should
changes in the region's airport operations be necessary.
In regard to another important provision in this legislation, I
support the passenger bill of rights. No one should ever be forced to
stay aboard a plane on a tarmac for extended periods of time.
I also applaud the provisions within the bill that provide customers
with better information about the wide range of fees airlines and
airports place upon the flying public.
I understand that between high fuel costs and the current economy,
travelers are flying less and this has hurt the airline industry. As a
result, airlines have resorted to charging a variety of fees for
services on each flight. Airlines have counted on air travelers
adapting to each change of policy so much that today's frequent fliers
rarely expect a free meal or to check their bags for free.
Air travelers often have no choice but to pay the airlines' fees. The
problem is how these fees come at the customers, often by surprise. If
the fees are explained in advance, there is less with which to take
issue.

[[Page S588]]

Surprise fees have consumers upset and weary of flying. By the time
travelers reach the ticket counter, they are committed to getting on
that plane. At that point, the airlines have the clear upper hand when
it comes to levying additional charges for baggage based on size,
weight or type or even fees for simple onboard amenities such as
refreshments, headphones or blankets once passengers are in their
seats. In some instances, particularly the at-the-counter baggage fees,
travelers have no choice but to pay the fee.
In the 111th Congress, I introduced legislation to ensure air
travelers were made well aware of the fees they were being charged to
fly. I look forward to working with my colleagues to make sure this
issue is adequately addressed in this bill.
I want the airlines to succeed. Working to improve access to
information and require the honest disclosure of airline fees and
improved passenger treatment help public confidence in the airline
industry.
Currently, the airline industry can point at high fuel costs and a
downturn in the economy as the top reasons for why less people are
traveling by air. As the economy continues to improve and as more
Americans find work, both business and leisure travel will begin to
pick up. Whether the travelers look to the skies or the ground to get
to their destination will largely depend on the users' experience.
The passenger bill of rights goes a long way to improving the users'
experience for air travelers.
Before concluding on this legislation to reauthorize the Federal
Aviation Administration, I think it is important that I comment on one
amendment that may be brought up. I wish to express my opposition to an
amendment that would exclude employees of the Transportation Security
Administration, TSA, from collective bargaining rights of Federal
employees. On June 23, 2010, more than 6 months ago, I spoke on the
floor of the Senate about the need for collective bargaining for more
than 60,000 TSA employees who work at BWI Marshall International
Airport and airports around the Nation.
At that time, some Members of Congress opposed collective bargaining
for TSA employees because of their concern that we need to be able to
adapt quickly and effectively to specific aviation threats. The
underlying premise of that argument is, we must choose between
protecting the Nation from threats to aviation and collective
bargaining. As I said in my June 23, 2010, speech, that choice is a
false choice because national security and what I called smart
collective bargaining are not mutually exclusive. Under a smart
collective bargaining agreement, where a true emergency exists, TSA
would be fully capable of deploying assets without there being any
negative impact from collective bargaining.
At his confirmation hearing, Administrator Pistole stated that ``we
have to be able to surge resources at any time . . . not only
nationwide but worldwide.'' The smart collective bargaining agreement I
called for would enable us to do exactly that. Moreover, I believed
then and I believe now that a smart collective bargaining agreement
would enhance national security because it would enable TSA to recruit
and retain better employees.
Our Nation's history with labor unions clearly teaches us that
collective bargaining boosts morale, it allows employees to have a
voice in their workplace, and it allows them to increase stability and
professionalism.
On the other hand, poor workforce management can lead directly to
high attrition rates, job dissatisfaction, and increased costs, which
lead to gaps in aviation security. In the past, there have been reports
that the TSA has had low worker morale, which can undermine the
agency's mission and our national security.
I am now pleased to learn that after he was confirmed by the Senate,
Administrator Pistole did what he said he would do--he studied the
issue and gathered all the facts and information he could from
stakeholders, including TSA employees, TSA management, union
presidents, and a variety of present and former leaders and experts in
law enforcement agencies and organizations.
This past Friday, on February 4, Administrator Pistole decided that
the more than 60,000 TSA employees working at BWI Marshall
International Airport and at airports around the Nation could vote on
whether they want or do not want representation for limited collective
bargaining on nonsecurity employment issues.
Administrator Pistole's determination will provide a framework to
protect TSA's ability to respond to evolving threats, while allowing
TSA's employees the right to join a union under clear definitions.
This is a smart decision and can lead to the kind of solution I was
talking about 6 months ago.
On issues of national security, we need to come together and reject
the either/or. We need to be smart on national security, and this
collective bargaining decision by Administrator Pistole is a smart
decision. The fact is, the Department of Homeland Security's Customs
and Border Patrol officers, some of whom work at the same airports as
TSA employees, as well as DHS Federal Protective Service and the
Capitol Police, all operate under collective bargaining agreements.
As our late colleague, Senator Kennedy, noted in August 2009 when he
cosponsored a collective bargaining rights bill for public sector
officers, tomorrow morning, thousands of State and local public safety
officers, police officers, and firefighters will awake and go to work
to protect us. They will put their lives on the line, responding to
emergencies, policing our neighborhoods, and protecting us in Maryland
and in communities all across the Nation. These dedicated public
servants will patrol our streets and run into burning buildings to keep
us safe. No one believes for a moment we are less safe because they
have secured collective bargaining rights.

If opponents of Administrator Pistole's decision want to invoke 9/11
to support their views, they will soon discover that the legacy of 9/11
shows very clearly that national security will not be compromised by
smart collective bargaining. Before 9/11, New York Port Authority
police worked 8 hours a day, 4 days on and 2 days off. By the end of
the day on 9/11, however, vacations and personal time were canceled and
workers were switched to 12-hour tours, 7 days a week. Indeed,
schedules did not return to normal for 3 years. The union did not file
a grievance, and everyone recognized it was a real crisis.
Administrator Pistole's decision will enhance our ability to recruit
and retain the best TSA employees to protect us.
It will also lead to conditions that will improve our ability to
recruit and retain the best employees, such as the countless number of
American heroes who work every day to protect us and keep us safe,
under collective bargaining agreements.
In concluding, I wish to acknowledge in the reauthorization of the
FAA bill the thousands of hard-working government workers, pilots,
flight attendants, and other members of our Nation's flight crews.
Without their service, air travel would not be possible. I am pleased
several of the labor organizations that represent so many hard-working
Americans in the aviation industry support this bill. I also note the
important worker safety provisions this legislation provides workers in
the aviation industry.
Congress has passed 17 short-term extensions of this authorization.
It is time for a permanent fix. It is time to pass this bill. It will
provide stability, safety, and jobs for both the airline industry and
its passengers.
It promotes jobs, consumer travel protections, homegrown
technological innovation, and reductions of fuel consumption and
greenhouse gas emissions. This could not come at a more opportune time.
I congratulate the chairman for all the work he has done.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank the good Senator from
Maryland for his remarks.
I am sure, as I call on my vice chairman, Senator Hutchison will have
remarks she will want to make. I simply wish to catch us up to where we
are.
This is the Federal aviation bill. It has been deemed to be only the
Federal aviation bill, which is good, because that means extraneous
amendments are not germane. We are trying to work our way through this
aviation

[[Page S589]]

policy issue business, which actually is turning out, so far, to be
quite smooth. People commented it is being done in a bipartisan
fashion. That is the way Senator Hutchison and I work always and it is
the way the committee works and is probably why we put out more
nominations and legislation than any other committee.
We have a number of pending amendments. I know my colleagues also
have others. Some will come to the floor this afternoon to get into the
queue and speak on those amendments. We are making progress resolving
some of the pending amendments. Others, I believe, will require votes.
If we can do something without a vote, that is great. If we have to
have a vote, that is also fine.
In addition, Senator Hutchison and I continue to work to resolve the
issue of slots at National Airport. I thank all our colleagues for
engaging in a constructive conversation on this very difficult issue.
It has been very heartening that people seem to understand that if we
cannot work out this issue, the whole bill goes down and 11 million
jobs and over $1 trillion of the economy are at risk.
We have played with fire with this now for 17 consecutive extensions
of the bill. It is a horrible way to do business, to send out a 3-year
contract for building an airport runway--it is awful. But we have not
faced up to this bill. Senator Hutchison and I are doing that.
I suspect we will be on the bill this week. We hope to finish it the
following week. I believe we can do that, but then again I am not sure.
It is how the Senate wants to work its will.
Again, I urge my colleagues to speak with Senator Hutchison and
myself if they have amendments they would like to offer. That is what
we are here for.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I appreciate what the chairman has
said. His message is the same as my message; that is, this is a very
important bill. It is one--the authorization of the FAA--we have
extended, since 2007, with 18 short-term extensions. Neither the
chairman nor myself want a 19th short-term extension. That is, as he
mentioned, not the way we ought to be doing business. We ought to be
able to assure that a contract will be let for a new runway or a repair
on a runway and that it will be finished. I hope we can get through
some of the thornier issues, and there are several of those.
I ask my colleagues to come down and get their amendments pending
because we want to close out amendments and then deal with the ones we
have and move on.
Senator Wicker and Senator Collins are going to be here very shortly.
They will be talking about the Wicker amendment. That is one I think
they have now agreed to sponsor together. They have made some good
changes. We have others that are also being worked on. It is time, if a
colleague wants to offer an amendment, to come down and do it.
We are continuing to work on the perimeter slot rule from Washington
National Airport, with the hope of coming to a consensus that will
increase the number of opportunities for people from the Western half
of the United States to come into Washington National Airport. I will
say, I believe it is in everyone's interest to open Washington National
on a limited basis. We do not want to add to the congestion. The
proposals that are being put forward would not add to congestion. They
would be mostly incumbent carriers already flying, just transferring to
longer haul flights but not with bigger airplanes.
So you can't make the argument that it is going to add to ground
congestion or air congestion because you are not going to add that many
new flights. It certainly is not a noise issue anymore, because we have
Stage III aircraft that have made a significant improvement in air
traffic noise for people who live near airports. I think it is in the
interest of the people who live around National to have that same
convenience--to be able to go to the western part of the United States,
just as people who live farther away from the airports. So I think we
are working through this. We need to come up with something that
everyone would say is a fair compromise, and I hope we can do that.
The underlying bill is important because it does increase the safety
measures we need to have. It certainly will modernize the air traffic
control system and put America in the forefront of putting our air
traffic control on a satellite-based system, rather than a ground-based
radar system. That is the key reason for needing to go forward on this
bill so we can start that transformation. It will take time, and it is
something that needs to be done, but with a longer term authorization,
which we are trying to do.
It will improve rural small town access to our aviation system. There
are also good consumer protections. We don't think anyone should have
to sit on an airplane for more than 3 hours on the ground with the door
closed, and that is provided for in this bill. If you are sitting on
the ground in an enclosed aircraft for more than 3 hours, the airline
must open the doors and let passengers get off.
There are a lot of things we need to put into law. We have made a
good start, and I would ask my colleagues to give us their amendments,
if they have them, and let us work through them to move this bill.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Mississippi.

Amendment No. 14, as Modified

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment
No. 14 be modified with the changes I have sent to the desk.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Hearing no objection, the amendment is so modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. EXCLUSION OF EMPLOYEES OF THE TRANSPORTATION
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION FROM THE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING RIGHTS OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.

(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``Termination of Collective Bargaining for Transportation
Security Administration Employees Act of 2011''.
(b) In General.--Section 7103(a) of title 5, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in clause (iv), by striking ``; or'' and inserting a
semicolon;
(B) in clause (v), by striking the semicolon and inserting
``; or''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(vi) an officer or employee of the Transportation
Security Administration of the Department of Homeland
Security;''; and
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) in subparagraph (G), by striking ``; or'' and inserting
a semicolon;
(B) in subparagraph (H), by striking the period and
inserting ``; or''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(I) the Transportation Security Administration of the
Department of Homeland Security;''.
(c) Amendments to Title 49.--
(1) Transportation security administration.--Section 114(n)
of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding ``This
subsection shall be subject to the amendments made by the
Termination of Collective Bargaining for Transportation
Security Administration Employees Act of 2011.'' at the end.
(2) Personnel management system.--Section 40122 of title
49, United States Code, is amended--
(A) by redesignating subsection (j) as subsection (k); and
(B) by inserting after subsection (i) the following:
``(j) Transportation Security Administration.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section
(including subsection (g)(2)(C)), this section shall be
subject to the amendments made by the Termination of
Collective Bargaining for Transportation Security
Administration Employees Act of 2011.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act and
apply to any collective bargaining agreement (as defined
under section 7103(a)(8) of title 5, United States Code)
entered into on or after that date, including the renewal of
any collective bargaining agreement in effect on that date.

SEC. ___. EMPLOYEE RIGHTS AND ENGAGEMENT MECHANISM FOR
PASSENGER AND PROPERTY SCREENERS.

(a) Labor Organization Membership; Appeal Rights;
Engagement Mechanism for Workplace Issues.--
(1) In general.--Section 111(d) of the Aviation and
Transportation Security Act (49 U.S.C. 44935 note) is
amended--
(A) by striking ``Notwithstanding'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in section 883 of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 463) and paragraphs
(2) through (5), notwithstanding''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Labor organization membership.--Nothing in this
section shall be construed to

[[Page S590]]

prohibit an individual described in paragraph (2) from
joining a labor organization.
``(3) Right to appeal adverse action.--An individual
employed or appointed to carry out the screening functions of
the Administrator under section 44901 of title 49, United
States Code, may submit an appeal of an adverse action
covered by section 7512 of title 5, United States Code, and
finalized after the date of the enactment of the FAA Air
Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act, to
the Merit Systems Protection Board and may seek judicial
review of any resulting orders or decisions of the Merit
Systems Protection Board.
``(4) Employee engagement mechanism for addressing
workplace issues.--At every airport at which the
Transportation Security Administration screens passengers and
property under section 44901 of title 49, United States Code,
the Administrator shall provide a collaborative, integrated
employee engagement mechanism to address workplace issues.''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--Section 111(d)(1) of such Act,
as redesignated by paragraph (1)(A), is amended--
(A) by striking ``Under Secretary of Transportation for
Security'' and inserting ``Administrator of the
Transportation Security Administration''; and
(B) by striking ``Under Secretary'' each place it appears
and inserting ``Administrator''.
(b) Whistleblower Protections.--Section 883 of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 463) is amended, in the matter
preceding paragraph (1), by inserting ``, or section 111(d)
of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (49 U.S.C.
44935 note),'' after ``this Act''.

Mr. WICKER. Secondly, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
following two Senators be added as cosponsors to my amendment: Senator
Collins and Senator Coburn.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I called up my amendment last week. This
amendment would prohibit TSA employees from entering into collective
bargaining agreements. A lot has happened since I called up my
amendment. The Transportation Security Administrator announced his
intent on Friday to proceed with allowing TSA security employees to
collectively bargain. That would reverse a decade of policy--since the
inception of TSA, actually. Currently, TSA employees are not allowed to
collectively bargain. The 2001 law that created TSA gives this decision
to the Administrator, and previous Administrators have understood that
collective bargaining agreements for TSA could compromise our Nation's
security. TSA employees have been treated like those of the FBI, the
CIA, and the Secret Service for purposes of collective bargaining.
These personnel are treated very well by our government and taken care
of in other ways. But because of the security concerns, collective
bargaining is prohibited for those security personnel.
Frankly, I think many observers would conclude that the current
administration is intent on doling out rewards to campaign supporters
and, therefore, is moving to reverse this decade-old decision and allow
for collective bargaining among TSA employees. On November 12, 2010,
the Federal Labor Relations Authority decided TSA employees will be
allowed to vote on union representation, and then the decision came
along on Friday to allow them to have collective bargaining rights.
I don't believe our country needs 50,000 TSA screeners to be part of
a union. But the Obama administration does. Adding workers to union
rolls has been a high priority of the administration since day one. As
I pointed out, the FBI, the CIA, and the Secret Service do not have
collective bargaining rights because burdensome union demands could
limit the ability of those responsible for security at some of the most
high-risk targets and hamper them in getting their job done.
Let me review a little bit of history. When a British airliner
bombing plot was uncovered in 2006, the TSA overhauled security
procedures in a matter of 12 hours to deal with the threat of liquid
explosives. They had to act very quickly and flexibly. It is difficult
to imagine that kind of flexibility under inflexible union rules.
In 2006, following a severe midwestern snow storm, local TSA
employees were unable to get to the airport, but TSA was able to fly
personnel in temporarily from other airports to cover these snowed-in
personnel. This helped keep the airport open and the security lines
moving. I wonder how injecting collective bargaining into this type of
situation would have impacted TSA's ability to be flexible, to be quick
on its feet, and to move personnel around.
There is also the issue of testing and rollout of software to protect
the privacy of passengers utilizing advanced imaging technology. This
should be done on the basis of national security and passenger safety
and privacy concerns, and not delayed because of union concerns or
intervention in the management of TSA employees.
I would reiterate, TSA has existed for almost 10 years without
collective bargaining, and there is no legitimate policy reason to
change this procedure at this time.
Working with Senator Collins, who I believe is prepared to also speak
today, I have modified my amendment to make it clear that TSA employees
have the baseline protections that almost all our Federal employees
have, while preserving the flexibility needed to keep our Nation safe.
The modified amendment would codify the 2003 TSA policy that prohibits
collective bargaining agreements with security screeners. We do not
need to limit the flexibility to respond immediately to emerging and
evolving threats.
My amendment would also allow the Merit Systems Protection Board to
hear adverse employment actions, such as demotions or firings, so TSA
employees would have the same protections as other Federal security
employees.
Also, if these modifications are accepted unanimously today, they
would codify protections under the Whistleblowers Protection Act and
would create an employee engagement process for workplace issues. My
amendment simply adds these protections into the statute.
I would also point out that it is the public employees union
contracts that States are grappling with today. Several of our States
are literally facing bankruptcy because of the expensive and burdensome
government union employee contracts--Illinois, New Jersey, California.
The Governors, on a bipartisan basis, are struggling to get out from
under these burdens and to free their States from these expensive
public employee union contracts. They are causing the bankruptcy of
States.
In the U.S. Government, we have the ability to deficit spend, and
that is quite a problem. We will spend $1.5 trillion this fiscal year
that we don't have, and the American public is demanding that we do
something about it. It is unimaginable to me that under those
circumstances the Obama administration is taking action which can only
make TSA more expensive and make dealing with our employees there more
costly and add to the debt. I don't see any way around it.
As States and localities are moving in one direction, here comes the
Obama administration and, swimming upstream on this issue, proposing to
add to the public employee union collective bargaining regime some
40,000 to 50,000 additional Americans. I don't see how we can afford
that. I don't see how it helps security or helps our Nation to adopt
some more burdensome requirements, and I don't see how it helps
national security.
I would urge my colleagues to vote in favor of Wicker amendment No.
14. That vote may occur as early as tomorrow morning, but I would urge
its adoption. This is an issue that is not going to go away. It is
going to be taken up in the other body. We are going to be following
this issue, and it is something I think Americans feel strongly about.
At this point I would urge the adoption of my amendment.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, first, let me thank my colleague and
friend from Mississippi for working with me over the past few days to
modify the amendment he originally proposed. I very much appreciated
his willingness to sit down and talk about the amendment, and I am
pleased to cosponsor Senator Wicker's modified amendment, which
provides additional workforce protections for transportation security
officers while ensuring the management flexibility that is absolutely
vital to the operational efficiency of the TSA and to the security of
the American people. Our amendment would provide additional employment

[[Page S591]]

protections to TSA employees while preserving the agency's ability to
respond quickly and effectively to security and operational challenges.
Through our committee's work on homeland security, I have become
convinced that the ability for TSA to respond quickly and effectively
to changing conditions, to emerging threats, to new intelligence, to
impending crises, even to dramatic weather such as blizzards and
hurricanes, is essential. From the intelligence community to our first
responders, the key to an effective response is flexibility--the
ability to put assets and personnel where they are needed, when they
are needed, with a minimum of bureaucracy.
The TSA is charged with a great responsibility. In order to
accomplish its critical national security mission, the Aviation and
Transportation Security Act provided the TSA Administrator with certain
workforce flexibilities. These flexibilities allowed the Administrator
to shift resources and to implement new procedures whenever needed--
daily, even hourly, in some cases--in response to emergencies, canceled
flights, changing circumstances, or threats to our security. This
authority has enabled TSA to make the best and fullest use of its
highly trained and dedicated workforce.
I want to point out that this debate is not just theoretical. We are
not talking about having some theoretical flexibility. We have already
seen the benefits of this flexibility. We have seen exactly why it is
necessary.
Let me give a couple of examples. In the aftermath of the thwarted
airline liquids bombing plot that emanated from Great Britain, TSA was
able to move quickly to change the nature of its employees' work and
even the location of that work. With the liquids bombing plot, TSA,
overnight, had to retrain its employees, had to deploy them
differently, and was able to do so precisely because of the flexibility
of the current law.
Another example is the December 2006 blizzard that hit the Denver
area. When many local TSA employees were unable to get to the airport,
TSA was able to act quickly, flying in volunteer TSA employees from Las
Vegas to cover the shifts, and covering the Las Vegas shifts with
officers who were transferred temporarily from Salt Lake City. Without
that ability to deploy personnel where they were needed on a moment's
notice, the Denver airport would have been critically understaffed
while hundreds, perhaps thousands of travelers were stranded. This
flexibility is essential to maintain, and that is what the Wicker-
Collins-Coburn amendment would do.
TSA also redeployed hundreds of screeners to Houston and New Orleans
in response to hurricanes in 2008. These TSOs relieved local employees
at those airports so that they could safely evacuate themselves and
their families, and it helped to quickly resume screening operations
after the storms had passed.
These were challenging times for TSA. Evacuations in these cities
caused high volumes of airline passengers resulting in the TSOs in New
Orleans screening more than 32,000 gulf coast residents within a 48-
hour period.
TSA's announcement on Friday purports to preclude employees from
bargaining over security policies and procedures. But if we look at
precisely what it says, it does allow bargaining over the selection
process for special assignments and on policies for transfers and shift
trading--matters that could require very rapid resolution during an
emergency. There will not be time for bargaining over those issues.
In addition, the very definition of what constitutes security
policies and procedures could be the subject of dispute and litigation.
That is exactly the point Secretary Chertoff made in a letter he sent
to me in 2007 when the Senate was considering this very same issue. He
wrote:

Although the administrator of TSA purportedly would not be
required to bargain over responses to emergencies or imminent
threats, it is inevitable that protracted litigation would
ensue over the meaning of these terms.

That is exactly what would happen if we allow to stand the decision
of the Administrator of TSA. Instead of drastically changing the TSA
personnel system in a way that would interfere with TSA's ability to
carry out its mission, there is an alternative. We should make some
targeted but critical reforms in the personnel system to ensure that
TSA's employees are treated fairly.
My point is there is a middle ground that we can reach, and that is
what the modified amendment does. First, we should bring TSA employees
under the Whistleblower Protections Act, which safeguards the rights of
whistleblowers throughout the Federal Government. There is simply no
reason to deny TSA employees that protection. Indeed, I would argue it
hurts us to deny that protection because if there is a whistleblower at
this critical agency who does not feel fully protected and does not
come forward, that could hurt our security. So our amendment would
codify that coverage and make that protection clear.
Second, we should make clear that TSA members do have the right to
join a union. That is a different issue from collective bargaining.
Some of them have chosen to be represented by a union now. Many have
not chosen to be. But they should have that choice. That allows, for
example, for them to get representation by a union if there is an
adverse employment action. Our amendment specifically provides that we
are not depriving employees of that choice.
Third, we should give TSA employees the right to an independent
appeal of adverse personnel actions such as removals, suspensions for
more than 14 days, reductions in pay or grade, or certain furloughs.
The amendment would give TSOs the right to have those appeals heard by
the Merit Systems Protection Board. That is an independent board,
separate from the agency, separate from the Department of Homeland
Security, that sits in judgment of appeals filed by most other Federal
employees. So I see no reason TSA screeners should not have that same
right. That is an important protection because if a screener believes
he or she is being treated unfairly by a supervisor, there is an
independent arbitrator to whom that employee can appeal.
Here is the bottom line. We can provide TSA employees with important
protections enjoyed by other Federal employees, such as the right to
appeal adverse employment actions to the Merit Systems Protection Board
and the statutory right to whistleblower protections without disrupting
TSA's proven personnel system that has served the agency and this
Nation well over the past decade. Previous Secretaries of Homeland
Security and Administrators of TSA have described that personnel system
in great detail to the Homeland Security Committee and to other
entities, in the Senate in both classified briefings and open hearings,
as necessary to accomplish the critical goals of TSA. Our amendment
would preserve these flexible personnel systems while ensuring that TSA
employees enjoy important legal protections available to other Federal
employees.
I have been trying since 2007 to achieve a middle ground on this
issue. Frankly, the previous administration was reluctant on some of
the safeguards I have described. This administration has gone way
overboard in the other direction, but a middle ground is exactly what
this modified amendment strikes. It charts that middle ground,
providing significant additional protections and rights to TSA
employees without burdening a system that is working well now and that
is essential to our security.
We simply have to allow the TSA Administrator to retain exactly the
same kinds of flexibility to deploy personnel that he enjoys now and
that have been used in the past. That is the important point. This
debate is not theoretical. Those personnel flexibilities have proven
absolutely essential to meet the threat of a terrorist attack and to
deal with blizzards and hurricanes. I urge my colleagues to take a
strong, close look at the modified amendment. I hope they will support
it.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for up to 10 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Nomination of Marco A. Hernandez

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Commerce
Committee dealing with an exceptionally

[[Page S592]]

important bill. I appreciate his courtesy at this time.
Mr. President, later in the evening the Senate will confirm Judge
Marco Hernandez, who has been nominated to serve as a U.S. district
court judge for the District of Oregon. The vacancy that Judge
Hernandez will fill is one that Chief Justice Roberts has designated a
judicial emergency. Given that, I thank Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member
Grassley, Majority Leader Reid, and Minority Leader McConnell for
bringing this nomination to the floor today.
I also note Oregon has another opening and another outstanding
nominee, Mr. Michael Simon, whom I expect to be reported out of
committee this week. I hope he, too, will be brought to the Senate
floor quickly.
It is no surprise that Judge Marco Hernandez was nominated to the
Federal bench because his life could serve as a billboard for the
American dream. At the age of 17, Marco Hernandez moved to Oregon by
himself. Needing to support himself, he took a job as a dishwasher,
later found a better job as a janitor, and eventually Marco became a
teacher's aide. At that point, Judge Hernandez began taking night
classes at a local community college with the hope of one day attending
a 4-year college. Finally, he was able to enroll at Western Oregon
State College, and he quickly demonstrated his ability to excel.
Judge Hernandez earned the Delmer Dewey Award as the most outstanding
male student in his class. Following college, Marco went on to graduate
from the University of Washington School of Law.
From the beginning of his legal career, Judge Hernandez demonstrated
a strong commitment to public service. After law school, Judge
Hernandez worked at Oregon Legal Services representing farm workers. He
then served as a deputy district attorney and was later appointed as a
State court judge, a position he has served in for the past 15 years.
Judge Hernandez is so well regarded across my home State and across
the political spectrum that he has been nominated not by one but by two
Presidents of different parties and at the recommendations of two
Senators of different parties. Judge Hernandez was first nominated for
the district court by President Bush in 2008 when my friend and former
colleague, Senator Gordon Smith, led the nomination process. At that
time I supported the recommendation of Judge Hernandez.
Unfortunately, the 110th Congress was unable to act upon his
nomination before adjourning. In the 111th Congress I recommended Judge
Hernandez's nomination to President Obama, and I am very pleased that
Senator Merkley, who has joined me in the Senate, has been a strong
supporter of Judge Hernandez as well. I was very pleased when President
Obama announced that he, too, like President Bush, thought it important
for Judge Hernandez to serve on the Federal bench.
One of the reasons leaders from both political parties support Judge
Hernandez is that throughout his judicial career he has demonstrated a
special affinity for creative solutions. He implemented an innovative
domestic violence program to aggressively pursue offenders and created
a new program for mentally ill defendants, which Judge Hernandez
continues to oversee.
With a tremendous record of public service, innovation, and
commitment to justice, no one was surprised when Judge Hernandez was
reported out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously. He has had the
support of both Republicans and Democrats and a broad range of legal
organizations. He has received the strong backing of the Hispanic
National Bar Association. In fact, Judge Hernandez would be the first
Hispanic article III judge in my home State.
It is good news for the people of Oregon, and it is good news for the
Federal bench that today the Senate is taking up the confirmation of
Judge Hernandez. I strongly urge all my colleagues to join me in
supporting an outstanding individual, Judge Marco Hernandez, for U.S.
district court judge.
I thank, again, Chairman Rockefeller, who is dealing with an
extremely important bill for his courtesy for letting me make these
remarks about Judge Hernandez.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal.) The Senator from Arizona.

Amendment No. 4

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment and call up amendment No. 4.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment
numbered 4.

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

(Purpose: To repeal the essential air service program)

Beginning on page 128, strike line 5 and all that follows
through page 141, line 9, and insert the following:

SEC. 411. REPEAL OF ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 417 of title 49,
United States Code, is repealed.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Title 49, United State Code, is
further amended--
(1) in section 329(b)(1), by striking ``except that'' and
all the follows through the semicolon;
(2) in section 40109(f)(3)(B), by striking ``, including
the minimum'' and all that follows through ``this title'';
(3) in section 40117(e)(2), by striking subparagraph (B)
and redesignating subparagraphs (C) through (F) as
subparagraphs (B) through (E), respectively;
(4) in section 41110--
(A) in subsection (a)(2)(B), by striking ``41712, and
41731-41742'' and inserting ``and 41712''; and
(B) in subsection (c)--
(i) in paragraph (1), by striking
``carrier--'' and all that follows through ``does not
provide'' and inserting ``carrier does not provide''; and
(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking ``(1)(B)'' and inserting
``(1)''; and
(5) in section 47124(b)(3)(C), by striking clause (iv) and
redesignating clauses (v) through (vii) as clauses (iv)
through (vi), respectively.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I know we celebrated President Reagan's
100th birthday this past weekend. I quote from him on many occasions.
He inspired many of us in many ways. President Reagan once stated:

Government programs once launched never disappear. Actually
a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we
will ever see on this earth.

I do not know if President Reagan ever observed the Essential Air
Service program, but it certainly fits his description. This amendment,
to repeal a $200 million government subsidy, may not be significant.
And $200 million, in the light of a $1.5 trillion deficit this year, is
probably not a lot of money. But a lot of Americans on November 2 said
they wanted us to stop spending on things that are not absolutely
essential. Although this program is called the Essential Air Service,
in my view, it is far from ``essential.'' But the American people spoke
on November 2. They said, stop the spending. Stop programs that are
either unnecessary, have grown too much, are unwise, or even make some
tough decisions.
In this bill, we are not cutting the Essential Air Service, we are
actually increasing it to some $200 million. My colleagues may be a bit
confused by this chart right here. But it shows--by this way, this
chart came from the FAA--that 99.95 percent of all Americans--99.95
percent of all Americans--live within 120 miles of a public airport
that has more than 10,000 takeoffs and landings annually.
So, yes, there are some parts of America that represent the .05
percent of all Americans who live outside of 120 miles from an airport
that has 10,000 takeoffs and landings.
All the watchdog organizations--Citizens Against Government Waste,
the National Taxpayers Union, all of those organizations that watch
what we do support this amendment. Earlier this month Citizens Against
Government Waste President Tom Schatz said: The nonessential air
service has outlived its usefulness and is another reason why the
country has a $14 trillion national debt.
A lot of Americans will be watching the vote on this amendment. It is
not the first amendment to try to cut back on spending, but it
certainly is, in my view, very symbolic of whether we are

[[Page S593]]

serious. Last week, in the President's State of the Union speech, he
said: The only way to tackle our deficit is to cut excessive spending
wherever we find it, in domestic spending, defense spending, health
care spending and spending through tax breaks and loopholes.
As House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan has told many, ``There
are no sacred cows when it comes to spending cuts.'' To put it bluntly,
the Essential Air Service is not ``essential.'' The program was created
in 1978 when Congress deregulated the airline industry and allowed
market forces to determine the price, quantity, and quality of service.
Deregulation allowed most airline carriers to focus their resources on
profitable, high-density markets. That is the way the market works. In
response, Congress established the Essential Air Service to subsidize
airline carriers that provide service to small communities at a loss,
because, otherwise, no sane business would serve a market at a loss.
Again, as Ronald Reagan once eloquently stated, ``Government does not
solve problems, it subsidizes them.'' That is exactly what we did in
1978 by creating the Essential Air Program.
As with so many programs we have created, as Congress initially
enacted the program, it was supposed to last 10 years. It was only 10
years that we enacted this program while markets adjusted and
communities adjusted. In 1996, of course, we removed the 10-year limit,
and like so many programs the government has created, it started with a
few airline carriers and a few communities, and now has grown to
subsidize a dozen airline carriers and over 100 communities. You cover
enough communities, you get enough votes, you keep the program going,
and then you increase the spending on the program.
In this bill, it increased costs of $200 million. Again, not much in
comparison to a $1.5 trillion debt, $14 trillion deficit--$1.5 trillion
deficit, $14 trillion debt. But it might be nice to start somewhere.
Like so many other government programs, the program was initially
funded for several million dollars, now up to $200 million.
A July 2009 Government Accountability Office report questioned
whether the AES program has outlived its usefulness, stating:

Current conditions raise concerns about whether the program
continues to operate as it has. The growth of the air
service, especially by low-cost carriers, which today serve
most U.S. hub airports, weighed against the relatively high
fares and inconvenience of Essential Air Service flights can
lead people to bypass Essential Air Service flights and drive
to hub airports.

As I mentioned, 99.95 percent of all Americans live within 120 miles
of public airports with more than 10,000 takeoffs and landings--in
other words, fairly large airports. Let me give you a good example of
the kind of great expenditure of the taxpayers dollar this is.
Last year the Wall Street Journal published an article entitled,
``John Murtha's Airport for No One,'' which reported on an airport in
Pennsylvania that has received more than $1.3 million over the past few
years under the Essential Air Service program. The article states:

The airport sees an average of fewer than 30 people per
day. There is never a wait for security, you can park for
free right outside the gate. And you are almost guaranteed a
row to yourself on any flight.

The article continues:

Tickets to fly to Johnstown are expensive, even though
every passenger flying out of John Murtha Airport has a $100
subsidy behind the ticket, courtesy of the Federal Essential
Air Service Program, which provides support to struggling
airports. So far it has gotten $150 million of payments to
what is called the Airport for No One. There are a total of
18 flights per week, all of which go to Dulles Airport in
Washington, D.C.

The author goes on to say:

I was visiting the airport from Washington but because
flights cost a pricy $400, I drove. The drive took less than
three and a half hours and cost about $35 in gas--not to
mention that it was arguably faster than flying. And this
isn't a remote area of the state. Murtha airport is less than
two hours from the Pittsburgh airport. The airport has an
$8.5 million taxpayer-funded radar system that has never been
used. The runway was paved with reinforced concrete at a cost
of more than $17 million. The latest investment was $800,000
from the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
to repave half of the secondary runway. (Never mind that the
first one is hardly ever in use.)

Well, the list goes on and on. That is just an example.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the article
from the Wall Street Journal entitled ``John Murtha's Airport for No
One,'' and the Los Angeles Times article entitled, ``Planes to nowhere?
Congress plans to increase small-town airline subsidies,'' and the
Seattle Times article entitled, ``Rural air subsidies test resolve to
cut spending.''
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Wall Street Journal, Sept. 3, 2009]

John Murtha's Airport for No One

A monument to earmarks in Johnstown, Pa.

(By Tyler Grimm)

If you hate the hubbub of crowded airports, you might want
to consider flying out of Johnstown, Pa. The airport sees an
average of fewer than 30 people per day, there is never a
wait for security, you can park for free right outside the
gate, and you are almost guaranteed a row to yourself on any
flight.
You might wonder how the region ever had the air traffic
demand to justify such a facility. It didn't. But it is
located in the district of one of Congress's most
unapologetic earmarkers: Democrat John Murtha.
In 20 years, Mr. Murtha has successfully doled out more
than $150 million of federal payments to what is now being
called the airport for no one. I took a trip to southwestern
Pennsylvania to explore how this small town received so much
money and whether the John Murtha Airport is a legitimate
federal investment.
There are many in Johnstown who see the airport as crucial.
Johnstown Chamber of Commerce President Bob Layo tells me:
``If the airport isn't paying dividends now, it will in the
future.'' But those dividends appear to be a mirage.
There are a total of 18 flights per week, all of which go
to Dulles Airport in Washington, D.C. I was visiting the
airport from Washington, but because flights cost a pricey
$400, I drove. The drive took less than three and a half
hours and cost about $35 in gas--not to mention that it was
arguably faster than flying. And this isn't a remote area of
the state: Murtha airport is less than two hours from the
Pittsburgh airport.
The airport has an $8.5 million, taxpayer-funded radar
system that has never been used. The runway was paved with
reinforced concrete at a cost of more than $17 million. The
latest investment was $800,000 from the $787 billion American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act to repave half of the secondary
runway. (Never mind that the first one is hardly ever in
use.)
Airport Director Scott Voelker admitted in an interview
that having a never-used unmanned radar system is ``dumber
than dirt.'' But he says the airport is necessary and blames
its current shortcomings on the economy. ``To get more
passengers, we need more flights. To get more flights, we
need more passengers,'' he says. Mr. Voelker believes the
``economy has dictated to the airlines to cut back on
flights.'' In other words: The airport was not built in
response to passenger or airline needs.
The usually barren airport--there were several times during
the day I paced the building for 15 minutes and did not see
another human being--has a lot of unused advertising space.
But you can't miss the large picture of John Murtha among a
collage of Lockheed Martin workers at the airport's center.
It's a monument to earmarks: ``Partnerships Make a World of
Difference,'' the ad reads.
Tickets to fly to Johnstown are expensive, even though
every passenger flying out of John Murth Airport has a $100
subsidy behind the ticket courtesy of the federal Essential
Air Service program, which provides support to struggling
rural airports. A woman who had just gotten off a flight told
me that there were only four people on her plane. ``The plane
could have held at least 30 passengers,'' she said.
In addition to the airport, Mr. Murtha's ability to corral
federal funds is apparent in the local medical research
center (named after his wife), the John P. Murtha Technology
Center, the area's thriving defense contracting industry, and
numerous other local landmarks. The unemployment rate in
Johnstown is currently below the national average of 9.4%
thanks to federal largess and the fact that so many have
moved away from the area.
Bill Polacek, a local businessman and a member of the
airport's board of directors, told me that the citizens of
Johnstown need Mr. Murtha's earmarks. ``Quite frankly, if he
didn't do that, we wouldn't elect him,'' he said.
I asked Mr. Layo of the Chamber of Commerce if he thinks
Mr. Murtha's earmarks should stop now that Johnstown has
emerged from the economic crisis it faced two decades ago.
``I don't think you're ever finished,'' he replied. As long
as Mr. Murtha is in Congress, they never will be.
____

[From the Los Angeles Times, Sept. 19, 2009]

Planes to Nowhere? Congress Plans to Increase Small-Town Airline
Subsidies

(By Alexander C. Hart)

Washington.--Ely is a Nevada mining town with a population
of 4,000. Located about a four-hour drive north of Las Vegas,
it is perhaps most famous as the birthplace of former First
Lady Pat Nixon.

[[Page S594]]

Ely also is a beneficiary of Essential Air Service, a
federal program established in the 1970s after airline
deregulation to prevent small communities from losing access
to air travel. But opponents call the program wasteful
spending, noting that much of the money provides service to
areas with fewer than 30 passengers a day.
This week, the Senate passed a transportation bill that
includes a $38-million funding increase for the program,
which now stands to receive $175 million.
In 2008, according to Senate Appropriations Committee data,
Great Lakes Airlines received a subsidy of about $1.8 million
for the 414 passengers it flew to and from Ely--about $4,500
per person.
Since the program requires companies to offer at least two
round trips most days, some subsidized flights were almost
certainly empty. Service contracts usually last two years.
Ely is just one of many communities receiving heavily
subsidized flights; in June 2009, 152 towns and cities
participated, according to the Department of Transportation.
Costs vary widely in part because of differences in
ridership. Glendive, Mont., saw a per-passenger subsidy of
more than $2,500 for each of the 418 people who flew last
year. The 23,581 passengers using the airport in Manhattan,
Kan., only cost the government $50.82 each.
Steve Ellis, vice president of the watchdog group Taxpayers
for Common Sense, said that the program ``was supposed to go
away over a period of time as we made the transition [from
deregulation]. . . . Congress made sure it hasn't.''
But residents of small towns defend the program.
``We are very isolated,'' said Karen Rajala, coordinator
for the White Pine County Economic Diversification Council,
which covers Ely. ``The subsidy provides us a link to the
urban areas of our state and the West.''
But in a time of soaring deficits, Congress must be careful
with how it spends money, Ellis said. ``I'm not saying there
aren't people who benefit from this program,'' he said. ``But
the real question is, are the taxpayers as a whole getting
their money's worth?''
Attempting to scale back the program, however, is
difficult, as President George W. Bush learned when he
proposed cutting funding to $50 million in his 2006 budget.
His push, which also included a cost-sharing requirement for
cities receiving service, collapsed in the face of
congressional opposition.
The House's transportation bill also contains $175 million
for the program. The two bills will be sent to a conference
committee before President Obama signs a final version into
law.
____

[From the Seattle Times, Feb. 3, 2011]

Rural Air Subsidies Test Resolve To Cut Spending

(By Joan Lowy)

Washington.--A program that subsidizes air service to small
airports, often in remote communities, is shaping up as an
early test in the new Congress of conservatives' zeal for
shrinking the federal government.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has proposed an amendment to an
aviation bill pending before the Senate in order to eliminate
the $200 million annual essential air service program. The
program pays airlines to provide scheduled service to about
150 communities, from Muscle Shoals, Ala., to Pelican,
Alaska.
In the House, the Republican Study Committee--a group of
conservative lawmakers--has also proposed killing the
program.
Subsidies per airline passenger as of June 1, 2010, ranged
as high as $5,223 in Ely, Nev., to as low as $9.21 in Thief
River Falls, Minn., according to Transportation Department
data for the lower 48 states.
The program was created to ensure that less-profitable
routes to small airports wouldn't be eliminated when airline
service was deregulated in 1978. But critics say the airports
often serve too few people to merit the amount of money spent
in subsidies. Urban growth over the past three decades has
also placed transportation alternatives--other airports,
trains and bus service--within a reasonable distance of some
communities receiving subsidies.
Studies show that in a lot of those communities people
drive to larger airports to get better service at a lower
cost than they can get at the smaller airport, even with
subsidized air service, said Severin Borenstein, a University
of California-Berkeley business professor who is an expert on
airline competition.
``Some communities can make a credible claim they need the
service, particularly in Alaska, but I think those are a
relatively small part of the program,'' he said.
The program has been remarkably resilient, partly due to
the protection it receives from lawmakers from rural states
and districts. It has been proposed for cuts or elimination
many times over the years, but continues to grow.
``It's exactly in the political sweet spot,'' Borenstein
said. Lawmakers don't feel it's worth upsetting the few
people the program serves to achieve what amounts to a modest
savings in federal budget terms, he said.
Supporters say the small airports and their air service are
important to the communities' ability to attract investment
and jobs.
Four Democratic senators--Mark Begich of Alaska, Ben Nelson
of Nebraska, Robert Casey of Pennsylvania and Joe Manchin of
West Virginia--are circulating a letter among their
colleagues for signature. It urges McCain to give up his
attempt to kill the program, citing potential economic
consequences.
``Eliminating the program will have a devastating impact on
the economies of rural communities,'' their letter says.
``At a moment when the nation's economic recovery is
starting to gain momentum, it makes little sense to reduce
personal and business travel volume by cutting off residents
of rural areas,'' the letter says. ``And at a time when jobs
are already so hard to come by in our rural communities, it
makes even less sense to enact cuts that will only make the
problem worse.''
One of the program's biggest supporters is Sen. Jay
Rockefeller, D-W.Va., chairman of the Senate Commerce,
Science and Transportation Committee and the main sponsor of
the pending aviation bill. It would increase rather than
decrease funding for the program and give the Transportation
Department more flexibility in structuring contracts with
airlines to improve it. Rockefeller would also let the
department adjust contracts to take into account rising fuel
costs. There are five communities in West Virginia with
subsidized service.
Several conservative senators from rural states declined to
discuss McCain's amendment when approached by The Associated
Press.
``I'll have to see it first. I haven't seen the
amendment,'' said Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo. Two communities
in Wyoming--Laramie and Worland--receive subsidized service,
according to the Transportation Department.
``I just don't know about that,'' echoed Sen. Orrin Hatch,
R-Utah. Three communities in Utah--Moab, Vernal and Cedar
City--receive subsidized service.

Mr. McCAIN. The Los Angeles Times article entitled ``planes to
nowhere,'' stated:

In 2008, according to Senate Appropriations Committee data,
Great Lakes Airlines received a subsidy of about $1.8 million
for the 414 passengers it flew to and from Ely Nevada, which
is about a 4-hour drive to Las Vegas. This amounts to a
$4,500 per-person subsidy. Since the program requires
companies to offer at least two round trips most days, some
subsidized flights were almost certainly empty.

The article says: Ely is a beneficiary of the Essential Air Service
program established in the 1970s after airline deregulation, et cetera.
Costs vary widely in part because of differences in ridership.
Glendive, MT saw a per-passenger subsidy of more than $2,000 for each
of the 418 who flew last year. The 23,581 passengers using the airport
in Manhattan, KS, only cost the government $50.82 each.
Steve Ellis, vice president of the watchdog group Taxpayers for
Common Sense, said: The program ``was supposed to go away over a period
of time as we made the transition [from deregulation]. . . . Congress
made sure it hasn't.''
Then, of course, I mentioned the Seattle Times article entitled,
``Rural air subsidies test resolve to cut spending.''

A program that subsidizes air service to small airports,
often in remote communities, is shaping up as an early test
in the new Congress of conservative zeal for shrinking the
federal government.

It goes on to say:

A program that subsidizes air services to small airports,
often in remote communities, is shaping up as an early test
in the new Congress of conservative zeal for shrinking the
Federal Government.
Subsidies per airline passenger as of June 1, 2010, ranged
as high as $5,223 in Ely, NV, to as low as $9.21 in Thief
River Falls, MN, according to Transportation Department data
for the lower 48 States.
But critics say the airports often serve too few people to
merit the amount of money spent in subsidies. Urban growth
over the past three decades has also placed transportation
alternatives--other airports, trains and bus service--within
a reasonable distance of some communities receiving
subsidies.
Studies show that in a lot of those communities people
drive to larger airports to get better service at a lower
cost than they can get at the smaller airport, even with
subsidized air service, said Severin Borenstein, a
University of California-Berkeley business professor who
is an expert on airline competition.
``Some communities can make a credible claim they need the
service, particularly in Alaska, but I think these are a
relatively small part of the program,'' he said.
The program has been remarkably resilient, partly due to
the protection it receives from lawmakers from rural states
and districts. It has been proposed for cuts or elimination
many times over the years, but continues to grow.
``It's exactly in the political sweet spot,'' Borenstein
said. Lawmakers don't feel it's worth upsetting the few
people the program serves to achieve what amounts to a modest
savings in federal budget terms, he said.

I received a letter from four Senators that stated:

[[Page S595]]

Eliminating the program will have a devastating impact on
the economies of rural communities.

I believe the real devastation to rural communities--big communities,
small communities, and medium-size communities--is if we don't stop
mortgaging our children and grandchildren's futures, if we don't stop
doing things that are unnecessary. This program was put into being in
1978. It was supposed to be there for 10 years. It was a few million
dollars. Now, according to this bill, it will be $200 million.
It is about time we match our rhetoric with our votes. I believe this
will be a very interesting vote we will be taking on this amendment.
All of these red dots represent people served by large and major
airports. There are some areas of the country that are not. Most of
these are very sparsely populated areas.
I hope my colleagues will vote in favor of eliminating this program
that was designed for 10 years of life and now has continued on for
some 30 years. And, as Ronald Reagan said, they are the hardest thing
in the world to either reduce or eliminate.
I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be. There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.

Amendment No. 50

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside
the pending amendment so I may call up, on behalf of Senator Leahy,
amendment No. 50, which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller], for Mr.
Leahy, proposes an amendment numbered 50.

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

(Purpose: To amend title 1 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 to include nonprofit and volunteer ground and air
ambulance crew members and first responders for certain benefits, and
to clarify the liability protection for volunteer pilots that fly for
public benefit)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

TITLE __--EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE PROVIDERS PROTECTION AND LIABILITY
PROTECTION FOR CERTAIN VOLUNTEER PILOTS

Subtitle A--Emergency Medical Service Providers Protection

SEC. _01. DALE LONG EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE PROVIDERS
PROTECTION ACT.

(a) Short Title.--This subtitle may be cited as the ``Dale
Long Emergency Medical Service Providers Protection Act''.
(b) Eligibility.--Section 1204 of title I of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796b)
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (7), by striking ``public employee member
of a rescue squad or ambulance crew;'' and inserting
``employee or volunteer member of a rescue squad or ambulance
crew (including a ground or air ambulance service) that--
``(A) is a public agency; or
``(B) is (or is a part of) a nonprofit entity serving the
public that--
``(i) is officially authorized or licensed to engage in
rescue activity or to provide emergency medical services; and
``(ii) is officially designated as a pre-hospital emergency
medical response agency;''; and
(2) in paragraph (9)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``as a chaplain'' and
all that follows through the semicolon, and inserting ``or as
a chaplain;'';
(B) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking ``or'' after the
semicolon;
(C) in subparagraph (C)(ii), by striking the period and
inserting ``; or''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) a member of a rescue squad or ambulance crew who, as
authorized or licensed by law and by the applicable agency or
entity (and as designated by such agency or entity), is
engaging in rescue activity or in the provision of emergency
medical services.''.
(c) Offset.--Of the unobligated balances available under
the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund, $13,000,000
are permanently cancelled.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (b)
shall apply only to injuries sustained on or after June 1,
2009.

Subtitle B--Liability Protection

SEC. _11. SHORT TITLE.

This subtitle may be cited as the ``Volunteer Pilot
Protection Act of 2011''.

SEC. _12. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Many volunteer pilots fly for public benefit and
provide valuable services to communities and individuals.
(2) In calendar year 2006, volunteer pilots provided long-
distance, no-cost transportation for more than 58,000 people
during times of special need.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to promote the
activities of volunteer pilots that fly for public benefit
and to sustain the availability of the services that such
volunteers provide, including the following:
(1) Transportation at no cost to financially needy medical
patients for medical treatment, evaluation, and diagnosis.
(2) Flights for humanitarian and charitable purposes.
(3) Other flights of compassion.

SEC. _13. LIABILITY PROTECTION FOR VOLUNTEER PILOTS THAT FLY
FOR PUBLIC BENEFIT.

Section 4 of the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997 (42
U.S.C. 14503) is amended in subsection (a)(4)--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses
(i) and (ii), respectively;
(2) by striking ``the harm'' and inserting ``(A) except in
the case of subparagraph (B), the harm'';
(3) in subparagraph (A)(ii), as redesignated by this
paragraph, by striking the period at the end and inserting
``; and''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) the volunteer--
``(i) was operating an aircraft to promote the activities
of volunteer pilots that fly for public benefit and to
sustain the availability of the services that such volunteers
provide, including transportation at no cost to financially
needy medical patients for medical treatment, evaluation, and
diagnosis, and for humanitarian and charitable purposes; and
``(ii) was properly licensed and insured for the operation
of such aircraft.''.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I wish to respond to the most
interesting facts pointed out by the Senator from Arizona and also the
collective bargaining matter. Senator Nelson is here with a
particularly good amendment. Before we get to the 4:30 hour, at which
time we will be debating judges, I wish to give him a chance to talk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the
chairman, for this opportunity to discuss an amendment to the FAA
reauthorization bill which I will be offering shortly. We are currently
working with the minority on some language changes. This amendment will
be proposed before long. When it is, I will be seeking a rollcall vote.
The amendment, which I propose along with Senators Schumer, Akaka,
Menendez, Whitehouse, Tester, and Shaheen, would make it a crime to
photograph, record, or distribute a body scan image taken by a body
scan imaging machine at either an airport or any Federal building
without express authorization to do so either by law or regulation. I
have heard from many Nebraskans who are concerned that the use of body
scan imaging machines is overly invasive and their privacy is being
ignored. I, too, share these concerns. This isn't an abstract concern.
According to news reports, the U.S. Marshals Service acknowledged last
year that some 35,000 images from a body scanner at a security
checkpoint at a Florida courthouse had been saved. That is despite
promises from Federal agencies that these images would not be stored.
One hundred of the saved images were leaked, and some are now online
for anyone to view. So an invasion of privacy has already occurred.
Nebraskans and the American people understand that every step needs
to be taken and every resource needs to be used to ensure the safety of
our citizenry. Using technology to scan individuals for hidden weapons
is a necessary, albeit sometimes unpleasant, aspect of making sure our
airways and public buildings are safe. However, in the scope of doing
such things, safeguards can and must be put in place to help deter
individuals from collecting and using those images inappropriately.
This is the goal of the amendment I and my colleagues are offering.
I am well aware Transportation Security Agency officials have said
the agency will not keep, store, or transmit images, but that has not
and doesn't ensure compliance. If passing laws or directives ensured
compliance, there would be no speeders in America. What is needed is
additional consequences to make anyone considering keeping, storing, or
transmitting these scanned images think twice about the

[[Page S596]]

fact that they will be committing a felony. If the consequence is
enough of a deterrent, we will have better compliance and the privacy
of every American will be better protected.
Let me explain specifically what the amendment does. One, it makes it
illegal to photograph, record, and subsequently distribute the images
taken by body scan machines in an airport or any Federal building.
Two, it imposes a penalty of up to 1 year in prison and up to a
$100,000 fine for those who inappropriately collect and distribute
these images.
Three, it says that any individual who is acting within the course
and scope of their employment is not breaking the law by saving these
images or sending them if the purpose for doing so is to use these
images in a criminal investigation or prosecution.
By adopting this amendment, we will be telling the American people
and my constituents that we are not going to ignore or compromise their
privacy in the process of making sure we have safe airports and Federal
buildings. Our amendment takes a commonsense approach to addressing
this issue and why I am seeking its inclusion in the FAA authorization.
I thank the chairman and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, in that we have a short reception at
4:30 and then we are going to judges, I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________