Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with each Senator permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 15, 2011, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 15, 2011, in Dirksen 406 to hold a hearing entitled, ``Nomination of Daniel M. Ashe to be Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 15, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The President's Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Proposal.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 15, 2011, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 15, 2011, at 10:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``A Ticking Time Bomb: Counterterrorism Lessons from the U.S. Government's Failure to Prevent the Fort Hood Attack.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 15, 2011 at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Green Jobs and the New Economy be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 15, 2011, at 2:30 p.m. in

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. on Wednesday, February 16; that following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate proceed to a period of morning business until 11 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees; finally, at 11 a.m., that the Senate resume consideration of S. 223, the Federal Aviation Administration authorization bill.

Mr. President, rollcall votes in relation to FAA amendments are expected to occur throughout the day tomorrow.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, might I ask, what is the pending business?

Mr. President, my cochair, Senator Hutchison, is on the floor, and I know she wishes to speak.

It occurs to me we are back on the Federal aviation bill. We have been on this bill for several years. There is an interesting sort of dilemma which has developed. If one listens to the conversation on the floor and around in the hallways, everything has to do with slots--how many flights in and out of National Airport, what are we going to do about the west coast, Seattle, and all the rest of them. Actually, that is a very small part of the overall bill, reflecting on the overall health and progress of the Federal Aviation Administration, compared to things such as NextGen, the new air traffic control system entirely, and a variety of other things which are already in the bill which the Senate passed last year 93 to nothing. So I am losing my patience a little bit with slots.

Kay Bailey Hutchison and I agree on most things in our work, and we have an amendment. Other people seem to be going back and forth--they are amenable, then they are not amenable--and we are running out of time. I think the leader, with that in mind, is going to ask for cloture on this to sort of force everybody's hand.

What I am really suggesting is that those who are working on slots try to come to an agreement during the course of the rest of this day because I think we are talking only about that, and perhaps a little bit of tomorrow morning. Then I think the Senate just kind of--and I know the leader on our side--has to do the bill. We have been debating these slots for 6\1/2\ months this year. We did it for a whole bunch of months last year. Progress is made, progress is unmade; people agree, people don't agree. Senator Hutchison and I are getting a little bit frustrated by that. We think we have a good amendment, but let's see.

So we have some pending amendments. I am hopeful we will be able to work through them this evening and the remainder of the week. I think we have made reasonable progress on some matters, but on the question of the bill itself and the substance of the bill and those amendments which are germane to the substance of the bill, I think we have made a lot of progress. A lot of that progress actually comes from last year on our unanimous vote to approve this issue. So I believe we can and must finish this bill this week. I think my cochair agrees with me on that. If not, we risk further extensions of the FAA and a less stable agency.

Again, I would point out that I think we are on our 18th extension of this massive bill keep all of our planes in the air and everybody at work and includes safety and all kinds of things. We need a very swift resolution. So I urge the Senate to promptly move forward on the passage of the FAA reauthorization act.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me add to what my distinguished colleague said. People who are working on slot amendments should remember that in the bill that was passed and therefore the pending legislation, S. 233, there are no slot amendments. So they have to be under the discipline of understanding that slot amendments at this point are nongermane, and that will change as circumstances change in the next day or they won't.

At this point, with the indulgence of Senator Hutchison, I know Senator Murkowski from Alaska is going to give a speech, with whom I know I am going to fully agree.

Mr. President, I am only going to comment for a minute, but what the Senator from Alaska has just said is completely true. It also points out the overall philosophical question of what are we doing with this bill: Are we going to pass it or fight over all these slots? I am for passing the bill and leaving slots for conference or whatever, unless we can work something out. Nobody wants to agree. Everybody thinks they have the leverage. Maybe they do, maybe they do not. But in the meantime, this bill, which has been languishing for all these months, in fact, solves one of the problems of Alaska in its entirety because of the NextGen system, which I have been talking about--and which I could talk about more but not today--which is a global satellite network. It will provide the safety and capacity that is needed for safe flight in tricky weather, where weather changes very quickly, and, in fact, it is now in place in Alaska.

So that doesn't, in any way, take away from the Essential Air Service problems which the Senator from Alaska is talking about. I totally agree with her on that. But it just shows that if we hold up this bill and make ourselves slaves to working out slots agreements, which probably can't be worked out on this floor--maybe they can, I hope so, but I doubt it--we are depriving her State and others--but hers in particular since hers is a test State which has this system in place because of the changing weather, because of the unpredictability of virtually everything when you are flying. It is in effect there and in four other States. We are trying to get it to all States. This will change the whole future of aviation.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment also be set aside to call up the Baucus amendment, No. 75, as modified.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I want to reiterate something the leader has said and what the Senator from New Mexico said; that is, the vast importance of this bill. I have said many times on this floor there are 11 million people who work for the aviation industry. That is only the direct jobs. There are probably 2 or 3 million indirect jobs. It is one of the major parts of our economy.

Here we stand, after 17 delays sort of kicking it down the road for 3 months, completely messing up FAA's ability to work with runways or make improvements. We cannot fiddle around with runways. If something goes wrong, they have to be fixed or people die. So the stakes are enormous. This business of slots has become a decision people will have to make. Do they want to see a bill which fails, which goes down, and we go into our 18th or 19th, whatever it is--I have stopped counting-- or do they want to see something which is major to the American economy, major in terms of NASA research, in terms of air traffic control systems and which is major in terms of a passenger bill of rights. We have a lot of people stuck. I drove back from Clarksburg, WV, to Washington on Saturday. The reason I drove back is I was so sick of that airline that comes out of Clarksburg getting canceled or having mechanical problems, which means they probably didn't have enough passengers because we are a small State. We often don't have enough passengers to meet the bottom line. I drove back. It was 6\1/2\ hours. That was fine. I am prepared to do that. I hate doing that because it is a waste of my time. But the stakes are here.

This is huge, this bill. We have one good amendment, which we will do this morning when Senator Nelson of Florida comes down, and then I think we have to proceed. I appreciate the majority leader being quite tough about all this and saying he is going to lay down cloture. He doesn't want to fool around with this bill. There is only one part of this bill which is in any way contentious. That is slots. That has much more to do with campaign commitments than with the good of the Nation.

Nobody gets everything they want. In West Virginia we get almost nothing. I don't complain. I understand we are at the end of the food chain because we are a little State. Whenever there is a recession or airlines aren't doing very well financially because of fuel prices, we get cut off. My view about that is sort of more bitter but more maybe widespread and trying to look at the public good in general. As the tide rises, all the boats rise.

I strongly plead with Senators to consider the broader national interest and air traffic control system, which is digitalized GPS and which is three or four times more safe. I know whenever there is a near miss in the airways, when somebody has not calculated the distance correctly, either the pilot or the air traffic controller, I know about those things. They happen very frequently. There were several in the papers last week. We are playing with life and death. We are playing with the major exporter, by far the major exporter the United States has to other countries in terms of products and goods. Yet people sort of want to have just what they want to have because that is what they said last year, and they can't back off because, if they did, they would look weak or they are trying to protect a certain airline.

This, to me, is not about airlines. It is about passengers. The heck with airlines. We need to have more passengers going west because the West is growing faster than the East. They are underserved. There is one flight a day from DC to Los Angeles. That doesn't make any sense. All these things can be cured if people will be reasonable and not try to win out over some other group, some other constituency. My constituency is the national interest in this bill.

I don't mean to sound prudish, but I so say and believe very deeply.

If it is all right with the Presiding Officer, I will yield the floor to Senator Ben Nelson. He will make his amendment pending and then debate on the Nelson of Florida amendment will start at about 10:20.

Amendment No. 58

Madam President, I yield time to the distinguished Senator from Ohio.

Madam President, we yield back any remaining time on our side.

Mr. President, it is with great pride that I come to the floor today to discuss legislation that I am introducing to name the Federal Building and United States Courthouse in Martinsburg, WV, in honor of a dear friend, W. Craig Broadwater.

Judge Broadwater served at this courthouse during his tenure on the Federal bench, until his untimely death in 2006 after a battle with cancer. This legislation is a small, yet fitting tribute to his remarkable service to West Virginia and America.

It is difficult to put into words how tremendous of a loss his death was to his family, friends, community, State, and Nation. But I think it becomes much clearer when one looks at his life--his contributions to Justice and the Defense of our Nation, his love for his family, and the difference he made in the lives of those who were fortunate enough to know him.

Craig earned his undergraduate degree from West Virginia University in 1972 and his law degree from the West Virginia University College of Law in 1977. He spent the next several years in private practice in Wheeling, West Virginia, and also served as a hearing examiner for the West Virginia Worker's Compensation Fund and a special prosecuting attorney for Ohio County.

His career on the bench dates back to when I was Governor of West Virginia and had the honor of appointing him in 1983 to be a Circuit Judge for Ohio, Brooke, and Hancock Counties. There, he worked to protect our State's most vulnerable children as Chair of the Committee to Develop Child Abuse and Neglect Rules. The ``Broadwater Committee'', as it became known, reformed our courts' response to the needs of children in our judicial system.

Craig served as a state court judge until he was nominated by President Clinton to be a U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of West Virginia. He was confirmed by the Senate on July 12, 1996, and commissioned to serve on July 26, 1996.

During his ten years on the Federal bench, Craig exhibited all of the characteristics that we hope for in a judge. He was intelligent, thoughtful, principled, and fair. Anyone who appeared before him knew that the case would be decided on the merits, without bias towards any of the claimants.

But beyond his service on the bench, Craig was also a hero and a patriot who answered the call of duty time and again. He began his military career in 1972 with a tour in Korea as an Army Military Intelligence Officer. He continued his service as a member of the West Virginia National Guard, where he rose to the rank of Brigadier General. Even while serving on the Federal bench, Craig fought to protect our country. His service included a 2003 deployment as Deputy Commander of the Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa at Camp Lemonier, Djibouti, and a 2005 deployment to Iraq as Commanding General of the Joint Interagency Task Force-High Value Individuals at Camp Victory, Iraq. His awards are too numerous to count, but among them are the Defense Superior Service Medal and the Bronze Star.

But despite all of his awards and accomplishments, the thing that made Craig the most proud was his family. I am privileged to know his wife Chong, and his children Chandra, Taeja, and Shane--and to have their blessing in introducing this legislation.

As I reflect on Craig's life and career, I still remember the day he was confirmed by the Senate for a seat on the Federal bench. It was a great day for me and for all West Virginians. At the time, I came to the floor and said that Senator Byrd and I had recommended him for this position because he ``represents the very best of our State''--and how true that is even today.

Those of us who were fortunate enough to know him personally describe him as courageous, kind, compassionate, and loving. And although his life was cut short, he had already achieved more than most of us could ever hope to accomplish in several lifetimes.

I am very appreciative that Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito has agreed to join me in introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives, and is going to work with me to get this bill signed into law. The bipartisan nature of our effort is truly a testament to the impact that Craig had on all of us, regardless of political affiliation.

In closing, the naming of a Federal courthouse in his honor is such a small gesture, especially compared to what Craig did for our country.

But it is my hope that whenever the citizens of West Virginia visit or pass by the W. Craig Broadwater Federal Building and United States Courthouse in Martinsburg, West Virginia, they will remember his life and be inspired, as I have been inspired, to give back to our country in such a meaningful way.

Mr. President, it is with great pride that I come to the floor today to discuss legislation that I am introducing to name the Federal Building and United States Courthouse in Martinsburg, WV, in honor of a dear friend, W. Craig Broadwater.

Judge Broadwater served at this courthouse during his tenure on the Federal bench, until his untimely death in 2006 after a battle with cancer. This legislation is a small, yet fitting tribute to his remarkable service to West Virginia and America.

It is difficult to put into words how tremendous of a loss his death was to his family, friends, community, State, and Nation. But I think it becomes much clearer when one looks at his life--his contributions to Justice and the Defense of our Nation, his love for his family, and the difference he made in the lives of those who were fortunate enough to know him.

Craig earned his undergraduate degree from West Virginia University in 1972 and his law degree from the West Virginia University College of Law in 1977. He spent the next several years in private practice in Wheeling, West Virginia, and also served as a hearing examiner for the West Virginia Worker's Compensation Fund and a special prosecuting attorney for Ohio County.

His career on the bench dates back to when I was Governor of West Virginia and had the honor of appointing him in 1983 to be a Circuit Judge for Ohio, Brooke, and Hancock Counties. There, he worked to protect our State's most vulnerable children as Chair of the Committee to Develop Child Abuse and Neglect Rules. The ``Broadwater Committee'', as it became known, reformed our courts' response to the needs of children in our judicial system.

Craig served as a state court judge until he was nominated by President Clinton to be a U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of West Virginia. He was confirmed by the Senate on July 12, 1996, and commissioned to serve on July 26, 1996.

During his ten years on the Federal bench, Craig exhibited all of the characteristics that we hope for in a judge. He was intelligent, thoughtful, principled, and fair. Anyone who appeared before him knew that the case would be decided on the merits, without bias towards any of the claimants.

But beyond his service on the bench, Craig was also a hero and a patriot who answered the call of duty time and again. He began his military career in 1972 with a tour in Korea as an Army Military Intelligence Officer. He continued his service as a member of the West Virginia National Guard, where he rose to the rank of Brigadier General. Even while serving on the Federal bench, Craig fought to protect our country. His service included a 2003 deployment as Deputy Commander of the Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa at Camp Lemonier, Djibouti, and a 2005 deployment to Iraq as Commanding General of the Joint Interagency Task Force-High Value Individuals at Camp Victory, Iraq. His awards are too numerous to count, but among them are the Defense Superior Service Medal and the Bronze Star.

But despite all of his awards and accomplishments, the thing that made Craig the most proud was his family. I am privileged to know his wife Chong, and his children Chandra, Taeja, and Shane--and to have their blessing in introducing this legislation.

As I reflect on Craig's life and career, I still remember the day he was confirmed by the Senate for a seat on the Federal bench. It was a great day for me and for all West Virginians. At the time, I came to the floor and said that Senator Byrd and I had recommended him for this position because he ``represents the very best of our State''--and how true that is even today.

Those of us who were fortunate enough to know him personally describe him as courageous, kind, compassionate, and loving. And although his life was cut short, he had already achieved more than most of us could ever hope to accomplish in several lifetimes.

I am very appreciative that Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito has agreed to join me in introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives, and is going to work with me to get this bill signed into law. The bipartisan nature of our effort is truly a testament to the impact that Craig had on all of us, regardless of political affiliation.

In closing, the naming of a Federal courthouse in his honor is such a small gesture, especially compared to what Craig did for our country.

But it is my hope that whenever the citizens of West Virginia visit or pass by the W. Craig Broadwater Federal Building and United States Courthouse in Martinsburg, West Virginia, they will remember his life and be inspired, as I have been inspired, to give back to our country in such a meaningful way.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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.

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

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.

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.

I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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.

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.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back so we can proceed to our votes.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 10:20 a.m., the Senate proceed to the consideration of the pending Nelson of Florida amendment No. 34; that there be 10 minutes of debate equally divided between Senator Nelson of Florida and Senator Hutchison or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the amendment, with no intervening action or debate; that there be no amendments, motions, or points of order to the amendment prior to the vote; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Yes, from me. Yes, it is at 10:20 a.m. on Tuesday. I ask unanimous consent that it be at 10:20 a.m. on Tuesday, February 8, that the Senate proceed to it and then the rest of the request be the order.