Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise today to discuss a fundamental question: Who is a citizen of the United States?

My comments are inspired by an interview given recently by the President-elect in which he announced that he would try to end birthright citizenship on day one of his Presidency.

In the same interview, he claimed that the United States was the only nation on Earth offering birthright citizenship. What is birthright citizenship? Is the United States the only nation that has it?

Let's start with the Constitution. The 14th Amendment enacted by Congress in 1866 and ratified by the States in 1868 contains a clear definition of citizen.

Section 1 states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and

subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the

United States and of the State wherein they reside.

A very straightforward definition. If you are born in the United States or naturalized by law--and that is covered in article I of the Constitution that Congress may set up a process for naturalizing--you are a U.S. citizen so long as you are subject to the jurisdiction of this country. And there is no equivocation, ``all persons'' in either category are U.S. citizens.

The Constitution was first adopted, as we all know, in 1787. Why was this definition of citizen added to the Constitution in 1868--90 years later?

Surprisingly, there was no definition of citizen in the Constitution as originally issued. The word ``citizen'' was used once without definition. Article II defines the qualifications to be President as follows:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of

the United States . . . shall be eligible to the Office of

President.

But the word ``citizen'' was not defined. The records of the Constitutional Convention show that the Framers considered defining the term ``citizen,'' but they had disagreements. And they couldn't reach a definition that satisfied them, and so they left the term ``citizen'' undefined in the Constitution as originally promulgated.

This definition was added in the 14th Amendment in 1868 to fix a problem, a grievous problem: America's embrace of slavery.

Dred Scott was born enslaved in Virginia in 1799. His parents were also enslaved, and his family had likely resided in this country for generations. Scott's owner took him first to Alabama and then to St. Louis and finally sold him to Army surgeon John Emerson when he was about 31 years old in 1830.

Dr. Emerson then took Dred Scott first to Illinois, a free State, and then to the Wisconsin Territory, where slavery was prohibited. Dred Scott worked as an enslaved laborer for the Emerson family for 16 years after they had purchased him. And he had attempted, over the course of those years, to purchase his own freedom and also the freedom of his wife Harriet. But the Emerson family refused to allow him to purchase his own freedom.

So he eventually filed a freedom suit in St. Louis, seeking to be released from slavery on the grounds that when he resided in Illinois, a free State, and then in the Wisconsin Territory, a free territory, that residence extinguished his slavery and rendered him a freedman.

The trial court in St. Louis ruled in his favor, granting him his freedom. But the Missouri Supreme Court reversed the decision. The matter was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court: Was Dred Scott free or enslaved?

The U.S. Supreme Court rendered one of its most notorious decisions, Dred Scott v. Sandford, in 1857. Under the guidance of Chief Justice Roger Taney, the Court didn't simply confront the lower court issue, whether an enslaved person traveling to a free State or territory thereby gains freedom; instead the Court went much further, finding that no person of African descent, free or enslaved, no matter how long they or their family had lived here, could ever be considered a citizen of the United States.

And without being a citizen, Dred Scott did not even have the right to seek relief in an American court. The heart of the Dred Scott opinion is very, very chilling. Justice Taney, in writing about African descendants living in the United States, said this:

We think . . . that they are not included, and were not

intended to be included, under the word ``citizens'' in the

Constitution, and can therefore claim none [none] of the

rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and

secures to citizens of the United States.

Even though the Constitution contained no definition of citizen, the Court declared broadly that no one of African descent could ever--could ever--attain that status.

The Dred Scott v. Sandford decision was immensely controversial. It went far beyond Dred Scott's situation and held that all 4 million enslaved Black Americans in 1857, as well as hundreds of thousands of free men and women, were not and could not nor ever be citizens of the only country they had ever known.

Two of the Justices of the Court dissented from the ruling, and one resigned partially to protest it. The backlash over Dred Scott v. Sandford was so severe that it became one of the precipitating causes of the Civil War a few years later.

As the Civil War came to a close, with hundreds of thousands dead, with

much of the South in ruins, with President Lincoln assassinated, and with slavery abolished by the 13th Amendment, the reunited Nation realized it needed to fix the damage done by the Dred Scott case, and to do so, it needed to finally add a definition of citizen to the American Constitution. And that is what Congress and the States did in adopting section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

All persons--all persons--either born in the United States or naturalized by law are citizens so long as they are subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

This sentence, this one sentence, turned the formerly enslaved and all free African-Americans born here into citizens.

The 13th Amendment rendered them not slaves, and yet they were not yet citizens so long as Dred Scott was the law of the land. This sentence was what turned liberated slaves and free African-Americans into U.S. citizens: If you are born in America, citizenship is your birthright.

In the 1890s, the notion of birthright citizenship was tested in the Supreme Court. A man by the name of Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who were not U.S. citizens. He traveled to China, and then, in traveling back to the United States, his birthplace and home, he was denied reentry into this country based on the Chinese Exclusion Act, an egregious law of the time attempting to bar Chinese immigration. He sued to overturn the congressional ban, and the Court ruled in 1898 that he was a U.S. citizen based on the plain language of the 14th Amendment, and the Chinese Exclusion Act could therefore not apply to bar him entry into this country.

Lawyers in the case attempted to argue, as some do today, that Wong Kim Ark, although born in the United States, was not subject to the jurisdiction of this country, but the Court dispatched this argument quickly by finding that Wong Kim Ark was clearly subject to the laws of the land of his birth.

This ruling from 1898 has been the clear understanding of American law ever since. Birthright citizenship means that you are a U.S. citizen if you are born in America. Your right to citizenship does not depend upon the status of your parents. Dred Scott, Wong Kim Ark, and Donald Trump all meet that test.

This birthright was only guaranteed following incalculable bloodshed, the centuries-long depravity of slavery, and the mass slaughter of the Civil War. The citizenship clause in the 14th Amendment was meant as an atonement for and a repair of that suffering.

Anyone who wants to reverse or curtail birthright citizenship is acting directly contrary to the plain meaning of the Constitution, and they are attempting to move the United States back to a pre-Civil War mentality where certain kinds of people, although born in and long residing in the United States, are viewed as subordinate and unequal because of their parents' status or their ancestry.

One additional point is important: The President-elect's claim that only the United States recognizes birthright citizenship. This statement is either ignorant or willfully deceptive. Thirty-three nations--many in the Americas, including Canada and Mexico--grant full birthright citizenship to all born within their borders. The United States is not alone in embracing birthright citizenship. In fact, I would argue that the United States has been the leader of a global movement to embrace birthright citizenship.

I have described the painful history of how America reached the conclusion that all born here are entitled to citizenship so long as they are subject to the jurisdiction of this country. In future weeks, I will return to the Senate floor to describe the many benefits that birthright citizenship has bestowed on our Nation, and I will do so by telling the stories of Americans born to immigrant parents, whose contributions have enriched this country and even enriched the place we stand today--the U.S. Senate.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, it is my honor to recognize the distinguished career of Barry DuVal, who is retiring as the president and CEO of the Virginia Chamber of Commerce after more than 14 years in the position. I offer these comments with the support of my colleague Senator Mark Warner.

Born and raised in Virginia, Barry began his career in public service in 1988, when he was elected to the Newport News City Council. Two years later, he became mayor of the city at just 30 years old. As mayor, he launched the city's first residential recycling program and worked to diversify the city's local economy. Following his 6 years as mayor, Barry took the helm of the Hampton Roads Partnership, a regional organization focused on economic development for a region that was then home to 1.6 million Virginians.

In 1998, Barry was appointed as secretary of commerce and trade for the Commonwealth of Virginia by then-Governor Jim Gilmore. As secretary, he successfully worked to secure 1,500 economic development projects--representing more than 156,000 new jobs and $13.7 billion in private investment.

Barry was tapped as the president and CEO of the Virginia Chamber of Commerce in 2010. At the time, the chamber had approximately 1,000 members. Today, it counts more than 33,000 members, a testament to Barry's leadership and impact.

During his tenure at the chamber, Barry oversaw the launch of Blueprint Virginia, a comprehensive business-led plan for long-term economic development. The Blueprint has become an institution in and of itself in Virginia, with the chamber presenting an updated Blueprint at the beginning of each of the last four Governorships. It provides valuable insights to business leaders and policymakers on the direction, challenges, and opportunities facing Virginia's economy.

Barry has become a trusted leader in Virginia whose counsel is heeded by both Republican and Democratic officials. He embodies the bipartisan spirit that helps ensure Virginia's economic development strategy progresses forward, regardless of the political composition of Richmond or Washington.

The results of Barry's work and collaboration with elected officials can be seen in the regular recognition of Virginia as one of the best States to do business in. During his tenure, CNBC has ranked Virginia as the ``Top State for Business'' four times. Over the course of his career, Virginia's been ranked in the top five best States for business in 10 out of 14 rankings. Similarly, Forbes has regularly had Virginia toward the top of their rankings of best States for business. In the time that Barry led the chamber, Virginia was in Forbes' top five best States to do business for 8 out of 10 years.

As Virginia's Senators, it has been our pleasure to work with Barry over the years. His impact on Virginia will be felt long after his retirement. We wish Barry well in his retirement and thank him for his service to the Commonwealth.

Madam President, I rise to commend the 10th anniversary of the Recovery Court Program in the New River Valley of Virginia and extend recognition to Lori Trail, who has served as program manager and coordinator since the program's creation.

Lori Trail's service to the community is reflected in the hundreds of lives of New River Valley residents whom she has supported in their recovery journey. Her positive leadership and tireless work have paved the way for the success of Recovery Courts across five jurisdictions in Virginia, beginning in Pulaski County in 2014, and expanding to the counties of Floyd, Giles, and Montgomery, as well as the city of Radford.

Over the past decade, Lori has dedicated her life to creating opportunities for New River Valley residents in recovery. She has helped people with substance use and mental health disorders reclaim their lives and served as a bridge for people to mend relationships. Not only has her work positively impacted the participants of Recovery Courts, but their loved ones and families, as well.

Lori's staunch advocacy and dedication has raised the standards for the staff around her, and the community members she works alongside. She is an inspiration to those in the New River Valley and across the Commonwealth. Although her success can be measured through each life she has guided through the program, her influence on the New River Valley is immeasurable, and her legacy will remain as an embodiment of compassion, service, and hope.

Madam President, shortly, I will ask for unanimous consent to confirm Mark G. Eskenazi and Amanda Wood Laihow to serve as members on the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

Just a word about the Commission. The Commission is an independent Agency that plays a vital role in ensuring safe and healthy workplaces and working conditions for American workers.

What the Commission does is it provides fair and timely adjudication of workplace safety and health disputes between employers, employees, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. So this independent body adjudicates claims between the Federal OSHA employers and employees.

However, the three-member Commission has lacked a quorum since April 2023, which means that for 18 months, they have been unable to adjudicate these claims between employers and employees in OSHA.

Amanda Wood Laihow is a reappointment. She first served on the Commission from January 2020 until April of 2023, when her term expired. Mark Eskenazi was nominated a few months ago in June of 2024. They both received very strong bipartisan support in the HELP Committee, on which I sit, for their nominations, and I urge my colleagues to join me in confirming these well-qualified candidates by enabling this important adjudicatory body to have a quorum so that they can take up claims by workers and employers.

For that reason, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the following nominations en bloc: Calendar Nos. 374 and 785; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Madam President, let me just say I do not believe it is President-elect Trump who is being hamstrung by stopping these nominations; it is workers and employers. Unless the President-elect has a current claim pending before the Committee, he is not being hamstrung by creating a quorum. The absence of a quorum is hurting American workers, and I regret that my colleague objects.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my legislative fellows Julia Burnell, Steven Ramdilal, and Ryan Gallagher be granted floor privileges for the duration of their fellowships with my office.

Mr. President. I rise today to recognize the incredible work of the Scholarship Fund of Alexandria,

SFA. Since its founding in 1986, the SFA has played a vital role in propelling high-achieving students with financial need into top colleges across the Commonwealth of Virginia and the country. Its ongoing dedication to removing barriers for these students through wraparound advising, coaching, and scholarship programs has made a profound impact on their futures--and, by extension, on the community at large.

The recent milestone of awarding over $1.4 million in the last year to support more than 400 Alexandria City High School graduates' matriculation to more than 60 different institutions is a testament to the SFA's commitment to ensuring that no student is left without the opportunity to pursue their educational and career goals. In the nearly four decades that it has been helping students, the Scholarship Fund of Alexandria has awarded nearly $20 million in scholarships and helped send more than 5,700 Alexandria students to college.

Equally significant is the role the SFA plays in college and career advising. Starting as early as the ninth grade, the SFA guides students through the complex process of applying for financial aid, selecting a best-fit institution, and navigating the rigor and demands of postsecondary education. Through partnerships with the National College Attainment Network, the Virginia College Affordability Network, and annual Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) workshops, SFA provides individual FAFSA assistance to ensure Virginia scholars have ample opportunity and boundless choice.

Furthermore, the SFA's participation in the first beta testing phase of the 2025-26 FAFSA highlights the organization's national leadership in improving access to financial aid. The SFA was one of only six organizations selected nationwide, a testament to and reflection of its deep connections to the vibrant and diverse set of student and contributor populations within the Alexandria community.

Thank you to the Scholarship Fund of Alexandria and its leadership, staff, volunteers, and community partners for continuing to open doors for the next generation of scholars and future leaders.

Mr. President, I would like to wish North of the James magazine a happy 30th anniversary and extend a heartfelt congratulations on reaching this milestone.

From its humble beginnings in a garage in Richmond's North Side, the magazine has flourished into an integral part of the Richmond community thanks to the tireless work of editor Charles McGuigan and his dedicated team. It has been delightful to watch the magazine's growth as a trusted news outlet that uplifts the voices of local businesses, amplifies the voices of everyday Virginians, and highlights the efforts of not-for-profit organizations working to create a better community. The magazine's commitment to its readers is evident through its loyal following over the decades.

I was honored to have been featured by the magazine in 2012 and to have shared that distinction with many exceptional Virginians over the years. I am also proud of the accolades that the North of the James team has achieved this year, as recognized by the Virginia Press Association. Charles McGuigan and Rebecca D'Angelo earned first place for their combination picture and story, ``Alleys: Roads Less Travelled,'' and Fran Withrow received second place for his commentary writing. Catherine McGuigan earned second place for her front cover designs for ``Noah Scalin,'' ``RampsRVA,'' and ``Dawoud Bey.''

Local news is essential to our communities, and North of the James magazine continues to be a shining example of this. From covering art exhibits and local cuisine to sharing the stories of everyday Virginians, the magazine has been a cherished resource for Richmonders. Congratulations again on a remarkable 30 years.

Mr. President, I rise to recognize two champions of Virginia's outdoors, Hope Porter and Marie Ridder, as they both celebrate 100th birthdays in the coming months. I offer these comments with the support of my colleague Senator Mark Warner.

Hope Porter's activism and advocacy for open space dates back to the 1940s living in Fauquier County, VA. Hope had the foresight to see that the postwar boom in growth and automobile travel would require new safeguards to ensure that growth was sustainable and would not erase what makes Virginia's historic Piedmont region a special place. Through leading a series of campaigns over many years, she helped pioneer land preservation tools that are known across America today, from zoning to comprehensive land-use planning to private conservation easements. Another legacy is an open space advocacy group, the Piedmont Environmental Council, which she helped found and which for over 40 years has scrutinized proposed commercial ventures and asked tough questions while protecting hundreds of thousands of acres of Piedmont lands under conservation easement. Hope's love for Virginia's outdoors extends to her own land. She has protected 47 acres of Wildcat Mountain, a 200-acre farm near Marshall, and the farmland where she currently lives. Hope continues to follow Fauquier County government and shares her wisdom with a variety of current and aspiring leaders.

Marie Ridder has been a one-woman force of nature on behalf of the outdoors in Virginia and beyond. She chaired the Virginia State Parks Commission and Virginia Council on Environment and served as vice chair of the Landmarks Commission of the U.S. Department of the Interior. She was instrumental in the growth of organizations like the Virginia Outdoors Foundation, Piedmont Environmental Council, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, the Nature Conservancy, Trust for Public Lands, and the American Farmland Trust. Her individual investments and land donations have literally shaped the landscape of Virginia, protecting countless farms and viewsheds and historic properties through conservation easements. She has influenced Presidents, Governors, and international leaders. She has given of her own time and resources and spearheaded efforts to mobilize other resources to protect open space. Any person walking or bird flying through the Virginia Piedmont has Marie to thank for the natural landscape they encounter.

I will join Hope and Marie, together with their families and friends, as the Piedmont Environmental Council celebrates their leadership this Saturday, September 21. We will also celebrate that Hope and Marie have been friends for 70 years.

As Senators and Governors, Mark Warner and I have supported preserving Virginia's open space for future generations to enjoy. Whenever we close the deal on a particularly beautiful parcel, we get to make a speech, cut a ribbon, bask in the applause. But those moments don't happen without years of effort and persistence from people like Hope and Marie--and the organizations they have founded and the dollars and hours they have put in over many decades. I wish Hope Porter and Marie Ridder a very happy birthday and celebrate their life achievements that will be felt in Virginia for 100 more years and beyond.

Madam President, I wish to recognize Mr. Dan Givens for his outstanding contributions to the Commonwealth of Virginia, the aerospace sector and the national security of the United States. Dan will retire on June 29, 2024, after serving as the spaceport director for the Virginia Spaceport Authority's Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS) since 2021. Dan was hired as operations manager in 2019 and has served as a strategic member of the Virginia Spaceport Authority--VSA-- team as it works to fulfill its mandates of developing and operating an operational spaceport that facilitates reliable access to space while stimulating aerospace-related economic activity across the Commonwealth of Virginia.

During his tenure, Dan oversaw the management and operations of over $240 million worth of spaceport assets, including multiple launch pads, multiple support facilities, and a UAS airfield. He supported the construction of the newest two orbital launch pads at MARS, as well as two support facilities and supervised modifications to existing pads for continued use into the future. He oversaw nine successful launches of the Antares rocket, four of the Electron rockets--including Electron's first flight from U.S. soil--and two national security missions for the intelligence community. Dan was instrumental in establishing the Virginia Spaceport Authority's partnership with Vandenberg Space Force Base, including marking the first mission VSA supported outside of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Finally, Dan supported 14 customers with 20 different programs at the UAS airfield, reflecting 630 sorties and 959 flight hours in support of emerging unmanned capabilities. During his tenure, MARS grew 108 percent, from 60 to 108 employees.

VSA and MARS are fortunate to have such an effective leader in Dan Givens. I am pleased to reflect on his contributions to our Commonwealth here today and wish him a peaceful and relaxing retirement after a job well done.

Madam President, I rise today to honor the life of Rasheed A. Malik. He was a champion in the field of childcare and a devoted community leader.

Rasheed was an accomplished policy researcher and the senior director of Early Childhood Policy at the Center for American Progress. His work focused on childcare infrastructure and supply, the economic benefits of childcare, and bias and discrimination in early childhood policy. His landmark analysis identifying ``childcare deserts'' across the country advanced the Nation's understanding of the childcare crisis and drove policy action at the national, State, and local levels.

He testified before Congress several times to advance knowledge and understanding of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the childcare sector, the importance of increased investments in early childhood education, and the merits of comprehensive legislation to address the childcare crisis. Malik's research has been featured in the New York Times, Vox, the Washington Post, NPR, Slate, CNN Business, and CNBC, among others.

Before joining the Center for American Progress, Malik was a government affairs and communications associate for the Metropolitan Waterfront Alliance, which aims to make the New York Harbor a shared, resilient, and accessible resource for all New Yorkers. He received his master's degree in public policy from the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan and a bachelor's degree in public affairs from Baruch College.

Above all, Rasheed was a beloved husband, father, friend, and colleague. He was known for his warmth, generosity, and willingness to support others. I am grateful for his service. He will be dearly missed, and I wish the best to his family.

Madam President, I am thrilled to join my colleagues on the floor to talk about the importance of this border security bill, but I am also going to talk about my own naivete and admit to being a very naive Senator.

When I came to the Senate in 2013 with Senator Murphy, one of the first things we did in June of my first year in the Senate was to pass a significant and bipartisan immigration reform bill. That immigration reform bill was comprehensive, including a $40 billion-plus investment in border security. We passed it in a bipartisan way in this body with nearly 70 votes.

My naivety was this: Yes, there was a Republican House. When the bill went over there, having been a Governor and having watched how State legislatures worked, I assumed that the Republican House wouldn't just embrace our bill but that they would do their own version of an immigration bill, and then we would sit down in a conference and hash out some middle ground. No. I was wrong. The Republican majority House decided to bottle the bill up in committee. They never took it up and never did their own bill. That was in 2013--the education of a naive Senator.

Years later, in 2018, during the Trump administration, when we had a Republican majority in this body, we dealt directly with President Trump. He wanted $25 billion in border security over 10 years. We basically came up with an offer that was, Can you take yes for an answer?

I was part of an eight-member crew negotiating a bipartisan deal: protection for Dreamers and $25 billion in border security--every penny Donald Trump asked for and not one penny less. He told us that he supported Dreamers. He told us that if the bill got to him, he would sign it. Because we had a Democratic House, if we could get it through this body, we would get it to President Trump's desk. But as soon as we rolled out the bill with eight Democrats and eight Republicans as cosponsors, President Trump did a 180, turn tail. He trashed the Dreamers. He said the bill was awful and encouraged Republicans to vote against it, and we couldn't get to the 60-vote margin.

So, for the second time, we did a bipartisan deal that was going to do good things and invest a whole lot in border security that was killed by President Trump and now this most recent effort.

I so applaud Senator Murphy, Senator Sinema, Senator Lankford, and others from the administration who worked on this deal, a bipartisan border security provision with other important provisions: the normalization of Afghan refugees. We have more in Virginia than almost any other State. There is really important work in this bill-- bipartisan.

It is not lost on me how hard it is to do a deal where both the American Immigration Lawyers Association and the Border Patrol union, which tend to be quite opposite politically, take a look at a compromise and say: You know, this isn't perfect, but we need to do this.

I don't know of another issue where these two organizations have said: We need to do this. That was the needle that these Senators were able to thread after months and months and months of negotiation.

But just as in the first two instances, a significant effort to protect our border and make our country safer in a bipartisan way got shot down when President Trump came out and encouraged Republicans to oppose it. Even though they had been briefed on the negotiation every step of the way and supported it, as soon as President Trump said they should oppose it, folks turned tail and ran. President Trump was honest. I mean, I will give him this. He was honest about the reason.

He didn't say to oppose it because he didn't like clause A or clause C. He pretty much said: We don't want to fix this problem. We would rather raise heck about this problem and blame Joe Biden about this problem than fix this problem.

We are sent here to solve problems, and when we have a bipartisan solution that fits this narrow window where both left and right say it is the right step to take, we should do it. I am so glad that this is going to be up on the floor for a vote tomorrow. I look forward to joining my colleagues in supporting it. I urge others to do the same.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Aleta Lee Spicer, who sadly passed away on February 21, 2024. She was a pillar of her community after more than 50 years in public and social service and a dedicated community leader who proudly served the people of southwest Virginia.

Aleta was the executive director of the Southwest Virginia Workforce Development Board, an organization that provides businesses with a well-prepared workforce. Its focus is to help individuals obtain employment and further their careers with access to programs and initiatives that were established through Federal legislation to address workforce development. These programs and initiatives focus on helping disadvantaged groups in the southwest Virginia region find and maintain successful careers. For example, one of the programs Aleta helped run includes the Reengagement and Opportunities and Pathways to Employment Success--ROPES--program. This program helps job seekers recovering from substance use disorder or those who have criminal backgrounds with job training, mental health referrals, and supportive services. Other programs, such

as Living Expenses While Training Stipend--LETS Train--and Cars to Work, help individuals who are unemployed or underemployed with living stipends or transportation to and from work.

Programs like these and the work that Aleta contributed to in southwest Virginia help build our workforce and grow our economic success in the region and throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia. Aleta's goal was to improve the lives of people in southwest Virginia by assisting individuals in obtaining employment and furthering their career skills. More importantly, Aleta helped give individuals pathways toward a well-paid, satisfying career to help maintain their quality of life. We are truly grateful for her dedication and support.

Aleta rose to the challenge every day to help southwest Virginians find success in the workforce. Her dedication and sense of love for her community were unmatched. I am grateful for her service to the constituency of southwest Virginia. She will be dearly missed, and I wish the best to her family.

Thank you, Senator Warner.

I also want to thank the Senate majority leader.

Mr. President, I have spoken on the floor a number of times about this, and I don't need to rehash the deep concern I have about the excessive delay that already exists at Reagan National, the excessive cancellations that already exist at Reagan National, and the excessive need to put planes into holding patterns circling over a city with very restricted airspace at Reagan National.

I deeply oppose the jamming of more flights onto this runway, and I oppose that it was done with no involvement from Virginians whatsoever, no opportunity for us to weigh in. We are not on the Commerce Committee. So the only way we have to have an impact on this is to have an amendment on the floor. We may win it or we may lose it, but this is our hometown airport. It is all

being done without us. The only impact we have is to be able to do something on the floor.

So the proposed amendment that I introduced was simply to strip the slots, to follow the advice of the FAA, to follow the advice of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, to follow the advice of people who know what they are doing so as to avoid a potential catastrophe.

I am not going to get that amendment. I am not going to get that amendment. So, instead, what Senator Warner has done, together with our Maryland colleagues, is propose a compromise. We will accept the 5 slots--5 slots are equal to 10 flights--if, as Senator Warner indicates, the Secretary of Transportation says with respect to each slot: It will not increase delay, it will not raise the risk of cancellation, and it will not risk passenger safety.

We should all want that, not only for the airport that the Capital region uses but for all airports--not increasing delay, not increasing the safety risk, not increasing the cancellation risk. That is what this amendment is.

We want a vote on our amendment about our hometown airport, and we have offered a compromise to protect safety and the convenience of passengers.

And I would hope that my colleagues would see fit to allow the home State Senators in whose territory this airport is to at least have an amendment vote.

And, with that, I yield back to the majority leader.

Madam President, I rise today, certain that, by now, some of the desk staff have memorized the speech I am about to give because it is the third time that I will have given it in the last few weeks on a topic that is really important to Virginia--the FAA reauthorization bill that is now pending before the body.

I want to thank Chairwoman Cantwell, Ranking Member Cruz, and the members of the Commerce Committee because, as a general matter, this is a necessary bill with a lot of good provisions in it--in particular, the work on air traffic control recruitment and training and pilot training hours.

I feel very, very good about that work that has been done. But the gist of this bill is to promote air safety, and there is one provision in the bill that is dramatically contrary to the thrust of this bill. It will not increase air safety. It will reduce air safety, and it will reduce air safety in the Capital of the United States--at Reagan National Airport, otherwise known as DCA.

I am going to summarize quickly the arguments I made in the last couple of weeks, but then I want to respond to at least three questions that folks who take a position opposite to me have raised and use some data to demonstrate that those questions, though honestly raised, have answers, and the answers actually verify and uphold the position that I and my Maryland and Virginia colleagues take: that we should not be jamming more flights onto the busiest runway in the United States.

Reagan National Airport, DCA, was built a long time ago. It is a postage stamp; it is 860 acres. By order of comparison, Dulles Airport is about 12,000 acres; Dallas-Fort Worth is about 19,000 acres; and Denver is 32,000 acres.

When Reagan National was built, it was a little bit the trend to build these smaller airports near downtowns because the airplanes were smaller, they were props with fewer passengers, they were lighter, and they didn't need as much runway space to take off or land.

When Reagan National was built on these 860 acres--and if you have been there, you know that it is 860 that can't be expanded because it is surrounded on three sides by water and on the other side by the George Washington Parkway; there is no way to expand this--it was built with three runways: a primary runway and two commuter runways.

The estimate was, in the 1960s, that Reagan National, with these three runways, could accommodate 15 million passengers a year--15 million passengers a year. Well, where are we today, circa 2024? Reagan National has now 25\1/2\ million passengers a year--25\1/2\ million passengers--an additional two-thirds over what it was built for on a landlocked footprint, with three runways.

There have been a couple other important changes at Reagan National. The idea was to spread the 15 million passengers over three runways, but that was when the planes were smaller and they were props. Now they are jets, and they can't land on the shorter runways. So today at Reagan National, 90 percent of the traffic into Reagan National has to use the main runway.

Think about this: If it was 15 million equally divided, then each runway would bring about 5 million passengers a year. Now the main runway doesn't have 5 million, it was 22\1/2\ million passengers a year, with only about 2\1/2\ to 3 million on the other two runways.

There has been another major change since this projection of 15 million a year was made, and that is 9/11. In the aftermath of 9/11, we imposed dramatically more stringent security requirements on the air patterns over Reagan National to make it much harder to get into a landing zone to land or to take off.

So what does that mean? Built for 15\1/2\ million on a landlocked spot, now at 25 million--what does it mean? Well, it means that the main runway at Reagan National is now the single busiest runway in the United States. Reagan National, because it is small, is not the busiest airport in the United States. It is only 19th in terms of total passengers in and out. But that main runway, with 90 percent of the traffic, is the busiest runway in the United States.

What does that mean? What does it mean to have one primary runway with 90 percent of the traffic that is the busiest in the United States? Well, it is pretty easy to predict. It means very

significant congestion. Let me give some stats about that.

Reagan, as the 19th busiest airport in the United States, has the 8th most daily delays. You calculate daily delay by the percentages of incoming and outgoing that are delayed and multiply it by the average delay. More than 20 percent of flights into and out of Reagan National are delayed. They are not delayed by a little. There are some airports that have worse on-time records, but the delay is a little bit of a delay. The average delay of flights in and out of Reagan National, once delayed, is 67 minutes already. That accounts to over 11,000 minutes of delay every day.

What does delay mean? Delay means, OK, you are late arrival or you are late taking off. But if you are taking off, you might be trying to make a connecting flight. It also means you take off late, and you are likely to miss your connecting flight. If you are coming in late and the plane is supposed to leave to take some people out and go somewhere else, the delay cascades down, and it affects the entire system.

Delay isn't the only measure of this airport's congestion; the second one is the number of canceled flights. Some airports have cancellations--I mean, maybe in Madison when the weather is not so great or Anchorage or the Windy City or Minneapolis. DCA has the third worst cancellation rate among these airports. And it is not because of weather. The weather here in DC may not be great, but it is not catastrophic either. The delay is a function of congestion.

Here is another measure: Planes that are landing, that upon landing have to get rerouted into a looping pattern--DCA is the third worst in that. Why does that matter? Well, first, it creates delay, but second, if you are looping planes through a constricted airspace as planes are taking off and landing every minute, you are increasing the risk of accident.

By all these measures--delay, average daily delay, cancellations, looping patterns--this airport, built for 15 million and now at 25 million, has serious problems already before you add any more flights to it.

The problems are more than just delay; the problems are also safety. I mean, we are all experienced folks, and we know that on roads, the more congested the road, the more likely an accident. Roads that are lightly traveled are less likely to have accidents. Roads that are more heavily traveled are more likely to have accidents.

I talked about this before I had a chance to play the air traffic control tape for colleagues of mine. I can't do that on the floor of the Senate. But about 2 weeks ago, there was a plane maneuvering on the main runway to take off and another plane trying to maneuver to one of the smaller runways to take off, and they almost collided. The frantic voice of the air traffic controller can be heard shouting ``Stop! Stop!'' These planes ended up stopping within 300 feet of each other, inside 100 yards of each other, at this super-busy airport.

Thank God a collision and a catastrophe were averted, but more and more planes on this busiest runway in the United States is just going to increase the chance of a significant incident. Don't take my word for it. Even though as Senators I know we like to think we are experts about everything, there are experts on this--the Federal Aviation Administration and the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority. What does the FAA say about this? They point out--all the statistics I have just given you come from the FAA.

There is a Senate proposal before us that would add 10 flights into Reagan National. That is called five slots. Each slot is a flight in and a flight out--a total of 10 more flights a day.

What does the FAA say about it? They have given the committee and they have given the Senators from the region the same set of data, and what they say is that you can't even add one flight in without increasing delay, which is already significant, but if you add 10--5 slots--the delay will increase by 751 minutes a day.

There are already more than 11,000 minutes of delay a day. If you take the flights that are delayed and you multiply it by the minutes that they are delayed, adding 5 slots--10 flights--will add to that 751 additional minutes of delay; 751 minutes that make people late, that jeopardize their ability to get a connection, that cause cascading delays in the other airports, which are going to maybe be the recipients of planes taking off later from Reagan National.

That is what the FAA, charged with the safe and efficient operation of American airspace, is telling the U.S. Senate.

The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority--Congress created it in the late 1980s. Congress appoints its Board and charges it with the operation not only of Reagan National but also Dulles Airport. What does the MWAA say? MWAA says: Stop. Stop. Don't add any more flights because the delay is already unacceptable, and if you jam more flights onto the busiest runway in the United States, you raise the safety risk.

Again, we Senators like to think we know a lot. We don't know as much about efficient and safe air traffic operations as the Federal Aviation Administration. We don't know as much as the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority.

So when the delay statistics already point out that this is unacceptable, when the cancellation and looping into loop statistics are dangerous, when we have had a near collision that is a flashing red warning signal right in our face before this vote, when the FAA has said you can't even put one flight in without increasing what is already unacceptable delay, and when the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority that we created, and we appoint their Board, says don't do this, why would we do this? Why would we do this?

The Senators from the region who have the most at stake stand uniform--Senators Cardin, Van Hollen, Warner, and I--opposed to the slot increase that is in the Senate bill that is pending before us. We have an amendment that would strip those 5 slots--10 flights--out so that we don't make this worse.

Since I last appeared on the floor to talk about this last week, colleagues have come up to me with some questions. They have raised three.

Here is one: DCA is under capacity because DCA was approved for more than 1,000 flights a day in the 1960s, and there are only 890 flights in and out today, so therefore there must be more capacity at DCA.

Those who ask that question are stating a truth. DCA was approved for over 1,000 flights a day in the 1960s when most of the flights had props, not jets; when most of the craft were smaller and had fewer passengers and could take off and land on shorter runways. So, yes, in the aviation world of the 1960s, DCA was approved for over 1,000 flights, but in the aviation world of 2024, where it is jets with more passengers that take more time to land and take off, that isn't that relevant. It is not that relevant.

In fact, another change that has happened that is important, that I alluded to earlier, is we were set up for more than 1,000 in and out in the 1960s--well, 9/11 happened since then. After 9/11, thank God, we have imposed much more stringent criteria on air traffic over the DC region--the Capitol, the Pentagon, the White House, Congress--to make sure there aren't challenges in the airspace that would lead to really serious harm and risk to people on planes and people who live in the area.

So the FAA has said: You are right, we did approve a higher capacity in the 1960s, but the changes in the number and size of planes have constricted them to the one runway, and changes in the airspace have made it harder. That is why even though we are not at the capacity that was established in the 1960s, you can't even put one more flight--one more flight--into DCA without expanding delay.

So that is the first argument. Yes, the 1960s was different, and 2024 is a completely different kettle of fish. You shouldn't be jamming flights onto this runway.

The second thing I have heard said is, well, DCA actually has pretty good on-time percentage--not bad delay, good on-time percentage.

It is true, if you just look at the percentage of planes that land or take off on time, DCA is better than some airports. Now, it is kind of sad to say that 20-plus percent of our flights are delayed in and out, and that is better

than some others. But here is what you have to know: Which airport would you feel more comfortable flying into--one with an 80-percent on- time record but where the average delay in that 20 percent was 67 percent or what if you flew into one with a worse on-time record but where the average delay was 10 minutes? Sixty-seven minutes is a hassle. Sixty-seven minutes means a missed connection. Sixty-seven minutes means cascading delay throughout the system. Three minutes or ten minutes doesn't.

So just looking at the on-time percentage doesn't give you the full picture of this airport, and that is why the FAA measures delay not in on-time percentage but in total daily delay. Based on that measure, DCA is not a high performer. It is already a poor performer, and we shouldn't add to it.

The last thing I will say, and then I will yield to other colleagues who wish to speak, is that some have said: Oh, this is just a fight between some airlines. You know, United likes it one way. Delta likes it another way. Maybe some other airlines aren't expressing their position.

Who cares about them? Who cares about the airlines? We ought to care about safety. We ought to care about passengers. We ought to care about the 25\1/2\ million people who are using this DCA airport on an annual basis, and we ought to weigh that 25\1/2\ million a lot heavier than a couple of dozen people in the Senate who would like to have more convenience on flights at DCA.

And this is ultimately about the Senate, because, as I have said to my colleagues, the House took up the same issue in the FAA reauthorization bill, and in the committee, they chose not to jam more flights into DCA. Then, when the bill was on the floor, someone tried to make the amendment that is the same amendment that is before us today: Hey, why not add 5 flights, 10 flights?

And the House rejected this. So this is not a battle with the House. The House has accepted the advocacy of the FAA and MWAA and the regional delegation. They paid heed to the potential impacts on delays and cancellations and even potential collisions, and they said: We are not going to run this risk. The last thing we want is for there to be something bad happen out at that airport, and people stick a mic in our face and say: You knew all this, and you were warned. But you voted for it anyway?

So the House rejected this, and what Senator Warner and I and Senators Van Hollen and Cardin, the four Senators from the region affected by this bill--affected very dramatically by the bill--are asking is, we hope our Senate colleagues will too.

We want to support this FAA bill. It has a lot of good in it. But when it comes to jamming more flights on the busiest runway in the United States, we are saying exactly what this air traffic controller said, narrowly avoiding a collision: Stop! Stop! For God's sake, stop!

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise to talk about the FAA reauthorization bill that is pending before the Senate now. And I want to begin by thanking the chair of Commerce, Senator Cantwell, and her ranking member, Senator Cruz, for doing something very important. It is critical that this FAA reauthorization bill happen. And as I look at the bill, I see many provisions that I strongly support, and I applaud the committee for their work. In particular, the committee has addressed the critical shortage in air traffic control, which is incredibly important to the safety of our skies; and, second, the committee dealt with a challenging issue surrounding pilot training hours, and, I think, came up with a solution that is going to be the right solution. So I begin with: This is a big bill with a lot of provisions, and I find much to like in almost all of it.

But I rise to address the one piece of it where I am not supportive, and that is the mandate that the Senate committee version contains to add five

slots--or ten flights--to one of the most delay-prone and congested airports in the United States, Reagan National Airport, otherwise known as DCA. And I want to spend a little bit of time going into this issue, as the Senator representing Virginia. But I stand together with the support of colleagues--the Senators from Maryland, Senator Van Hollen and Senator Cardin; the Senator from Virginia, Senator Warner. We are filing an amendment to remove the additional slots at DCA in this provision, and I want to just explain why to my colleagues.

First, just a word about DCA. Most of us know it, but maybe not all know it and can put it in the context with other airports in this country.

DCA is a postage stamp of an airport. It is 860 acres. By comparison, Dulles is built on 12,000 acres. The Denver airport is nearly 30,000 acres. The Dallas airport is, I think, 18,000 acres.

The DCA airport was built at a time when air traffic was not so intense, wasn't so normal, wasn't so critical to the Nation's economy; and it was built on this small footprint. And everyone who has flown into DCA knows there is no way to expand it. You are essentially kind of wrapped around on nearly three sides by water, and then, on the fourth side, it is U.S. 1 and a rail line. There is no way to make it bigger.

DCA has three runways. There is a primary runway--the long runway-- and then there are two commuter runways on these 860 acres. When DCA was built and, more recently, as studies have been done, the estimate has been that DCA should, on that footprint with those 3 runways, accommodate 15 million passengers a year in and out of that airport.

Where is DCA today? Today, DCA is pressed to the gills and 25\1/2\ million passengers a year are coming into or out of DCA.

And it is pressed in another way. The airport was built so that the 15 million passengers would be spread across the 3 runways: larger planes from farther away on the main runway and then commuter planes from near distances on the 2 commuter runways. But there have been significant advances in the configuration of airlines, and commuter airplanes that used to be turboprops are now jets. And so what has happened at DCA is that 90 percent of the flights that come into DCA have to use the primary runway, and that number is increasing as the commuter planes change in their configurations.

So to just kind of summarize that, a very small airport that was designed for 15\1/2\ million passengers spread across 3 runways is now dealing with a passenger load of 25\1/2\ million passengers, with 90 percent of those having to land on the main runway.

How does that make DCA rank with other airports in the United States? Well, again, because of its small size, there are a number of airports that have more passengers in and out. DCA is the 19th busiest airport in the United States, if you look at the entire airport. But if you look at the main runway at DCA, that main runway is the single busiest runway in the whole United States. LaGuardia doesn't beat it. Kennedy doesn't beat it. Newark doesn't beat it. LAX doesn't beat it. Atlanta Hartsfield doesn't beat it. This runway that we use in this region is the busiest runway in the United States.

What does that mean? What does it mean to have these 25\1/2\ million passengers mostly on 1 runway at DCA? Well, the first thing it means is very significant delay. Remember, I mentioned that DCA is the 19th busiest airport in the United States. But if you look at the average delay per day, it is No. 8. In other words, it punches really far above its weight when it comes to delay.

And what kind of delay? You know, a delay of 2 or 3 minutes, I mean, hey, that wouldn't be a problem. But the average delay at DCA--and more than 20 percent of flights in and out of DCA experience delay--the average delay of those that do is not 10 minutes. It is not 30 minutes. It is not 45 minutes. It is 67 minutes. That is the average delay on these more than 20 percent of the flights that come into and out of