Floor Statements

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

Mr. President, today, along with my colleague Senator Snowe of Maine, I am introducing legislation to exempt universal service contributions and the universal service support programs from what is commonly referred to as the Antideficiency Act.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 demonstrated our long-standing commitment to ensuring the availability of telecommunications to all Americans at reasonable prices. This concept known as universal service has been the responsibility of the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, since its beginnings in 1934. As a result of the 1996 Act, the Universal Service Fund, USF, was established in 1997. This fund is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company, USAC, whose Board of Directors is appointed by the Chairman of the FCC.

USAC administers the High Cost, Low Income, Rural Health Care, and Schools and Libraries, E-rate, universal service programs. USAC makes commitments, through letters, to schools for each school year under FCC rules, and it is obviously important these commitments be made before the beginning of the school year to assist schools in their planning processes and achievement of educational goals. The letters of commitment are based upon funds the USF is authorized to collect, and the USF can adjust the contribution factor quarterly to ensure its receipts.

While the USF receives no Federal monies, FCC staff directed USAC in late September 2004 to treat E-rate and Rural Health Care commitment letters as government obligations subject to ADA requirements. Among the ADA requirements is the demand for cash on hand to cover all obligations. This requirement disrupted the distribution of funds for four months. Congress realized how ill-advised it is to subject these funds to the ADA and enacted legislation to provide for a one-year exemption of the USF from the ADA, through December 31, 2005, and this exemption has been extended for one-year increments in each subsequent year. The current extension expires December 31, 2011. Congress has made permanent similar exemptions for at least fourteen different programs, and we believe the time has come to end these annual one-year extensions and simply make the exemption permanent. This will allow USAC to continue administering these important programs in the most sensible and effective way.

It is important to understand that there is precedence to provide a permanent exemption. There are 14 agencies that currently have a permanent exemption for the ADA, including the Federal Aviation Administration, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Mr. President, today, along with my colleague Senator Snowe of Maine, I am introducing legislation to exempt universal service contributions and the universal service support programs from what is commonly referred to as the Antideficiency Act.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 demonstrated our long-standing commitment to ensuring the availability of telecommunications to all Americans at reasonable prices. This concept known as universal service has been the responsibility of the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, since its beginnings in 1934. As a result of the 1996 Act, the Universal Service Fund, USF, was established in 1997. This fund is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company, USAC, whose Board of Directors is appointed by the Chairman of the FCC.

USAC administers the High Cost, Low Income, Rural Health Care, and Schools and Libraries, E-rate, universal service programs. USAC makes commitments, through letters, to schools for each school year under FCC rules, and it is obviously important these commitments be made before the beginning of the school year to assist schools in their planning processes and achievement of educational goals. The letters of commitment are based upon funds the USF is authorized to collect, and the USF can adjust the contribution factor quarterly to ensure its receipts.

While the USF receives no Federal monies, FCC staff directed USAC in late September 2004 to treat E-rate and Rural Health Care commitment letters as government obligations subject to ADA requirements. Among the ADA requirements is the demand for cash on hand to cover all obligations. This requirement disrupted the distribution of funds for four months. Congress realized how ill-advised it is to subject these funds to the ADA and enacted legislation to provide for a one-year exemption of the USF from the ADA, through December 31, 2005, and this exemption has been extended for one-year increments in each subsequent year. The current extension expires December 31, 2011. Congress has made permanent similar exemptions for at least fourteen different programs, and we believe the time has come to end these annual one-year extensions and simply make the exemption permanent. This will allow USAC to continue administering these important programs in the most sensible and effective way.

It is important to understand that there is precedence to provide a permanent exemption. There are 14 agencies that currently have a permanent exemption for the ADA, including the Federal Aviation Administration, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

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

Mr. President, we are sitting here, and what is good is we are not doing health care amendments. What is bad is we are not doing any amendments.

The Republicans have proffered a number of amendments. We need to do them by pairs so we can work them out. Some of them will be able to be accepted by voice vote. I expect that Senator Whitehouse's on laser use into pilots' eyes will probably be accepted by voice vote. But he may want a vote. If I were he, I would want a vote because it is so important to emphasize the issue.

But we need to have Democrats--I know we have some amendments that Democrats want to offer. But they are not coming to the floor to offer those amendments. So this is my plea, through the distinguished Presiding Officer, for Democrats please to come to the floor and do their amendments.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Oklahoma has a particularly difficult scheduling problem right now and for most of the afternoon. So putting his amendments in and talking about them, whatever he wishes to do, is important to him and also is hard to do in terms of the schedule. So that renews my offer, my request, my prayer, that Democrats who have amendments will come down and offer them.

It is called the Federal aviation bill. It reauthorizes it. It is monumental, and we are kind of sitting here. So the Republicans are sort of doing their part, but the Democrats are not doing our part. So please come down, if you have amendments, because I wish to accommodate not just Senator Inhofe but all others who have amendments, many of which we can probably work out.

Some will be accepted by voice, others may have to be voted on. But we have to have amendments before we can get to any of that. So that is my request.

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

Madam President, you have just heard a classic Joe Manchin speech. It truly is. It is full of optimism, strength, common purpose, no problem cannot be solved, and the desire for bipartisan cooperation. If anybody can bring our two sides together, surely he can do that. He is aggressive, he is thoughtful, but above all he is optimistic. He has a positive approach, a constructive approach. He is unafraid of any problem and thrilled about doing whatever kinds of public service he does.

We actually have fairly common careers. We both served in the State legislature. He served in both branches. I served in one branch. We were both Secretaries of State and we both ran for Governor. Now we are both in the Senate. So I have known the Manchin family for years.

I have known Joe Manchin for years. I have always been proud of his work. He is fun. He loves sports. That is very important in life--very important in life. He loves sports. He is a devoted Mountaineer. Sometimes I think he calls the plays for our team. This is going to be a better Senate because of Joe Manchin, because of his personality.

I have watched him in the couple of months he has been here--couple of weeks, a month, two--and he has been all over the floor. It is fun to watch him. Somebody sits down that side, this side, and all of a sudden Senator Joe Manchin is seated right beside him, grabbing an arm, making a point, establishing a friendship, bonding. That is the way he is with our people.

He comes from the very heart of West Virginia--coal mining country-- and that is the way he acts. That is the way his father acted. It is the way his family has always acted. They are part and parcel of the blood, the beginning and the struggle of West Virginia.

One of the reasons I am in public service is because West Virginia is always fighting uphill. People don't pay attention to us the way we think they should. They do not pay attention to what our economy has to offer the way they should. That is what motivates Joe Manchin. If you are a West Virginian, you simply have to fight harder. If you are a West Virginia public servant, at whatever level, you have to fight harder and you have to have an optimistic view. You have to believe things can work. You have to be determined things can work, and you have to see the course all the way to end. That is exactly who Joe Manchin is.

I am incredibly proud to serve with him. I read his speech before. He said some very nice things about me--all accurate. But because we have been colleagues for so long, I can tell you--and those who don't know him as well as you will--that he is a real asset to this body. We are a body which now is in the process of struggling to find out who we are. It is not always a pretty sight, but everybody here takes public life seriously. Senator Manchin has the problem--some would say the opportunity, but not many--to have to be reelected again in 2 years. So life already is more complicated for him, because that is the way the election system has worked out. But he is a bright light, and a young, aggressive bright light with an absolutely marvelous wife who is now part of us.

I think he has a unique perspective--it is a classic West Virginia perspective--and I look forward to his making an enormous difference in this body, to our State, and to our country. So I welcome him, and I congratulate him on his opening statement.

I made an opening statement some years ago. It was actually one of the most boring speeches I ever listened to. But those were the days when you weren't allowed to make a speech until you had been here for 6 months, and then everybody turned out. All the old guard--you know, such as the senior Senator from New York over there. The guys with gray beards, the wise old men, would turn out, and they all planted themselves around here and listened to this incredibly boring speech of mine, which was all about a steel company because that is what I happened to be working on at the time.

Russell Long stood up afterwards and said: that is the most brilliant speech I ever heard. But those were the days of a certain type of protocol. Times are much faster now. We have to react much faster. We don't have time for that. So Senator Manchin has made his speech, but he goes from his speech to his work, and there he will simply not stop until we get a better State and a better country.

I congratulate him and I welcome him officially and forever to the Senate.

Madam President, are we back in regular order?

I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 27, offered by the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden, be added to the list of pending amendments.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, does the Senator from Iowa wish to speak?

Mr. President, I oppose this amendment also. There are reasons for Davis-Bacon. One of them, for example, is it protects communities and employers by keeping the wage standards of low-wage areas from being imported into high-wage areas, and also the reverse. What do I mean by that? Obviously, West Virginia has a very different wage level than New York or Maryland or many parts of Virginia. They could come in and bid on a contract and either bid very low and do a bad job or bid very high and get it, for whatever reason. This prevents artificially inflating wages.

The inference was that it costs more to have Davis-Bacon. Some people don't like Davis-Bacon, and I understand that. But the law specifically requires that all workers must be paid no less than the prevailing wages and benefits that are paid in similar projects in that area. So it attaches the Davis-Bacon concept onto the regional local wage area. Virginia and Maryland are not far from West Virginia, so people want contracts, and they are likely to bid.

Since it was enacted, Davis-Bacon has protected taxpayers and workers from low-ball contractors who try to compete. You know that song. We all see it so much. They come in and bid a

low price, and they get it, and there are all kinds of extra things added on--cost-plus. It doesn't happen under this; it isn't allowed. So the law effectively makes sure the taxpayers get their money's worth. As the Senator from Iowa indicated, numerous studies indicate that projects built under Davis-Bacon are more likely to be completed on time, within budget, and with fewer repair costs.

So this is a very significant amendment. But it is not about bilking the taxpayers. It is protecting the taxpayers. Davis-Bacon puts the contract wages in line with what is prevailing locally. That is the law. It makes sense to me. I strongly oppose the amendment.

We yield back all time.

Mr. President, I move to table the amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to table.

Mr. President, this is an enormously important amendment. To be quite truthful, I think Senator Whitehouse would have been satisfied with just having it accepted by both sides, which it would have been. I said: Please bring it to a vote.

This is a national security threat. The technology is going to get much better. He spoke about the pilot who was temporarily blinded, whose corneas were affected. As the technology increases, it is going to blind pilots permanently. Maybe if they are accurate, they can get both the pilot and the copilot.

All of this will take place around airports where there is obviously room to sight in on these people taking off and landing, particularly landing, I would think. It is absolutely a threat, and the numbers in the last 2 years absolutely prove it.

I wish to emphasize, yes; this is on a Federal aviation bill, but it could be on an Armed Services Committee bill. It could be on an Intelligence Committee bill. It could be on a Homeland Security Committee bill. It is a very powerful vote because there will be a future for terrorists in this business, so the criminal penalties have to be established. The Whitehouse amendment, which I strongly support, does that.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment to call up, on behalf of Senator Ensign, Ensign amendment No. 32.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators 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 3, 2011, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing on February 3, at 9:30 a.m., in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 3, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Status of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Simplifying Security: Encouraging Better Retirement Decisions'' on February 3, 2011, at 2 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on February 3, 2011, at 10 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 3, 2011, at 10:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 3, 2011 at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics, and Environmental Health of the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate at 10 a.m., on February 3, 2011, in Dirksen 406.

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

Madam President, this is, in fact, the aviation bill. As everybody knows, that is what we are doing; we are doing the aviation bill. We are talking about health care, but secretly we are doing the aviation bill. So I thought it would be interesting to talk about the aviation bill, to sort of bring people's minds back to that very important subject. It is interesting, because we want transparency, no filling up of the tree, everybody could offer all of the amendments they want. We immediately got amendments to repeal health care and other kinds of things but nothing about aviation. So as manager of that bill, I am going to talk about aviation. I do not guarantee it will be a scintillating speech, but it is going to be about aviation, because that is the bill we are on.

I rise to speak about--which I did a little bit yesterday--the modernization of the Nation's air traffic control system. It is kind of important to New York and New Jersey.

I cannot emphasize enough to all of my colleagues the importance of this issue to the United States. It is an issue I care deeply about, one Senator Hutchison cares deeply about, one I am completely committed to getting done. We have to. It is a sine qua non. It will make air traffic safer, more efficient, provide numerous economic and environmental benefits.

I touched on air traffic modernization in my opening statement yesterday. But I want to spend a short time, knowing that my colleague Senator Hutchison is here and wants to talk, on the air traffic modernization. It just has to be discussed in a tiny bit greater detail so people understand how important it is.

There will be some technical stuff in here, and I apologize for that, but people have to understand this. I know this subject is very technical. It is very confusing. It has lots of acronyms, unmemorable acronyms, but the technology will change aviation in truly amazing ways, and it is of overwhelming importance to the country.

Every time I get in my car, I find it implausible that so many automobiles navigate using more sophisticated global positioning systems than aircraft. Well, that is amusing, except it is horrifying, actually. It is horrifying. We can do it in Detroit with automobiles that sell for $15,000, $25,000, but we cannot do it on a multimillion- dollar aircraft because we have not decided to do it aggressively in our legislation. So we have to upgrade our system now or we are going to face absolutely enormous consequences.

I continue to believe that the modernization of our Nation's antiquated air traffic control system has to be one of the Nation's highest priorities. We have fallen behind, as is now--it is actually kind of interesting. It has become a mantra: We have fallen behind Mongolia. People like to talk about that. I am the original author of that startling fact--this tiny little nation ahead of us. But it does not make any difference. Everybody should steal the line because it makes the point: They have it. They are building it from scratch. We do not. So if we recognize the benefits of using the most advanced technology and if they do, perhaps it is something we might think about.

The United States, of course, has a much larger and more complex airspace system than Mongolia or any other country in the world, but this is precisely the problem: that we are so big and we are so complicated; there are 36,000 flights in a day. There are airplanes during the day, all day long, all over the country, at different altitudes, coming in, avoiding weather, avoiding each other, facing delays or not. Our aviation system actually moves 30,000 flights a day--I would say 36,000, but it says 30,000--and nearly 800 million people per year--a lot tougher than Mongolia. But we face gridlock if we do not make significant progress on modernization and make it very soon. The FAA's most recent forecasts estimate demand for air travel will be about 1 billion people within the next decade. That is a 40- percent increase. That is horrific.

Senator Isakson has just come on the floor. His airport in Atlanta is one of the most complicated and busy in the entire world. He needs, as do we all, an air traffic control system which is digitalized, which makes communication between air traffic controllers and pilots much more accurate so they can see terrain, they can see mountains, they can see weather, all in streamingly live exactitude.

The economic downturn of the past several years has actually, in a quirky way, bought us some time to reform our system. We have declined to use it, but this will quickly change as the economy rebounds. Our present air traffic control system is stretched to its limits already. Anyone who flies on a regular basis has experienced the system's congestion and delay problems. We talked about that yesterday. We will talk more. This system will not meet the projected growth of the next decade.

So we have this choice. An industry that employs 11 million people and several more in indirect jobs, that traffics 800 million people around the country to all kinds of places large and small, very complicated--runway problems, gateway problems, all kinds of problems-- if we do not have this up to speed, we are a nation in trouble and people will start dying.

The Next Generation Air Transportation System, NextGen, will create significantly more capacity by allowing aircraft to move more efficiently and take more direct routes. I talked about that yesterday. It is so important. Planes now, because of the sort of radar ground- based system, wind their way to their destination, avoiding planes, avoiding weather, and how quickly can they see it, how accurately can they see it, are they aware of the altitude of other planes above them and below them? Probably not very accurate. So they don't take direct routes. So these improvements, if they do take direct routes, will save our economy billions annually.

The technology will also allow the FAA to safely allow the closer spacing of aircraft. More aircraft can land and do so more safely because of the reality of the digitalization of everything is so clear to the pilot and to the air traffic controller. They are in sync for the first time with a highly sophisticated system. And the Northeast corridor probably will be the greatest beneficiary of all of that. It will be.

Greater operational efficiency will also create substantial environmental benefits. Drastic reductions in fuel consumption--taking more of a straight line from one place to another rather than going all over the place--saves a

lot of fuel, and that means less carbon emissions, and it also significantly lowers noise emissions. Almost every community near an airport will greatly benefit from this effort, and this will also save airlines millions of dollars annually in fuel costs.

Airlines, you have to remember--people just assume they are always there. Well, they are almost always in trouble financially. They merge. Sometimes they merge not because they want to but because they have to because one of them is declining financially. They have to be able to meet payroll.

Most importantly, NextGen will dramatically improve the safety--the safety--of our air transportation system. It will provide pilots and air traffic controllers with better situational awareness. The military uses that term--SA it is called. It is called SA, situational awareness. Pilots and controllers will be able to see other aircraft and detailed weather maps and other things such as mountains in real time. If they are flying low, they need to have a very good sense of what the terrain holds. So just as in battle, better SA--situational awareness--will save lives.

Modernizing our air traffic control system will require sustained focus and a lot of money. Our bill takes concrete steps to make sure the implementation of this system begins now. And there is some of it out there in a few airports, and where it is out there, it is working very well, just as Senator Hutchison and I have described.

The bill directs the FAA to move forward on dedicated timelines to implement key NextGen technologies. In particular, it requires clear deadlines for the adoption of existing GPS navigation technology. All of this has to be calibrated. Carriers have been very excited about using this; it is just that we have not made it available to them. And they are a part of it because as we build it they are going to have to have corresponding avionics and systems within their own cockpits, which they will pay for. They want to do that because they want to have this safer system so they are not harassed so much and so they can save fuel and just do better in general. Why do something out of the 19th century when you can do it out of the modern era that will last for years?

It also requires the FAA to move forward on developing air traffic procedures to make certain airlines will reap the benefits of equipping aircraft in their fleet.

These technologies are as follows. They are called area navigation and required navigation performance, RNP. That will permit aircraft to fly more precise routes in both the en route environment and enable aircraft to land more efficiently and safely at airports. Our legislation requires the FAA to develop the procedures that accompany this technology at the Nation's 30 largest airports by 2014--Senator Hutchison said that yesterday--and at all commercial airports across this country by 2018, if we do our work here. Then the whole thing will be done in the county by 2018 and all the biggest ones by 2014.

The bill accelerates the timeframe for the integration of automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast--ADS-B--technology by requiring the use of ADS-B Out on all aircraft by 2015 and the use of ADS-B In on all aircraft by 2018. This technology will significantly improve the safety of our system by providing pilots and air traffic controllers with more precise information on their location. That is everything in air traffic control--where people are, how high, how low, how close, how far. The FAA has moved forward on the requirement for ADS-B Out for all aircraft operating in our airspace, and we plan to work with them to make sure this is a success.

The bill--coming to the end--takes further steps to make certain that implementation of NextGen continues at the FAA, including the creation of an air traffic control modernization oversight board. Oh, wonderful, another board. Well, this is a really complicated system, and you need to have an advisory group that oversees, gives oversight--as we in the Commerce Committee will do--of FAA's modernization activities.

It establishes a Chief NextGen Officer position at FAA. Oh, another person to oversee something at FAA. Well, we have not done this. We are not doing it. And to have an officer dedicated to that I think is very important.

It requires the development of processes to include representatives of Federal employees in the planning of NextGen projects. Why is that important? Because it means that people who are working the towers, who are actually involved in the system as it is now--and if you go out to other places--Herndon--you can see these enormous rooms of computers with air traffic controllers and these sort of vague shapes. We want to turn those into precise shapes. That is what our bill would do.

It establishes a new process to make certain labor disputes at the FAA are adequately resolved through mediation and arbitration if necessary.

So our future as the world's leader in aviation, our safety, our economy--all depend on a successful modernization of our air traffic control system. An FAA-funded study determined that our economy lost $33 billion in 1 year as a result of delays attributed to the air traffic control system. That is not smart and it is not safe. Of this total, $8 billion was from the airlines themselves. They are not in the position to lose $8 billion--an amount that would go a long way toward giving them a healthier bottom line and making other improvements. The other $25 billion in losses was borne by the traveling public--they had to pay for it--and business.

So this overdue FAA reauthorization takes the necessary steps to make certain we begin to implement this critical upgrade of our airspace technology right now. We must follow through on these efforts or face dramatic challenges. This is not a song and dance effort; this is life and death for the future of our air system, in literal terms and symbolic terms.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask if the Senator from the State of Washington would grant me 30 seconds to say one thing.

Madam President, yesterday Senator Hutchison raised a very good point about slots. Slots are kind of the hidden problem in the FAA bill. What I think I would like to put forward--and I wish she were here to hear me--is that I recognize the majority of the population growth in this country, and, therefore, the need for more flights, is in the West. It is not in the East. That is extremely important. We deny it, but a lot of people are east coast centric, and we have to learn how to be equally west coast centric.

So one of the things that occurs to me is that maybe we are thinking too much about airlines and not enough about the people who take those airlines to go to various places in the West.

It cannot stand that Los Angeles has a flight a day to DC. It cannot stand. They need at least four or five. They can bear that traffic.

I want to lay before the Congress--and the Senator from Texas made this point yesterday and I totally agree with her--the growth of population in this country and the need for air flights, yes, is in the East but it is more now in the West. As we go through this bill and come to the matter of slots, it is important we keep that in mind and that we think about the public flying as individuals, not necessarily is it United, is it USAir, is it American, is it whatever. It is the question, Can we get them to where they want to go.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor to this superb amendment.

I have some notes, but the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island has exhausted my brilliant notes in his own speech. Just let it be said that it is an extraordinarily dangerous situation, this whole concept of stronger lasers, more carefully targeted lasers from greater distances, and being able to do it from behind trees and hidden places blinding, probably temporarily at this point but maybe permanently as they become stronger or doing damage to the eye.

When the Senator spoke about having to turn over the duties of landing the airplane or taking off the airplane to a copilot because of this threat, it makes me worry that it is going to get worse because this is kind of easy to do. In essence, it becomes an act of terrorism, not just the problem of safety for the airplane and its passengers and the pilots.

It is a superb amendment. It is my strong feeling it will pass this body easily and it will become law. The Senator from Rhode Island deserves enormous credit for bringing this to the attention of the Congress.

Mr. President, I reluctantly suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to consideration of S. Res. 30.

I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration en bloc of the following resolutions which were submitted earlier today: S. Res. 36, S. Res. 37, S. Res. 38, S. Res. 39, and S. Res. 40.

I ask unanimous consent the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid on the table en bloc, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, February 3; that following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and following any leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of Calendar No. 5, S. 223, the Federal Aviation Administration authorization bill.