Floor Statements

I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be divided equally.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, as we approach a final vote on the FAA reauthorization, which we are doing slowly--that will take place at about 5:30--I wish to talk briefly about why I think this is so important. I see my distinguished colleague from Texas is here, whom I am going to praise so much in my final comments, but she will have to wait for that. I wish to discuss why we have spent so much precious time in the middle of a national debate on health care and jobs and the economy to work on this bill, which we have been doing now for several years. As I have often pointed out, it was sort of pushed forward 11 times without a final resolve. We want a final resolve

this evening, and we believe we are going to get one.

We are here today because FAA reauthorization is about so much more than aviation. It has everything to do with safety for our people, it is about jobs, it is about our economy, it is about, frankly, our self- esteem as a nation in the world of aviation. Fifty percent of all the flights that take place in the world are American planes, but we are behind, in some ways, and we shouldn't be. The Congress has allowed us to be behind because we haven't been able to put attention on this because time is hard to get on the floor. So I appreciate Leader Reid's willingness to give us this time, even as these momentous matters are going on.

To me, this is all about improving commercial aviation air service to small and rural counties, communities. You would expect that from me. I represent my State. But as chairman of the committee, I represent the country, too, as does my distinguished ranking member. It is also very much about establishing better consumer rights protections for the people who fly, whom we call passengers and whom we also call consumers. But ultimately it is about improving safety and about modernizing our system, which I have taken very seriously for years and about which we have done precious little. In other words, it is about people's lives every day.

I can remember years ago I could say a relatively few percentage of the folks from my State flew. They just didn't fly. I mean a lot did but most didn't. That has changed now. You can't do business in West Virginia, and West Virginians can't do anything without getting on an airplane, if you can find one to get on and if you cram yourself into one--which would be a problem for the Presiding Officer as well as the present speaker. In other words, our utmost priority always has to be safety in the skies and for the passengers and their families. They have to trust us to get this right.

There is a lot that goes wrong. There is a lot that isn't noticed that goes wrong, but we do notice and we haven't corrected it and we have a moral obligation to correct it. So let me say a word about safety.

Statistically, as everybody says, we have the safest air transportation system in the world. I always bridal a little bit when I hear that. It is true. Our airlines talk about it, politicians talk about it. But it is so much less safe than it could easily be if we were to be a bit more farsighted and energetic. We have done that in the Commerce Committee, and we have put forward a bill which does that and creates a much more wholesome story and I will get into that.

It has been a little more than a year since the tragic crash in Buffalo, NY, of flight 3407 that took the lives of 50 people. It is clear we need to take serious steps to improve pilot training, to address flight crew fatigue, which seems to be an esoteric subject until you look at it. Senator Byron Dorgan, who is the chairman of our subcommittee, had some charts which brilliantly showed what pilots in some of these commuter airlines have to go through to get to work and sometimes then go two nights with no sleep before they fly. Well, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that is dangerous. And then you have chatter in the cockpits. We have even had one instance of an 8- or 11-year-old kid helping to land a plane. I mean it is ridiculous. It is pathetic. It exists. We are trying to get rid of all that.

Our bill does a lot to address these problems. We need to have resources for all our airports, both large and small. This legislation is about equality among airports and economic stability among airports. We have to provide adequate resources to airports, both large and small, both urban and rural. When people think of California, they think of San Francisco and Los Angeles, but they don't think of the dozens of places in between and above and below that are rural or the inner part of California, where people need air transportation but have a hard time.

The continuing economic crisis has hit the U.S. airline industry very hard. That is easy to say, but it has been devastating for our legacy airlines. They have been in and out of bankruptcy, mergers have taken place, and they are always on the edge. I remember at one point they were showing how they were going to move the seats about an inch closer to each other and there was an uproar. So the pillows disappeared and the pretzels and the potato chips disappeared and we have come to understand that. They are not doing that because they want to treat us badly. They are doing that because every penny is desperate for them, and they have overwhelming problems with the recession. Even before the recession, they were having overwhelming problems.

That is the whole question with the deregulation of airlines. A lot of things happened, not all of them good. I can remember--and I hope my ranking member will indulge me--when I went to West Virginia in 1964, and I drove there, actually, but there were Eastern Airlines jets, there were United Airlines jets, there were American Airlines jets, and all the big jets at that time. Within 3 weeks of deregulation, they were all gone. Now I take my 6 feet 6\1/2\ inches and pray I get an exit row. I am a master at working the exit system, should that ever be necessary, but I have to have that exit row, which is always No. 7, or else I am in big trouble.

The continuing economic crisis has hit the U.S. airline industry extremely hard and this affects the future of hundreds of our communities and particularly rural communities because the rural communities are always at the end of the food chain. When you are at the end of the food chain, it is akin to being at the end of the line. You are the one who is cut out. No more seats in the house, you are cut out, cut off. I have witnessed that a lot in West Virginia and it hurts. It hurts. I have seen, time and time again, how important a lifeline it is for local communities, and therefore it continues to hurt.

The Federal Government needs to provide additional resources and tools for small communities to attract adequate airline service. That is possible. It is not just a matter of the Federal Government supplying a certain amount of money or the essential air service, it is a matter of the local airports taking themselves very seriously as a product. We discovered that in West Virginia. Others have discovered it, perhaps before us or after us, but it makes no difference, you have to market yourself. An airport is not just a place where planes land, it is a consumer product and it has to be marketed.

It used to be that lots of our people drove to Cincinnati and took Southwest, and there was nothing we could do about it. Of course, there was something we could do about it, and that was to market our airport in Charleston, WV, and we did that. They marketed on the air, in the newspapers, and they marketed it in every way possible. Gradually, the people who had been going to Cincinnati stopped going to Cincinnati because they discovered they didn't have to spend the money on gasoline and the overnight motel rooms. They could simply go to Charleston, to Yeager Airport, and get to Huntington or Parkersburg or wherever it was.

So it is a tough fight for local communities. It is easy if you are in a big city. It is hard if you are in a small State, and the Presiding Officer is familiar with that. So our legislation accomplishes this business of new resources by building on the existing programs and strengthening them.

There are some very good programs. I will not go into all of them now, but there are some very good programs. The Airport Improvement Program was started a number of years ago. It is absolutely superb at what it does. It allows airports to expand, to build parking garages, to expand runways, and build those sort of off-ramp safety places, as they do for trucks, so that when they are speeding too much and suddenly there is something which shoots up the hill. Airports have something called EMASS, which is the same thing. At the end of a runway, if the plane lands on a short runway--because most of our airports are on the tops of hills--and they overshoot a little bit, they can end up in an EMASS and they are safe. It is soft concrete blocks. We had 34 lives saved in the last month and a half because of that EMASS system which happened to be there, and that has to be utilized all over the country.

Consumer rights. This bill also strengthens passenger protections by

incorporating elements of the Passenger Bill of Rights to deal with the most egregious flight delays and cancellations. We are rather specific about that. You never know exactly how things work out, but we have set some rules. We have said nobody can wait more than 3 hours without food, without medical attention, without bathroom facilities. They have to take the passengers back, get them to unload so you don't have these 9-hour, 8-hour, 7-hour waits that always become national stories whenever they happen. That is not a question of being practical, it is a question of being humane. It makes sense. It takes away people's anger, and it makes them more likely to want to fly.

Passengers, frankly, have really had it with endless delays--they really have had it. They do not like the way they are being treated, especially when they are stuck on a tarmac in the summertime. People feel bad sometimes when they are just in an airplane--the white-knuckle syndrome even if they are not flying, just being in an airplane. The air is not always so good. People can come close to a point of panic. You don't want that. We deal with that in this legislation. We do have a responsibility to bring their rights back into the equation and take them seriously.

Modernization. Our system is outdated. It is strained beyond its capacity. I feel very passionate about this one and I have for years. America's air traffic control system is literally using a World War II technology. We are the only ones in the industrialized world who do that. It is embarrassing beyond belief, it is costly beyond belief, it is climate-unfriendly beyond belief, and it is dangerous beyond belief because everything is based on radar. It is ancient, World War II. We have not changed. Everybody else has. Mongolia has done it. We have not.

On the committee, we decided we were going to get into it in a very big way. The Next Generation Air Transportation System, called NextGen--that is what we call it--will save our economy billions by creating additional capacity and more direct routes, allowing aircraft to move more efficiently. Why? Because it will be GPS, it will be digitalized, and it will be real-time streaming of where airplanes are. It will help the ground controllers. They will have to put equipage in the airlines themselves so the pilots and the ground-control people will know exactly where they are at all times. That means maybe they will be able to bring planes closer together and can land more often or fly a little closer together--things that cause the whole system to purge itself of inefficiencies, but not unsafely but safely because you are using a digitalized system which the rest of the world is already using.

It has the further advantage, which I have indicated, of reducing carbon emissions and noise emissions. Noise emissions are very important. The noise emissions can be overestimated by some; nevertheless, if people feel strongly about it, they feel strongly about it, and people do feel strongly about it. You see that in our local area here. So we want to be helpful on that.

A modern air traffic control system will provide pilots and their air traffic controllers with a better situational awareness--I have said that, but it is so important--giving them the tools to see other aircraft, both at the same time, both streaming information real time. Also, the weather maps, so they have precise knowledge--not just visual knowledge of where there might be a thunderstorm but precise knowledge.

This kind of modernization requires sustained focus and substantial resources. We have worked that out in our bill, and we will have a nationwide system by, I believe it is, 2025. It seems like a long way off, but considering where we are starting--we only have one in place, in the gulf, which is working. We have to do the whole system. It costs money, both by the Federal Government and by airlines--which are not going to love that, but it is part of the deal. This authorization takes steps to make sure we begin all of this now.

In closing, we have to move boldly. This is a huge subject. It is a huge part of our economy. I guess 700 million people fly today, each year. In the next 10 years, it will go over 1 billion, maybe 1.2 billion people in the air over the course of a year. At any given moment, there are 36,000 planes in the skies. How do you keep track of them all? How can you be sure that they are safe, that they are not going? How do you shut off the chatter business where pilots are just talking to each other about things. How far do you go on that without invading privacy rights? On the other hand, if you don't go far enough, you are invading consumer and passenger safety, and I lean in that direction.

Last week, I spoke a little on the floor about the main four goals we set out to achieve with this bill. No. 1 is to address critical safety concerns. No. 2 is to establish a roadmap to implement NextGen, that is, the modern system, so we can catch up with Mongolia and accelerate the FAA's key modernization programs. No. 3 is to invest in airport infrastructure. It is so important. If you look at what is happening at Dulles Airport--that is sort of an extreme example because that is preparing for the 23rd century, not for the 21st or 22nd. But they have it right, they have all the land out there, they have bonding authority, and they can do what they want. They have a good board. It works very well for them. It needs to work for other airports, also, in small communities as well. No. 4 is to continue improving small communities' access to the nation's aviation system. You know I will never deviate from that, coming from the State of West Virginia.

Frankly, I am proud of how far we have come and prouder still that we got here in a truly bipartisan fashion. It is refreshing. It was quite wonderful, working with Senators--obviously Senator Hutchison being the key; Senator Dorgan, a terrific chairman of the aviation subcommittee, absolutely terrific; also, Senator DeMint--toward a vibrant, strong aviation system so fundamental to our country.

I urge my colleagues to give the FAA the tools, the resources, the direction, and the deadlines to make sure the agency can provide effective oversight of the aviation industry. This is a big-ticket item that appears not so dramatic as events of the recent days, but over the course of our country, it is extraordinarily dramatic.

I will at the proper time urge my colleagues to support reauthorization. As I say, we have put this off now 11 different times. This will last for 2 years after conference--it may be 3 years. I would take more than that, myself. But we cannot afford to wait any longer.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Yes, that is correct. The FAA article 46 notification of its intent to move forward with the proposed transfer would be stopped if section 308 is enacted into law, unless the affected employees execute a written agreement regarding the proposed realignment.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent the time be charged equally to both sides.

Mr. President, as we conclude this debate on this reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration, I wish to thank my colleagues for their hard work, and I wish to do so with some specificity.

First, I thank Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, the ranking member of the Commerce Committee. Senator Hutchison and I, in a sense, kind of grew up together on the Commerce Committee. We have worked together, in my judgment, entirely successfully on aviation issues. For much of the last decade, Senator Hutchison and I have served as either chair or ranking member of the Aviation Subcommittee. In 2009, I assumed the chairmanship of the Commerce Committee, and she assumed the ranking member position on the committee.

But, more importantly, we have a long history of producing strong, bipartisan aviation legislation and working well, generally, starting with the landmark AIR 21 bill in 2000--which greatly increased funding for our aviation system--through the chaotic days after September 11, 9/11--which culminated in the Aviation and Transportation Security Act--to this important reauthorization we are considering today.

I am profoundly proud of our work together over the years. I respect her professionally. I respect her personally. I think our work is a legacy we both can be very proud of. I know I am. She is an extraordinary Senator who is deeply committed to making sure the United States has the finest aviation system in the world. She has many other interests, but that is one of them. Our Nation's aviation system is demonstrably safer and more secure because of her efforts.

I also thank my good friend, Senator Byron Dorgan. In 2009, Senator Dorgan became the chair of the Aviation Subcommittee--just a year ago-- but he has attacked it with such ferocity and intensity, typical of him, that it seems like much longer than that. He has been a magnificent chairman of that subcommittee. His laserlike focus on making our aviation system safer has become a cornerstone of this bill. He held, for example, eight hearings on aviation safety over the last 15 months. Eight hearings in 15 months does not seem like a lot, but given our schedule around here, it is. He was totally focused, such as on what happened in Buffalo and all other aspects.

As with every issue in which he is engaged--and there are many of them--he has made a lasting contribution. I personally regret he has chosen to retire at the end of this year. Not only will I miss him as a friend, but the people of North Dakota and this country will lose one of their most passionate and effective advocates. He should be enormously proud of his work on this bill. I know I am.

I also recognize the work of Senator DeMint, who has championed a number of important safety provisions and has been a strong advocate of moving this bill forward. It is important to say, very important to say.

Senator Baucus worked hard to develop a revenue title for this bill. Through his efforts, the aviation system will have resources it needs to build the modern digital air traffic control system our Nation demands. We will be spending about $500 billion a year.

As with every bill that moves through this body, much, much, much of the work is done by our staff who put in extraordinary hours.

First and foremost, I would like to recognize, among other people, Gael Sullivan of my staff. Gael has served as a professional staff member for the Aviation Subcommittee for almost a decade. For 3 years, Gael has worked tirelessly on this bill. It would not be a reality without his efforts.

I would also like to recognize Rich Swayze and Adam Duffy of my staff, in addition to Jim Conneely, a detailee from the FAA, as it turns out, to the Commerce Committee. He has been of invaluable assistance.

I would like to thank Jarrod Thompson and Ann Begeman of Senator Hutchison's staff. They are true and total professionals, without whose work the bill would not be possible.

I would also like to thank Margaret McCarthy of Senator Dorgan's staff, who worked seamlessly with the committee staff.

As always, Senator Baucus's staff was critical to getting the revenue title in place.

Finally, I would be kind of remiss if I did not mention the hard and constant work of Ellen Doneski, the staff director of the Commerce Committee, who was my legislative director in a former life; Mr. James Reid, who sits beside me, my deputy staff director; and the Commerce Committee press team, Jamie Smith and Jena Longo.

The staff never gets enough credit. We talk about it. We say it. I think they know we mean it. I wonder if they can guess how much we do mean it--the hours they put in; their selflessness; their willingness to work together; their willingness to work across party lines, where sometimes their Members cannot as easily. So I am fortunate to have so many talented people working with me and with Senator Hutchison.

But most of all, I thank Senator Hutchison.

Mr. President, I want to say just a few words about two very important programs at the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA--the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise and the Airport Concessions Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Airport Improvement Programs.

These programs have been critically important in helping to level the playing field for minority and women owned businesses in the airport industry and continue to be instrumental in addressing ongoing discrimination. While it is true that our nation has made tremendous progress against discrimination in the past five decades, there continues to be a good deal more work to do.

Discrimination in the lending, bonding, and bid process, as well as disparities in the treatment of DBE subcontractors once a contract is awarded are real life problems faced by these businesses. For this reason, I strongly support the provisions in this bill to improve the DBE program, including provisions to adjust the personal net worth cap for inflation and to require certification training for those who review DBE applications.

We must not forget the true impact of DBE firms on the economy. Minority and women owned businesses not only improve the vitality of the airport industry, but they are important economic contributors to their communities.

The statistical and qualitative evidence of discrimination is clear and has been compiled in disparity studies that are conducted by state and local governments around the country. These studies are well constructed third party examinations that shed light on whether qualified DBE firms in the area are being utilized, examine the contracting and business activities of the state or local government, review the corresponding private markets in the same geographic area, and analyze anecdotal reports about discrimination from actual stakeholders.

These studies, many examples of which were received during the Commerce Committee's May 2009 hearing, and during a hearing in the House of Representatives in March 2009, demonstrate that progress has been made and that our efforts here in Congress are still necessary.

For example, studies have showed that airports operated by Denver, CO, Phoenix, AZ, and the State of Maryland all have made progress, but that significant hurdles remain. These studies demonstrate that discrimination continues to exist in both the public contracting process and in the private sector, such as in access to credit markets.

The inclusion of the DBE provisions in the bill will provide an important on-the-ground benefit to businesses by helping to level the playing field and enabling fairer competition. I am pleased that Congress has recognized the continued need for these programs and these new provisions as integral to the reauthorization of the FAA.

Mr. President, expanding air service to metropolitan airports is always a very contentious issue. I believe it is important that we give due consideration to local interests when considering the addition of slots, particularly at National Airport. Senators Warner and Webb have significant reservations about moving forward on any changes to existing policy at this time, and I have worked to address these concerns.

I believe the agreement reached between Senators Dorgan, Warner, Hutchison, Kyl, Ensign, and DeMint is a reasonable way forward. It will allow us to balance the desire for additional slots against the opposition from local residents.

Pursuing a more abrupt policy change such as eliminating the perimeter rule altogether has significant implications for competition, small community air service, congestion, and delay. Going forward, we need to make sure there are not unintended consequences from such changes and that service to small communities is preserved. Obviously, service to small communities is very important to me.

I also wish to make clear that the Federal Government's role in this process is specific. Air carriers sometimes treat airport slots as though they are their own property. It is not. It is their privilege. The air transportation system is operated for the benefit of the public interest, not for the private interests. Too often, the air carriers abuse the rights they have been granted. They schedule too many flights at congested airports, and the result is gridlock. This is part of the reason there is a cap on slots at National.

The air transportation network requires that capacity be managed carefully so the entire system functions rationally. It is the responsibility of the Federal Government to make sure it operates well, and I take this role very seriously. If the air carriers cannot manage their slots in an effective manner, the Federal Government will have to step in and do it for them.

Crafting a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the FAA has been my long and difficult journey, together with the ranking member, Senator Hutchison. I recognize that many of my colleagues have a strong interest in expanding service at National. I appreciate the work they have done. But I do believe that what has been discussed here and will be discussed later in conference is a balanced approach. I look forward to working with my colleagues in a conference with the House that will achieve an appropriate agreement that is acceptable to everybody.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Expanding air service to metropolitan airports is always a contentious issue and I believe it is important that we give due consideration to local interests when considering the addition of slots at National Airport. Senators Warner and Webb have significant reservations about moving forward on any changes to existing policy at this time, and I have worked to address these concerns.

I believe the agreement reached between Senators Dorgan, Warner, Hutchison, Kyl, Ensign and DeMint is a reasonable way forward. It will allow us to balance the desire for additional slots against the opposition from local residents.

Pursuing a more abrupt policy--change such as eliminating the perimeter rule altogether--has significant implications for competition, small community air service, and congestion and delay.

Going forward we need to make sure that there are not unintended consequences from such changes, and that service to small communities is preserved. Service to small communities is critical to me, and I cannot support any proposal that will adversely affect such service.

I also want to make the Federal Government's role in this process clear. Air carriers treat airport slots like it is their own property-- it is not--it is a privilege. The air transportation system is operated for the benefit of the public interest--not the private interest. Too often the air carriers abuse the rights they have been granted--they schedule too many flights at congested airports and the result is gridlock. This is part of the reason why there is a cap on slots at National.

The air transportation network requires that capacity be managed carefully so the entire system functions efficiently. It is the responsibility of the Federal Government to make sure it operates well, and I take this role seriously. If the air carriers cannot manage their slots in an effective manner the Federal Government will have to step in and do it for them.

Crafting a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the FAA has been a long and difficult journey. I recognize many of my colleagues have a strong interest in expanding service at National. I appreciate the work they have done to reach a compromise on this issue.

It is a balanced approach and I look forward to working with my colleagues in conference with the House that will achieve an appropriate agreement that is acceptable to everyone.

Mr. President, notwithstanding the order of March 19, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 3527 not be withdrawn; that it be considered when the managers' package is presented.

Mr. President, pursuant to the order of March 19 regarding a managers' package of amendments, I send to the desk the managers' package, with the other provisions of the order with respect to the amendments remaining in effect.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the adoption of amendment No. 3479, as modified, it be corrected to reflect that the instruction line was modified.

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

Madam 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 banking, housing, and urban affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 22, 2010, at 5 p.m.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 463 submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, en bloc; the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc; that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 464, submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it recess until 2:15 p.m. on Tuesday, March 23; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day.

Madam President, tomorrow we will begin consideration of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act. There will be up to 20 hours for debate under the rules. Senators should expect a busy week, with rollcall votes throughout.

Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it recess under the previous order.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion upon the table.

The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.

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

I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the adoption of amendment No. 3467, that it be modified with the changes at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader be authorized to sign any duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions today, Wednesday, March 17, and Thursday, March 18.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until 2 p.m.

Mr. President, I want people to understand that the Federal aviation reauthorization process is moving slowly but steadily. We take several steps forward but none backward. Yesterday we approved 14 amendments. There was a tremendous amount of work done by the staff to work those out. We have another large group we hope to be able to do this afternoon. So large chunks of the bill are actually getting done. Then, we have a number of controversial amendments, or potentially controversial, and we are in the process of getting those locked down so the Presiding Officer can pronounce a unanimous consent agreement with 2 minutes equally divided.

I yield the floor to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. President, I think the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee wishes to speak, but he is waiting for something, so I will proceed.

This Federal aviation bill is enormous in scope, but we are doing it in little pieces and with little amendments, so sometimes it is hard. It has seven different titles in it. One of them has to do with community air service to rural, underserved areas, which is very important in my State and in the Presiding Officer's State--really all of our States. Even California and New York have many very rural areas where they need air service.

I spent 10 years chairing the Aviation Subcommittee, and I enjoyed it enormously. I now chair the full committee, which I enjoy enormously. But one focus throughout has been trying to protect small and rural communities and give them air service. They travel. If the local airport promotes itself, as a product must--it is not just a place people go to; they have to announce themselves to the public and say: We can take you here, we can take you there, while others of us try to get flights in. It is tremendously important, so they are worth fighting for, and we do that.

Large and urban States sometimes question that, but if they look in their hearts, they have a lot of the same requirements themselves. It is really about equality, and it is about the economy, and it is about fairness. What is the difference between somebody from a city and somebody from a smaller community? They both do business. One may not have a big jet and therefore may require a smaller airplane, a commuter airplane to get to

where he or she wishes to go, but it is important that they be able to get there. So it is vital to our economy.

Every single business considers, along with the school system, the so-called quality of life, the crime rate, all of this, they consider air service when they are deciding whether to locate or to expand in a particular State. And so for that, we have this wonderful program called the Essential Air Service--the EAS. It is a program which has proved vital to communities across this country. It has allowed them to keep air service they might not otherwise be able to keep, and literally so. It doesn't bail them out to do that. I mean, it doesn't pay the cost of that, but it helps them and they use it.

The first option of air carriers, naturally, but regrettably, as far as a small community is concerned--if they are in distress, as our airlines, our legacy airlines in particular, have been in recent years--is they go to the end of the food chain to make their first cuts, and that is always the small communities--the small airports and the small centers. That doesn't make them less important.

Every time I think about that, I think about the time I ran for Governor and I was defeated. I became president of a wonderful small private college which had a grass airfield. They didn't get any Federal help, because you can't do that with grass. But I always remember there was a little yellow farmhouse when I drove out there, and it is still the same little yellow farmhouse today. But if you go inside it has a worldwide educational CD, video. It is the highest possible technology company you can imagine. It just doesn't happen to want to build a big building. It is happy in this little yellow farmhouse. You don't have to have tall skyscrapers to do business. So the small community air service development program has helped people.

My bill takes several important steps toward Kay Bailey Hutchison's bill. We worked side by side--and I can't say this enough--every step of the way. It is sort of a perfect combination of a ranking member and chairman. We do several things here: We increase the authorized funding for the Essential Air Service to $175 million. That is an increase of $48 million. That is not a whole lot of money, but on a nationwide basis that does a lot. That keeps many small airfields open and allows them to have control towers and run air service.

We permit the Federal Aviation Administration to incorporate financial incentives into contracts with the Essential Air Service carriers to encourage better service. You have to keep your eye on them. It is not just the question that Senator Dorgan has talked about; that is, what is the name on the airplane. Sometimes there are two names and you don't know which one you are riding on--is it United or Colgan or what--and you need to know that. We correct that elsewhere, in another title in our bill.

We also authorize the Federal Aviation Administration to negotiate longer term Essential Air Service contracts. That makes sense because that gives a sense of stability and predictability to an airfield--to a small airfield--and to the public which is interested in it.

We authorize the development of financial incentives for carriers to improve their service, as I indicated. It is quite amazing, the whole structure of what people get paid to fly, from these little carriers to commuter airlines. I am not going to give numbers to their salaries, because you would be shocked at what they get paid--a lot less than teachers. But they accept that because the seniority system says if you have flown a long time, you get paid a lot. And they have accepted that because people who know how to fly love to fly, and they want to fly. But you have to keep your eye always on the quality of service.

Maintenance is a very high order, because that is the kind of thing which could be neglected and people might not notice. It is like keeping up your house. You can't defer maintenance or you pay a terrible price. In the case of airlines, the price is very obvious.

We also authorize the Airport Improvement Program to convert Essential Air Service; that is, small airports, into general aviation airports. That turns out to be very convenient. There are thousands of general aviation--big jets, little jets, and King Airs--all over this country, and they fly everywhere, and we want them to. So we try to encourage the EAS to do well by them.

We have increasing funding for contract towers. That is important. You have to have a tower. I had a 9:30 appointment this morning, and from not a large airport. Before taking off, there was fog, so they couldn't take off. I assume they could see the fog themselves. But if they were in doubt, the air traffic controller said: You aren't taking off. That is called a service to them; less to me but to them, and that is what counts.

In closing, I will mention something very important to West Virginia and to other States. Our global economy is growing and we are much more interconnected. It becomes very important now, for example, that commuter services don't just take you from, let's say, Charleston, WV, to Cincinnati. Sometimes, more importantly for business, they can take you to Dulles Airport and you can connect to the international air flight business, so that somebody from Bloomfield, WV, or Beckley, WV, can be flying and go see his or her customers, or potential customers, from a little commuter airport and a little commuter airplane, which then turns into a much larger airport and international flow. I am proud of this. And this is just part of our bill.

In the absence of other business, as we wait for amendments to be worked out, we will do three of those this afternoon. Then we will have, as I say, a tranche of agreed-to amendments--a very large tranche. In the tranche of yesterday, which was 14 amendments, and the tranche of today, which is almost that, that will be the bulk of the bill.

We have been 3 years waiting on this bill. It has been sort of held over or extended 11 times. Indeed, it will be 12 times by the time we pass it, which will be, hopefully, tomorrow evening.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I would ask if Senator Sessions notes the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 17, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

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 March 17, 2010, at 10:30 a.m., in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 17, 2010, at 10 a.m.

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 ``Reauthorization: The Obama Administration's ESEA Reauthorization Priorities'' on March 17, 2010. The hearing will commence at 10 a.m. in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

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 March 17, 2010, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Lessons and Implications of the Christmas Day Attack: Intelligence Reform and Interagency Integration.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on March 17, 2010, at 10 a.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Could Bankruptcy Reform Help Preserve Small Business Jobs?''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Insurance of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a

meeting during the session of the Senate on March 17, 2010, at 3 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 17, 2010 at 3:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 17, 2010, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 17, 2010, at 2:30-5 p.m. in Dirksen 562 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.