Maria Cantwell

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. That is just the environmental technology industry. So that is 119,000 firms, $300 billion in revenue, and $43 billion in exports. So it is a very vibrant part of our economy that is based on that we want to do something about toxic pollutants. If all of a sudden you pass a bill in the Senate saying we do not want to do anything about these toxic pollutants, even though the Clean Air Act says we should, and the Supreme Court said, yes, EPA you should, then all of a sudden we are basically saying: OK. How far are we willing to go in saying we do not need to deal with toxins and pollutants? To me, the foreign markets in developing countries that are already getting an edge on some of the clean energy technologies would worry me that they would continue to make advancements even more with these technologies. I do not understand why people would think this radical measure would somehow help us, when the foreign technology market would continue to grow, and we would lose market share. But foreign markets, particularly those of developing countries offer the most opportunity for U.S. companies. The U.S. share of foreign environmental technology markets has continued to grow from 5.7 percent in 1997 to 9.8 percent in 2007, giving the U.S. environmental technology industry a positive trade surplus for the past decade. I ask my friend from California, doesn't it make more sense to think about the future jobs we are trying to attract--because they are so much bigger--than thinking about this in the sense of 20th century jobs? That is almost what we are advocating: Let's go back to saying, if you are a pollutant, it is OK because somehow you are creating jobs. I ask my colleague, isn't the market opportunity more in these technology jobs and environmental technology jobs?

Ms. CANTWELL. I thank my colleague from California. I am also interested in the Senator's opinion about this as it relates to gas prices because people are--I think House Republicans, anyway, and maybe even the minority leader, feel that if we pass this amendment, somehow gas prices are going to come down. Well clearly they don't believe this radical measure will actually pass because then they would have to worry about misleading their constituents. We all know this: It seems about every summer we have these debates about the impact of gas prices. But this measure is so radical. When I think about even if EPA continued to act on their fulfillment of the Supreme Court decision that they must act in regulating pollutants--and rules on oil refineries won't even go into effect until December of 2011 and the final rules aren't even due until July 2011. So we are talking about rules that don't go into effect until 2013, 2014, 2015. I ask my colleague from California, how would that have an impact? We don't even know what they are going to be. We have to wait until July, hopefully, to hear from EPA about that. So, somehow, that is going to affect gas prices today? I think what we know to be true is that getting off of oil and having more fuel-efficient cars has reduced our dependence, saved consumers money, and allowed them to have a choice in the marketplace. We ought to continue in that direction, not this direction. But does the Senator think those rules going into effect are somehow having an effect today? Aren't we talking about people who have already written about this as false rhetoric in the debate, that it is not accurate and that this will impact the price at the pump tomorrow?

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise to support the Feinstein amendment and to ask my colleagues, who I know have been working diligently on the legislation for several years now, to respect the very tough balance that has been sought in this legislation as this legislation came out of the Judiciary Committee. I know we adopted a managers' amendment yesterday, and I know that managers' amendment now is catching a lot of people off guard because there are far more changes than people realized in that managers' amendment that I think upsets that apple cart of balance that was struck in the Judiciary Committee. So I am urging my colleagues to support the Feinstein amendment and expressing my concern for the underlying bill that is something that, at this point in time, I cannot support. I do not come to that decision lightly nor because of the fact that I have many high-tech companies in the State of Washington that might say we need patent reform and that this is good innovation. But large high- tech companies are not the only ones that know something about innovation. In fact, most of the people who have helped build those organizations were once the small inventors themselves of key technology. What is at stake is unbalancing the apple cart as exists today to innovation--not just innovation in general but innovation in an information age. The meal ticket for all of us is going to be the invention and creation of new products and services. So that is the great time and age we live in. But if in this legislation we all of a sudden upset that apple cart, where we are tilting the playing field in support of large corporations that have already made their mark and made their markets and made their success and have slowed down on the rate and progress of innovation within their companies and do a lot to acquire technology from smaller inventors--and now, all of a sudden in this underlying bill, particularly in the area of damages, make sure the big corporations can win in any kind of legal dispute against the technology holder or creator because they are able to outlast them in a legal battle because they are more well financed, more well heeled, with the ability to draw out this battle--because of that change in the underlying bill, we leave the small guy without many resources. The only thing the small inventor has is their intellectual property and a fair day in court. If now we take that away from them, I guarantee you, they will have less success. Then, when you have less success of having 5,000 flowers bloom, we have a problem. This is not about what five or six or seven large corporations can create. This is about what thousands and thousands of innovators are going to create in the future and whether they are going to be incented or disincented to do that. The Feinstein amendment tries to protect the current process, to protect what are the rights of those inventors today under current law. I am sure my colleagues will say: Well, that is not the way the rest of the world does it. I would say to my colleagues: I am not sure the way the rest of the world does it is the mark we are trying to hit. What we are trying to preserve is the entrepreneurial spirit that has been created in the United States. I am not saying that is not based on just raw creativity of individuals--it is--but it is also based on financial incentive and the incentive those individuals have that their intellectual property can be protected. But if this is going to be a game about the big boys coming to Washington and squashing the small inventors, count me out. This has to be a level playing field. I get it is tempting to want to, in the last minute, stick into the managers' amendment language you could not get out of committee. But if we want to get this legislation through this process, then we have to take into consideration the rights of the inventors along with the rights of those larger companies that are trying to acquire or integrate or be part of the manufacturing on a larger scale of that inventor's technology. So I say to my colleagues, the Feinstein amendment, in keeping the rights of the inventors where they are, gives them at least a modicum of holding on to that. I think the underlying bill has changed so much in the managers' amendment that we are going down a road that is going to make it very difficult for us to finally get a piece of legislation. We have to respect the rights of the small individuals, and we can't have carve-outs for specific jurisdictions such as Wall Street who think they can have their cake and eat it too. This has to be about how we move forward on a smoother patent process. We need to take into consideration that we have gotten to this great place in our country because we have had a balance and an empowerment of these technologies. We should not all of a sudden in one fell swoop take that away on the Senate floor and basically undermine what is the creative opportunity for the U.S. economy, which is an invention. We want thousands and thousands of inventors--not just inventors who work for big corporations--thousands of inventors who have their rights. So I support the Feinstein amendment. I thank the President, and I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL. The time is equally divided on the Feinstein amendment?

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

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, am I correct there is a vote at 12:30?

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California for her leadership and her articulation on the floor earlier about the rider that is on H.R. 1 that would undo what the Supreme Court said EPA should do, which is to make sure the Clean Air Act is enforced. I thought the comments of the Senator from California about no one in California telling her they wanted more smog was a very profound statement because that is what people are saying when they try to do a rider: EPA, do not enforce the law the Supreme Court told you to enforce. It is as if they are jamming down small children across the country air and air quality that is something less than sufficient. We know that. We know that because it is based on science. That is what EPA has said, and that is what the Supreme Court has said they should enforce. Yet here we are, in the middle of all of this, the solution to our economy is to have a rider on legislation basically saying: Do not enforce what the Supreme Court says is the Clean Air Act. I thank the Senator from California for her leadership on this issue. I come to the floor to join my other colleagues because I think the American people sent a clear message. They want us to focus on creating jobs, promoting innovation, and putting people back to work. That is what we are trying to do in the Senate. But in the House, the Republicans seem to be saying: Let's cut programs and vital services to working women and families, and somehow that will generate economic growth. Instead of creating jobs, all they have done is launched a war on women. H.R. 1 would eliminate funding for title X, which would provide health services, including family planning, breast and cervical cancer screenings, and other preventive health care. This certainly would impact low-income women. It does not create jobs. There is nothing in what I just said with regard to these cuts that would create jobs. How are jobs created out of cutting those services? It is actually an attack on access to health care. When we do not have healthy people, I guarantee you, Mr. President, we end up with bad economic consequences. The bill also cuts funding for teen pregnancy prevention programs and funding for Planned Parenthood centers that serve more than 3 million women each year, jeopardizing, again, access to critical preventive health services. Just in the State of Washington, we have 39 centers and serve over 130,000 patients annually and administer over 170,000 tests for sexually transmitted infections. One of my constituents was diagnosed at age 22 with abnormal cell growth on her cervix wall. She went to a Planned Parenthood clinic. Why? Because she did not have health insurance. In fact, quoting her, she said: I would not have scheduled an annual exam on my own. Without Planned Parenthood, I may have died or lost my ability to have children in the future. . . . Aside from these personal effects, as an uninsured student, I would have been a huge financial burden to my family and my community. There it is. Planned Parenthood has been effective in preventing over 40,000 pregnancies and diverting $160 million back to the State, which we need in these tough economic times. Instead of supporting women and families so they can be productive parts of our economy, Republicans are continuing to turn the clock back on hard-fought access to healthy services and attacking a woman's right to choose. Their proposal would deny women using flexible spending accounts, from using pretax dollars for insurance to cover a wide range of reproductive choices; deny small businesses their tax credits if they choose employee health coverage that includes reproductive health care; and would disallow tax deductions for health insurance for the self-employed if the insurance included reproductive health care. The Republican answer to the economy is attack reproductive health care? It seems to me that these proposals are just about attacking the most vulnerable in our society, including the elderly where they would have an impact on services for the elderly, including meals, housing, and employment services. Women comprise two-thirds of our elderly, and they would be harmed most by these cuts. For example, in 2009, 25 percent of all families with children were female head of households, and 78 percent of mothers with children between the ages of 6 and 17 were in the labor force. That is a big percentage. Therefore, cutting programs that support working mothers, such as job training, childcare, education, and health care will impact those families' ability to be productive members of our economy. I personally do not understand why in the world at this point in time, with this high unemployment rate, we would ever cut job training programs. I can tell you, I travel the State of Washington and I constantly hear, even in these hard economic times, employers who cannot find the workforce they need to do the jobs. When one thinks about that, when a company cannot find the workforce it needs because there is a skills gap, that is holding that company back from producing higher revenues, from meeting their goals, and from adding stimulus to the economy, all because they cannot find the workforce. Yet we in the Senate are trying to promote workforce training and to have programs that have been tested successes, such as the Workforce Investment Act. For every dollar invested by the Workforce Investment Act, it is $10 in stimulating our economy. It is a 1-to-10 ratio. Why would we cut such a program? In Washington State, our local WorkSource Centers have helped over 78 percent of job seekers find jobs. It is a high percentage of helping people and placing them. I look at the example of this big decision on Boeing winning the refueling tanker decision. Here we are with 11,000 jobs in Washington State and a supply chain that is going to also have more jobs created. Yet if we do not make an investment in workforce investment that supply chain will not be able to find the people to fill those jobs to help fulfill this contract. Something as big as a $35 billion contract we are involved in because it is the Department of Defense, and yet at the same time the Republicans in the House are saying: Let's cut the Workforce Investment Act--even though we know we have a plane to deliver, even though we know it has a military purpose we support, and we are going to say let's cut programs because somehow that is going to make our economy healthier. I can give an example. General Plastics would not have been able to keep its current staff level or grow its business in the past year without the help of workforce investment dollars. They were in partner with Tacoma Community College and trained a workforce in improvement techniques that allowed the company to streamline its production and grow its business effectively. In the last year, they grew 10 to 15 percent and became more competitive. They also added about 22 new employees because of additional new business. These are programs that would be cut by the proposal in H.R. 1 that the House Republicans are trying to push. I do not think it would improve our economy. I think it would stall what is a very fragile recovery. Workforce development is economic development, and when people are trained and skilled, the employers get what they need, the community prospers, and everybody truly wins--what the President has called for in winning the future. We need to make sure that we in the Senate stand and say no to these cuts, such as in the Workforce Investment Act, in family health, cuts in the Pell Grant Program which would be cut by more than $800 per student or Head Start or Early Start that, again, would impact thousands of children in Washington State. In addition, we should not cut what are the healthy elements of our economy but make sure we are helping women and families do what will help them survive and help them help us with economic recovery. I know some people think this is the way to get our economy going again. But I can tell my colleagues, our economy certainly hit the iceberg in 2008. But what H.R. 1 does, instead of saying women and children first, they are basically cutting them off the lifeline they need and cutting off what are essential programs to help us grow jobs and have a healthy economy. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided in the quorum.

Ms. CANTWELL

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

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak about comments I have heard from both the chairman and the ranking member this morning about the FAA bill. First of all, I wish to thank them for their hard work and diligence on this legislation. This hasn't just come now, this year; this is something the chairman and ranking member have been working on for several years. I had a chance yesterday to talk about the NextGen system and how many jobs are going to be created from high-wage technology that is going to be used to modernize our transportation system. It is going to deliver flights that are probably 20 percent more on time, it will save us probably 5 or 6 percent on fuel, it is going to lower CO2, and it is going to improve the experience for passengers. So I am all for the FAA underlying bill and I applaud my colleagues for their hard work in trying to make this legislation a reality and doing so this week. I have concerns about the proposed Hutchison amendment. I know the Senator from Texas indicated she is still talking with people and working with people in an effort to make everyone happy. In this place I don't think we make everyone happy, but I thank the Senator for her willingness to at least on the floor say she is trying to make everyone happy, and I think she is probably sincere in her efforts. I have been involved with this issue now for probably 3 or 4 years-- not just the FAA bill but the slots issue and air transportation--and my former colleague, Senator Gordon Smith from Oregon, and I were involved with this issue and several years before that with numerous other members of the Commerce Committee. It is probably one of the thornier issues the Congress has to deal with, primarily because the issue is one that is fused both by issues of economic development around airports, as well as transportation interests of the flying public, and probably a little bit of a dose of what Members' own personal experiences and interests are. For me, getting access to the West, to the Nation's capital, is an important issue. It is not the primary way I come to work every week. I actually fly in and out of the other airport in the region and do so--I don't know if I would say happily because, frankly, I think Dulles Airport--although I don't know what they have done lately, but they got rid of their mobile lounges and now have invested in some transport system where you probably walk as far on that system as you do on the previous system. There are people smiling on the floor. I think they have already been through it. I think they are saying, Yes, I have done that drill, and what is up at Dulles? Putting that aside, that is the way I fly 80 percent of the time back and forth to the Nation's capital. I am pleased to have that flight schedule that accommodates me and actually accommodates many Washingtonians, because I think there are plenty of my Washingtonians who are coming back to the region to do business on a variety of issues in that corridor and see that as an access point as well. The issue, though, is about whether the West has enough access to National Airport. In the past two debates we have had on this issue in 2000 and 2003, the Congress decided the West did not have enough access to National Airport. In both of those instances this body passed legislation opening more slots to the West through a process whereby the Department of Transportation basically decided what were the best areas of the West to service, which were the best networks to possibly service those areas, and how to get that traffic from one destination to the Nation's capital. In both instances, in 2000 and in 2003, when that very broad directive was given to the Department of Transportation, each time six new flight paths were opened to the Nation's capital, and I think that process worked very well. It worked very well because the debate was not here on the Senate floor about whose service was going to be delivered, but it was given to the Department of Transportation, the broad outline. In each instance, increasing access from the West to the Nation's capital is about having the flying public gain access to the Nation's capital and it is also about economic interests. That is why I still have concerns about this proposal on the table and about the fair access it may not provide to many people in the West. In this particular proposal, unlike the two previous access issues in 2000 and 2003, in each point six new slots were given and the Department of Transportation had a fair and open process about it. This particular proposal focuses on the airlines that already service the Nation's Capital, and in this case over 60 percent of the Nation's Capital slots are controlled by two specific airlines. This proposal would open those carriers's ability to trade out slots they already have with other cities, thereby giving them access to the West. In fact, the proposal of my colleague from Texas, even on those new slots, new incumbent carriers they are saying can give access to the West are carriers that are currently operating even inside the perimeter today. If you think this proposal is about helping access the West, it is primarily about accessing the West by people who already control the real estate at National Airport, which are two carriers. I noticed the Department of Justice looked at this larger issue. That is because many of my colleagues who do not want to spend a lot of time on this--I guess I am glad I am educated on it, but I wish I had time to work on other things. The issue is, the national interest or policy question comes into play when you have access to what are limited footprint destinations, such as National Airport, such as La Guardia. Those are times when the U.S. Government has said we want to make sure there is a fair process about this because there is a small footprint and, obviously, if somebody controls too much of that footprint, it is an issue. In the most recent debate, Delta and US Airways have been trying to do a swap exchange between La Guardia and DCA, and the Department of Justice says: Not such a good idea. You already own too much of the market share. If you want to do this, why don't you divest some of the slots you have now. Instead of doing that, the airlines are going to go down a path of continuing to accumulate and dominate in the East. I hope my colleagues will take into consideration that I know the chairman and ranking member are trying to work in good faith, both on this issue and to move the bill forward. For this Member who wants to see a healthy transportation network, I am very concerned about the existing incumbents at National Airport continuing to dominate, with 60 percent of the market, and perhaps cancelling a lot of flights that they currently have now within this region only to benefit from the more lucrative long-haul flights across the country. I am for a fair process. I think everybody should be able to bid on any new flights that are going to be put on the table. The two processes Congress followed in 2000 and 2003 were closer to what I believe, personally, is a more fair and open process. I hope we can continue working and dialoging on these issues. I do think they are important. They are probably more important for the long run of what a transportation network system looks like in this country, to be sure the consumer interests are taken care of and that there is a fair and competitive price. I know some of the people who have been involved in this debate-- probably not on the floor but out in the public--are talking about the amount of money airlines have invested in these airports, as if somehow that means they own the airports. The facts will show, in both these cases, the majority of money poured into the infrastructure at both these facilities is basically taxpayer dollars through bonding authority. It is not as if some airline owns the rights, owns the ability to control 50 or 60 percent of one of these airports just because they have paid for airport improvements. We all have been paying for airport improvements. As I said, I, personally, think the airport improvements made at Dulles are not so much of an improvement. I am going to continue with that and continue to fly through that particular airport. I hope my colleagues will keep discussing this issue, and I hope we can get somewhere on it. My concern is that a proposal with conversion in it will mean many of my colleagues on the Senate floor will have their flights canceled to their favorite locations, and basically they will start servicing long-haul across the country with a very big share of the existing national market. I hope we can do something that will instigate more competition, more diversity, and something that will help get this legislation passed. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, we are out here talking about the FAA bill, a bill to improve the transportation system in America dealing with our airways. There are a lot of great things about this legislation, everything from the passengers' bill of rights to improvement in airport infrastructure that many of my colleagues have been out here on the floor talking about. Even the Acting President pro tempore articulated why it is so important to make improvements in our ground-based system. Practically every elected official in America knows that airports are a cornerstone of economic development. No business is going to locate in a community without knowing what the air transportation system is. If it is falling behind, if it is dilapidated, people are going to go somewhere else for their economic development. So improving the ground transportation system as part of the airport infrastructure is critically important for improving jobs in America. So I know my colleagues are out here offering amendments, and the pending amendment is the Paul amendment, which is a very concerning amendment from the prospects of what it would do to cut the innovation we are about to implement in this FAA bill--the longstanding improvements to the Federal aviation system that have to do with taking our airways from a 1950s technology to a 21st century technology that improves both the situation for the pilots in the sky and the efficiency of our system and it improves and coordinates the communication system on the ground. All that also increases jobs in America, high-wage jobs. It puts America back in the driver's seat in the development of key technology. Those are the kinds of jobs in manufacturing we want to be creating in America. So when my colleague from Kentucky comes out and offers a proposal to basically slow down the implementation by the FAA on key employees in these areas that are part of the technology and infrastructure, what you are going to do is slow down high-wage manufacturing jobs in the United States as well. With this legislation--with both the improvements to the airport infrastructure and what is, with the NextGen system, going to take place with new technology--we are talking about thousands of new jobs in America. We certainly want those manufacturing jobs to be here in the United States and to get the benefits of this NextGen system. So I wish to take a moment to talk about that NextGen transportation system and why it is so important to us in creating jobs. Because my colleague from Kentucky may not realize, when you actually cut people and you cut the number of programs that are geared toward this, such as in the NextGen system, you are talking about that the R&D programs could be reduced by as much as $25 million and then funding for areas such as how to do self-separation, weather technology in the cockpit, weight turbulence. I do not know about the Acting President pro tempore, but I fly a lot, back and forth across the country almost every week. Some of the pilots I have been flying with have said this has been the most turbulent weather this winter that they have seen. So I know personally. I want to know as much about this and the latest technology that can help us. But under this proposal, the estimated loss of jobs and cutbacks in grant programs and targeted areas again could mean the loss of expertise in R&D that is critical for us in our flying transportation system and safety. So what are we talking about when we are talking about the NextGen system? We are talking about improvements in flight performance and improvements in the passenger experience and improvements in basically even how we use fuel. What I like about the NextGen system most is that it reduces total flight delays by 21 percent. That is not the day we pass the bill or when the President signs it. But over time, the implementation of this system--which, again, we have a very old 1950s system, so it is basically radar. It is taking a picture in the sky and saying: Here is where planes are and having air traffic controllers talk to those planes and control, even in pass-off movements, where those flights are going. In fact, I would say to the Acting President pro tempore, I do not know if she or anybody in her family has ever played Flight Simulator. There is probably more certainty and predictability in the movement in a flight simulator than in that radar system we have today. But we are going to change that. What this does, by allowing for more accurate tracking and interface and information, is give us the ability to have flights fly on a more direct path, to be able to coordinate better with flights in transportation, and to have that system totally integrated on the ground. So even those kinds of flight delays that happen on the ground at airports, where you are waiting and taxiing at the airport--oh, this flight is here and that flight is there--all that will be more improved. In fact, that improvement, estimates are, will reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the air transportation system by 12 percent. So that is a very positive aspect of moving forward on Next Generation. Obviously, if you are improving flight delays by 21 percent, I guarantee you, you are going to be improving the passenger experience. When they know we are trying to get them where they need to go on time, in a better coordinated fashion, with savings, it helps us. But it also is going to improve the ground transportation system. If you think about that, our ground transportation system is always in need of coordination. We have actually had some accidents on runways. People have heard those in the news over the last several years. So what this does--when you, again, have a GPS system, the GPS system is coordinating that, so you have better coordination of the taxiing of planes and airport vehicles and the entire ground transportation system. That should not be minimized. The fact that we can imagine how a GPS system can give us better data in the sky is important, but there is a lot that is lost on the ground with flights and the coordination of flights. If you can imagine--just one of my personal pet peeves--you fly all the way across the country and you end up at your destination after 5\1/2\ hours, and no one is there to meet the plane or it takes an extra 10 minutes because somehow somebody did not know the plane was actually at the gate. All that changes with the system. You know exactly where the plane is, and you know when they are going to be at that gate after they have landed. You know exactly how long it is going to take for them to taxi and how long it is going to take to get there. So that is a great improvement in this system and something that should not be underestimated. But the issue of safety is also of critical importance--the fact that safety, in any kind of improvement to our system, has to be the paramount issue. To me, that is what NextGen delivers. It delivers better air traffic controller information. It means there is no routing pass-offs, as we do now when you are flying in between cities. At some point in time, Seattle is tracking you. When you leave Seattle, at some point in time, it is handed over to another sector and then to another sector and then to another sector. This situation is going to have accurate information all the way across, including no pass-offs or challenges with pass-offs, and it is going to give the pilots themselves better situational awareness. It is giving them more information about how they fly and about the information on the runway. So that is critically important for this system. We want safety. We want advancement. In a lot of ways my colleague may be well intentioned in trying to reduce our budget, but when we look at these numbers and we look at what the Next Generation system is going to deliver, we don't want to cut that out of the government system. These are things that are going to give us efficiencies, they are going to help our economy, they are going to create jobs, and they are going to improve the safety of air transportation travel. I can tell my colleagues I certainly want to improve the safety and the situational awareness of pilots. I mentioned fuel efficiency. I wish to talk about fuel efficiency for a second because I know fuel efficiency is an important issue. The flying public may think, Well, why do we want planes to be more efficient? The more the transportation system uses fuel, obviously, the more we have seen gas prices go up. It means our transportation tickets and travel costs are more expensive. With this Next Generation system, if we can start driving more fuel efficiency in our air flights by 5 or 6 percent, then we are going to help keep the efficiency in the transportation system. A program with something like Next Generation was done by Southwest Airlines in a pilot project in Texas, and it actually demonstrated a 6- percent fuel savings for flights between Dallas and Houston. By that I mean it showed that by giving pilots more information, being allowed because of a satellite system-like approach to transportation instead of radar, they are able to fly a more direct route from takeoff to destination. That efficiency translates into savings in fuel costs. It alone is a very important aspect of the system. The net-net of this is high-wage jobs for us in this particular sector. When we think about this, it means high-wage jobs in engineering, in software development, and for other high-tech workers who are part of developing this system, as well as jobs for the flight crews and maintenance and basically everybody who benefits from the fact that we have a traveling public and tourism in our economy. I hope my colleagues will vote down the amendment by the Senator from Kentucky. All of these things are very positive aspects of the Next Generation system and the improvements to our air transportation. This amendment would cut the viability of many of these programs within the NextGen system and the jobs that can be created from this particular legislation. It is definitely long overdue and something the public is expecting from us. I mentioned there is a passenger bill of rights here which in and of itself is a very positive aspect of the legislation in terms of access. Any time there is a delay on the runway, we have to make sure there is access to food and water and necessary medical treatment. Basically, the Department of Transportation can issue fines for noncompliance of airlines. I know many of the traveling public will love this particular aspect of this important FAA legislation. I hope we can dispose of this amendment by my colleague from Kentucky and move on to passing this important legislation. It is about jobs. It is about safety. It is about fuel efficiency. It is about ontime arrival. It is about not gutting this legislation when it is needed most to be passed by this body. I thank the Presiding Officer. I see my colleague from Washington is also here to speak so I will yield the floor for her.

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

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I know my colleagues, the ranking member and the chairman of the committee, have been working diligently to try to resolve this issue. It certainly is a thorny one, given the history of the Commerce Committee and previous votes on this issue. For me, the issue is that I certainly do want access to the West, and I certainly want to make sure the Nation's Capital is accessible to all parts of the country, but we also want to make sure there is a fair process, that a decision to open access to National Airport is run through the Department of Transportation in an FAA process, that we do not handpick here on the Senate floor any of the people who would be winners in this process but that we make the decision on how much access is available. I would say to my colleagues that the whole issue here about airports is that anytime you have a limited footprint, you have had discussion about how to give access to that through a process of the FAA. So I would say to my colleague, let's keep dialoguing and working on this issue. But a process and an amendment that includes conversion; that is to say, that a predominant carrier out of National Airport can continue to hold that dominance in the marketplace, I think is the wrong approach. I look at what is happening now with what the Department of Justice has said about the Delta-US Air swap between New York and DCA. It basically said they have too much market share and they ought to divest if they want to engage in that kind of swap behavior. So any kind of conversion process that would allow slots to be converted is like saying, if you own real estate around the Capitol, then you can buy more real estate around the Capitol. So I hope we can come up with a process that puts the FAA in charge of this, opens up how much access, but not make the decision here on the Senate floor; allow the FAA and DOT to do their job, as they have on this issue in the past. So at this point in time, I object to the Senator's proposal.

Ms. CANTWELL

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

Ms. CANTWELL

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

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, we are continuing this morning on this important FAA bill, which is a very important jobs bill for America. I know my colleagues have been down on the Senate floor--the chairman of the full committee, Senator Rockefeller, and the ranking member, Senator Hutchison--and they have been doing a good job of explaining why it is so important to move ahead on something that can create hundreds of thousands of jobs both in construction at our airports across America and on the implementation of the NextGen system, which is really about making a digital conversion to air transportation so our flights can be safer, so they can be more fuel efficient, and so there can be coordination on the ground with the flights and all of our transportation systems. So this morning we want to keep moving through this process to get this legislation done so we can get it implemented and start creating jobs and improving our air transportation safety. I think there are amendments to be offered under the agreement. I will yield to my colleague from Mississippi.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will preserve the free and open Internet that has led to the growth of broadband. The broadband Internet is integral to U.S. job creation, economic growth, education, civic engagement, and innovation. The network design principles fostering the development of the broadband Internet to date, an end-to-end design, layered architecture, and open standards, promotes innovation at the edge of the network and gives end users choice and control of their online activities. These network design principles have led to the network neutrality of the Internet, where there are no paid-for premium fast lanes and best- effort slow lanes. Today, broadband providers have access to technology and an economic incentive to favor their own or affiliated services, content, and applications; and discriminate against other providers of services content, and applications. If our Nation is to achieve the ambitious broadband goals put forward in the National Broadband Plan, the U.S. needs a clear Federal policy that preserves the historically free and open nature of the Internet. The policy must apply to all broadband Internet access service providers regardless of the means by which they reach the end user. As you know, the FCC released its net neutrality rules last fall. I consider the Commission's actions to be completely within the bounds of its authority. The Chevron deference courts give agencies is rather broad. A quick read of the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court's Brand X decision tells you all you need to know. Former FCC Chairman Powell was very creative in his approach to deregulating broadband over cable modem in 2002. As you remember, one of the most conservative justices on the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia, voted against the FCC action saying more or less that what Chairman Powell did was an overreach. Even so, the final decision was six to three in favor of the FCC. That is how broad the Chevron deference is. And because of the meticulous way Chairman Genachowski conducted the Commission's process, in the end, I am confident the court system will uphold its actions. My issue with the Commission's net neutrality rules is that I do not think the Chairman was bold enough. The Commission should have issued one set of rules that covered broadband delivered over wireline, wireless, or some combination of the two. Everyone realizes that the future of broadband is wireless. And with the rollout of 4-G wireless services, that future is with us now. The Commission should not have kept open the door for any pay-for- priority schemes. It will lead to a tiered Internet, where broadband Internet service providers have the incentive to create artificial bandwidth shortages to maximize profits, rather than invest in new capacity. The Commission also needed to get the definitions of broadband and reasonable network management right. One was too broad and one too narrow. The wording in definitions is negotiated over fiercely because, if not crafted properly, it can lead to loopholes that severely undercut the effectiveness of the rules. More fundamentally, the Commission should have reclassified broadband Internet access into Title II of the communications act and forebear from regulation all of the elements more appropriate to Title I. It would have taken the Commission a lot more time and resources, but getting net neutrality right is that important, because this is the foundation that all broadband rules and regulations will be built on going forward. It is surprising that as weak as these rules are they have stirred up so much vitriol. I know this body will be taking up this matter another day. My legislation puts in statute strong net neutrality protections, takes steps to promote broadband adoption, and provides consumer protection for broadband end users. First I want to acknowledge the leadership of our former colleague Senator Dorgan on this issue. The bill builds on what we started working together on last fall. It also borrows some of the good ideas of Mr. Markey and Ms. Eshoo in the House. At a high level my legislation creates a new section in Title II of the Communications Act that codifies the six new neutrality principles in the FCC's November 2009 notice of proposed rulemaking for preserving the open Internet. My legislation adds a few things to the FCC's list. For example, my legislation also prohibits broadband operators from requiring content, service, or application providers from paying for prioritized delivery of their IP packets; more commonly referred to as pay-for priority. It also requires broadband providers to interconnect with middle-mile broadband providers on just and reasonable terms and conditions. All of this is subject to reasonable network management as defined. And it applies to all broadband Internet platforms--wireline and wireless. My legislation takes several steps to promote the adoption of broadband, steps such as requiring broadband providers to provide service upon reasonable request by an end user; and requiring broadband providers to offer standalone broadband at reasonable rates, terms and conditions. My legislation increases consumer protections because all charges, practices, classifications, regulations, for and in connection with the broadband Internet access service must be just and reasonable. My legislation directs the FCC to come up with enforcement mechanisms. End users, who include individuals, businesses of all sizes, non-for-profit organization, and others, can file a complaint either at the FCC or at a U.S. District Court, but not both. Additionally, State Attorneys General can file on behalf of their residents and seek either to enforce the act or to seek civil penalties. My legislation supports continued broadband investment, innovation, and jobs. Let me explain. First innovation. With the Internet's end-to-end design, innovation is at the edge of the network in the hands of the end users. New ideas for online content, application, and services do not need the permission of the centralized network operator to become successful. Without net neutrality protections, I foresee situations arising that will chill innovation. For example, if a broadband provider has a partnership with company A to provide end users a certain on-line service, and new company B comes up with a better value proposition for providing that same on-line service, how many believe that the broadband provider will allow company B get access to its end users with the same bandwidth or quality-of-service assurances, particularly if Company A gives a portion of its revenues from that on-line service to the broadband provider. Experience has taught me that the most promising path to developing an innovation into a new on-line product or service is hard to predict, if one can do it at all. If broadband Internet access service provider end up on the critical path for successful commercialization of on-line innovations, the path to success will be all the much harder. The language in my bill tries to prevent these types of situations from happening. This leads to my second point, the chilling of investment without effective net neutrality rules. Take the situation where an early stage online company is seeking venture capital investments. The first question any responsible VC will ask is whether the following list of large broadband providers are on- board with the online product or service. Because if there is a situation, as in my example on innovation, where the large broadband provider has a partnership with the early stage companies' entrenched competitor, it is going to be difficult, if not impossible to raise funds. Basically, the blessing of broadband providers will become essential to obtaining VC investment of any magnitude. How to get large broadband providers on board will become a key part of every business plan. Broadband providers would then become gatekeepers to online innovation and investment. Broadband investment can also be chilled a second way. The logical extension of pay-for-priority is a tiered Internet with premium fast lanes and best effort slow lanes. With a tiered Internet, it becomes more profitable to create an artificial bandwidth shortage rather than in investing to increase broadband capacity of the local network. The reason is that it is easier to adjust pricing policies than forecast the optimum level of investment and be able to finance it at favorable rates. Recall the Internet bubble about a decade ago. That is why I believe that if pay-for-priority exists, it will ultimately lead to a lower level of broadband investment that would occur otherwise. I agree with the need for broadband providers to upgrade the quality of their network and increase the available bandwidth to meet the anticipated market demand. If end users want more bandwidth or quality- of-service assurances they should be willing to pay for it. It is that simple. I have no issue with allowing broadband providers explore different pricing options for consumers. My bill doesn't prevent that. Third jobs. Since the advent of the broadband age, there have been more high-value-added, high-paying jobs created by companies operating at the edge of the network than companies at the center of the network. And because of chilled investment and other restrictions, without net neutrality rules, I believe we will experience a lower rate of growth of broadband-enabled jobs. Let me close by saying that I bring a unique perspective to the policy discussion over net neutrality by virtue of working in the tech industry during the dial-up age and early years of broadband. To put things in perspective, the ideas and language that became the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was coming together around the time Netscape 1.0 was being introduced commercially. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, that 1996 Telecom Act accelerated the roll out of broadband, even though the word Internet appeared less then one dozen times. It set the wheels in motion by allowing local competition to the offspring of Ma Bell, allowing telecom companies to offer video programming, and allowing cable companies to offer telecom service. Cable companies responded to this competitive threat, and that from the satellite TV companies due to the Satellite Home Viewing Act, by making infrastructure investments that allowed them to offer new broadband service over cable modem. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers, taking advantage of their new ability to line share and access unbundled network elements, also saw the competitive benefits of offering broadband service. The traditional telecom companies, well, at the time they seemed focused on trying to reassemble Ma Bell and having us all buy an extra, dedicated landline or two for dial up service. Eventually, the competitive pressure did drive them to make the necessary investment to offer broadband. The business models for delivering broadband Internet access differed than that of dial-up. In their heyday, ISPs such as AOL, CompuServe, and Prodigy did not own their own infrastructure; they leased telecom transmission capacity from third parties telecom companies. With broadband, for a number of reasons, there came the much greater vertical integration of the ISP and transmission capacity. Looking back, broadband over cable modem flourished under Title II through 2002, until the FCC deregulated it. Similarly, broadband over landlines flourished under Title II through 2005, until Chairman Martin's deregulated it in the wake of the Brand X decision. As Senator Dorgan used to say, having broadband under Title II ensured that there was a broadband cop on the beat. If there were functioning local markets for broadband services, consumers would have true choices, and I might think differently about the need for legislation. Unfortunately end users in most communities have a limited number of choices at best when it comes to broadband Internet access services. At its most basic, that is why we need to return that broadband cop to the beat. My bill will do that, and do that without regulating the Internet. It will achieve the regulatory certainty industry seems to clamoring for by having the net neutrality protection in statute rather than left to agency rule and the politics of each succeeding administration. I don't claim that this bill is a perfect bill. It lays down a marker for where we should start the discussion. Given the complexity of the Internet ecosystem, any legislation will have to be worked through by the Commerce Committee. There are always details, details, and more details with respect to business models and usage cases that need to be considered. For these reasons I recognize that the Commission will need some flexibility in implementing the statute and I believe my language will provide them with just enough. My bill will preserve an open and free Internet, allow for broadband's continued growth, and the economic growth and jobs that it will create. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will preserve the free and open Internet that has led to the growth of broadband. The broadband Internet is integral to U.S. job creation, economic growth, education, civic engagement, and innovation. The network design principles fostering the development of the broadband Internet to date, an end-to-end design, layered architecture, and open standards, promotes innovation at the edge of the network and gives end users choice and control of their online activities. These network design principles have led to the network neutrality of the Internet, where there are no paid-for premium fast lanes and best- effort slow lanes. Today, broadband providers have access to technology and an economic incentive to favor their own or affiliated services, content, and applications; and discriminate against other providers of services content, and applications. If our Nation is to achieve the ambitious broadband goals put forward in the National Broadband Plan, the U.S. needs a clear Federal policy that preserves the historically free and open nature of the Internet. The policy must apply to all broadband Internet access service providers regardless of the means by which they reach the end user. As you know, the FCC released its net neutrality rules last fall. I consider the Commission's actions to be completely within the bounds of its authority. The Chevron deference courts give agencies is rather broad. A quick read of the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court's Brand X decision tells you all you need to know. Former FCC Chairman Powell was very creative in his approach to deregulating broadband over cable modem in 2002. As you remember, one of the most conservative justices on the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia, voted against the FCC action saying more or less that what Chairman Powell did was an overreach. Even so, the final decision was six to three in favor of the FCC. That is how broad the Chevron deference is. And because of the meticulous way Chairman Genachowski conducted the Commission's process, in the end, I am confident the court system will uphold its actions. My issue with the Commission's net neutrality rules is that I do not think the Chairman was bold enough. The Commission should have issued one set of rules that covered broadband delivered over wireline, wireless, or some combination of the two. Everyone realizes that the future of broadband is wireless. And with the rollout of 4-G wireless services, that future is with us now. The Commission should not have kept open the door for any pay-for- priority schemes. It will lead to a tiered Internet, where broadband Internet service providers have the incentive to create artificial bandwidth shortages to maximize profits, rather than invest in new capacity. The Commission also needed to get the definitions of broadband and reasonable network management right. One was too broad and one too narrow. The wording in definitions is negotiated over fiercely because, if not crafted properly, it can lead to loopholes that severely undercut the effectiveness of the rules. More fundamentally, the Commission should have reclassified broadband Internet access into Title II of the communications act and forebear from regulation all of the elements more appropriate to Title I. It would have taken the Commission a lot more time and resources, but getting net neutrality right is that important, because this is the foundation that all broadband rules and regulations will be built on going forward. It is surprising that as weak as these rules are they have stirred up so much vitriol. I know this body will be taking up this matter another day. My legislation puts in statute strong net neutrality protections, takes steps to promote broadband adoption, and provides consumer protection for broadband end users. First I want to acknowledge the leadership of our former colleague Senator Dorgan on this issue. The bill builds on what we started working together on last fall. It also borrows some of the good ideas of Mr. Markey and Ms. Eshoo in the House. At a high level my legislation creates a new section in Title II of the Communications Act that codifies the six new neutrality principles in the FCC's November 2009 notice of proposed rulemaking for preserving the open Internet. My legislation adds a few things to the FCC's list. For example, my legislation also prohibits broadband operators from requiring content, service, or application providers from paying for prioritized delivery of their IP packets; more commonly referred to as pay-for priority. It also requires broadband providers to interconnect with middle-mile broadband providers on just and reasonable terms and conditions. All of this is subject to reasonable network management as defined. And it applies to all broadband Internet platforms--wireline and wireless. My legislation takes several steps to promote the adoption of broadband, steps such as requiring broadband providers to provide service upon reasonable request by an end user; and requiring broadband providers to offer standalone broadband at reasonable rates, terms and conditions. My legislation increases consumer protections because all charges, practices, classifications, regulations, for and in connection with the broadband Internet access service must be just and reasonable. My legislation directs the FCC to come up with enforcement mechanisms. End users, who include individuals, businesses of all sizes, non-for-profit organization, and others, can file a complaint either at the FCC or at a U.S. District Court, but not both. Additionally, State Attorneys General can file on behalf of their residents and seek either to enforce the act or to seek civil penalties. My legislation supports continued broadband investment, innovation, and jobs. Let me explain. First innovation. With the Internet's end-to-end design, innovation is at the edge of the network in the hands of the end users. New ideas for online content, application, and services do not need the permission of the centralized network operator to become successful. Without net neutrality protections, I foresee situations arising that will chill innovation. For example, if a broadband provider has a partnership with company A to provide end users a certain on-line service, and new company B comes up with a better value proposition for providing that same on-line service, how many believe that the broadband provider will allow company B get access to its end users with the same bandwidth or quality-of-service assurances, particularly if Company A gives a portion of its revenues from that on-line service to the broadband provider. Experience has taught me that the most promising path to developing an innovation into a new on-line product or service is hard to predict, if one can do it at all. If broadband Internet access service provider end up on the critical path for successful commercialization of on-line innovations, the path to success will be all the much harder. The language in my bill tries to prevent these types of situations from happening. This leads to my second point, the chilling of investment without effective net neutrality rules. Take the situation where an early stage online company is seeking venture capital investments. The first question any responsible VC will ask is whether the following list of large broadband providers are on- board with the online product or service. Because if there is a situation, as in my example on innovation, where the large broadband provider has a partnership with the early stage companies' entrenched competitor, it is going to be difficult, if not impossible to raise funds. Basically, the blessing of broadband providers will become essential to obtaining VC investment of any magnitude. How to get large broadband providers on board will become a key part of every business plan. Broadband providers would then become gatekeepers to online innovation and investment. Broadband investment can also be chilled a second way. The logical extension of pay-for-priority is a tiered Internet with premium fast lanes and best effort slow lanes. With a tiered Internet, it becomes more profitable to create an artificial bandwidth shortage rather than in investing to increase broadband capacity of the local network. The reason is that it is easier to adjust pricing policies than forecast the optimum level of investment and be able to finance it at favorable rates. Recall the Internet bubble about a decade ago. That is why I believe that if pay-for-priority exists, it will ultimately lead to a lower level of broadband investment that would occur otherwise. I agree with the need for broadband providers to upgrade the quality of their network and increase the available bandwidth to meet the anticipated market demand. If end users want more bandwidth or quality- of-service assurances they should be willing to pay for it. It is that simple. I have no issue with allowing broadband providers explore different pricing options for consumers. My bill doesn't prevent that. Third jobs. Since the advent of the broadband age, there have been more high-value-added, high-paying jobs created by companies operating at the edge of the network than companies at the center of the network. And because of chilled investment and other restrictions, without net neutrality rules, I believe we will experience a lower rate of growth of broadband-enabled jobs. Let me close by saying that I bring a unique perspective to the policy discussion over net neutrality by virtue of working in the tech industry during the dial-up age and early years of broadband. To put things in perspective, the ideas and language that became the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was coming together around the time Netscape 1.0 was being introduced commercially. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, that 1996 Telecom Act accelerated the roll out of broadband, even though the word Internet appeared less then one dozen times. It set the wheels in motion by allowing local competition to the offspring of Ma Bell, allowing telecom companies to offer video programming, and allowing cable companies to offer telecom service. Cable companies responded to this competitive threat, and that from the satellite TV companies due to the Satellite Home Viewing Act, by making infrastructure investments that allowed them to offer new broadband service over cable modem. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers, taking advantage of their new ability to line share and access unbundled network elements, also saw the competitive benefits of offering broadband service. The traditional telecom companies, well, at the time they seemed focused on trying to reassemble Ma Bell and having us all buy an extra, dedicated landline or two for dial up service. Eventually, the competitive pressure did drive them to make the necessary investment to offer broadband. The business models for delivering broadband Internet access differed than that of dial-up. In their heyday, ISPs such as AOL, CompuServe, and Prodigy did not own their own infrastructure; they leased telecom transmission capacity from third parties telecom companies. With broadband, for a number of reasons, there came the much greater vertical integration of the ISP and transmission capacity. Looking back, broadband over cable modem flourished under Title II through 2002, until the FCC deregulated it. Similarly, broadband over landlines flourished under Title II through 2005, until Chairman Martin's deregulated it in the wake of the Brand X decision. As Senator Dorgan used to say, having broadband under Title II ensured that there was a broadband cop on the beat. If there were functioning local markets for broadband services, consumers would have true choices, and I might think differently about the need for legislation. Unfortunately end users in most communities have a limited number of choices at best when it comes to broadband Internet access services. At its most basic, that is why we need to return that broadband cop to the beat. My bill will do that, and do that without regulating the Internet. It will achieve the regulatory certainty industry seems to clamoring for by having the net neutrality protection in statute rather than left to agency rule and the politics of each succeeding administration. I don't claim that this bill is a perfect bill. It lays down a marker for where we should start the discussion. Given the complexity of the Internet ecosystem, any legislation will have to be worked through by the Commerce Committee. There are always details, details, and more details with respect to business models and usage cases that need to be considered. For these reasons I recognize that the Commission will need some flexibility in implementing the statute and I believe my language will provide them with just enough. My bill will preserve an open and free Internet, allow for broadband's continued growth, and the economic growth and jobs that it will create. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the esteemed chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin. Mr. President, I recognize that there are objections to bringing up a bill dealing with the Air Force KC-X tanker competition requiring the Secretary of Defense to take into account any unfair competitive advantages given to any of the competitors for the contract. This provision has passed twice on the House side now by overwhelming majorities and I am shocked that the same language cannot be included in the Defense authorization bill or passed as a stand-alone bill. These are legitimate concerns being brushed under the rug rather than dealt with head on. I recognize that with such a short amount of time left in this Congress we will have trouble convincing our colleagues that we are allowing a terrible precedent to be set and an expensive injustice is being done to American workers and taxpayers. In the last competition, GAO found multiple instances of uneven treatment that when compiled showed a pervasive bias in support of EADS/Airbus. Unfortunately, we now are seeing a similar pattern of behavior emerging and I have concerns about the conduct of the competition by the Pentagon for this U.S. taxpayer-funded $35 billion contract. At every turn, it seems the Pentagon has gone out of its way to advantage EADS/ Airbus for example, the Pentagon has structured the competition in ways that minimize the cost advantages of an American-made tanker; extended deadlines to accommodate EADS/Airbus; adjusted analytical models in the competition in ways that favor only the EADS/Airbus tanker; and, most recently decided to continue using the so-called IFARA war scenario model in the competition despite having inadvertently released proprietary information that disclosed Boeing's scores to EADS/Airbus. In recent press stories EADS/Airbus officials claimed they did not look at Boeing's proprietary information but it has now come out that in fact EADS/Airbus did look at it. This type of behavior is unacceptable. In light of the serious national security and economic implications of the KC-X Tanker competition, I am respectfully requesting that the chairman of the Armed Services Committee initiate an investigation into these issues--in particular the inadvertent release of proprietary data--to determine whether or not laws and fair competition regulations have been appropriately followed. Further, I am seeking the chairman's assurance today that he intends to call departmental witnesses before the Armed Services Committee to ensure that the committee is fully informed on the progress, status, and conclusions regarding the aforementioned investigation and any other DOD investigations into this and related matters.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I would like that thank Chairman Baucus for his continuing work in helping me address an issue important to airline workers whose employers went bankrupt after September 11, 2001. I first started working on this issue in 2007 when I introduced legislation to allow employees of bankrupt commercial airlines to roll their bankruptcy payments into individual retirement accounts to provide for a retirement savings option to those airline workers whose defined benefit plans were terminated or frozen in bankruptcy proceedings. My legislation attracted bipartisan support from my colleagues, and in 2008, The Worker, Retiree, and Employer Recovery Act, WRERA, was enacted into law, and we worked together to include a provision to allow airline workers to rollover bankruptcy payments into a Roth IRA only. While this was an important step, it is also important to take the next step and allow workers the additional option to rollover bankruptcy payments into a traditional IRA--an option typically available for everyone when deciding which retirement vehicle is right for them. With the assistance of the distinguished chairman, we began the process of taking that next step during the 111th Congress. In May 2010, Chairmen Baucus and Levin included the Airline Worker Relief provision with H.R. 4213, the 2010 Jobs Act legislation which extended several expiring tax provisions and provided for technical corrections to pension funding legislation, and the House of Representatives passed the Jobs Act on May 28, 2010. On June 16 of this year, Chairman Baucus also included the airline worker rollover provision when he introduced his substitute amendment to H.R. 4213. However, on June 18, the pension funding relief section of H.R. 4213, absent the airline worker rollover provision, was included in H.R. 3962, the Preservation of Access to Care for Medicare Beneficiaries and Pension Relief Act of 2010. The airline worker rollover provision was not included because unlike the other pension funding relief items that raised revenue, the rollover provision has a modest budgetary cost. Regrettably, the Senate has not since had the opportunity to consider the Rollover provision. Today Chairman Baucus is proposing a substitute amendment to make corrections to the pension funding relief provisions that were enacted as part of the Preservation of Access to Care for Medicare Beneficiaries and Pension Relief Act of 2010. These items are scored to have no revenue effect; so once again, the airline worker rollover provision will not be included. I will not object to this amendment, but at the same time, it is important for the record to clarify our intent to move the airline worker rollover provision on the next available and appropriate legislative vehicle.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a technical corrections bill relating to the replacement of vessels in the Washington and Alaska non-pollock groundfish trawl catcher-processor fleet. In Washington State, our history is based on a rich maritime tradition that contributes as much as $3 billion to the State's economy each year. There are 3,000 vessels in Washington's fishing fleet that employ 10,000 fishermen. Seafood processors employ another 3,800 Washingtonians. And fish wholesalers employ an additional 1,000 people. Each year thousands of fishermen risk their lives on the high seas attempting to provide food for American families and for the world. All too often, however, the vessels fishermen use are old, antiquated, and sometimes even unsafe. It's that very concern about fishing safety that moved this Congress to pass new, more stringent fishing vessel safety requirements through the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010, which was signed into law by President Obama on October 15 of this year. Our work, though, is far from done. The bill I am introducing today is designed to clarify an ambiguity in the law that some believe could prevent fishermen in the Washington and Alaska non-pollock groundfish trawl catcher-processor fleet from replacing old, unsafe vessels with new ones. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council and U.S. Department of Commerce are currently taking action to promulgate regulations that would allow vessel replacement in this fleet. The Federal Government believes it has that authority, and I agree with that conclusion. Because of ambiguity in the law, however, my colleagues and I are introducing this legislation today to erase any uncertainty or ambiguity on whether the Government has the legal authority and ability to embark on its current course of action. Congress certainly never meant to prevent the replacement of old, unsafe vessels with new or refurbished ones, and where additional clarity is sought on that question, Congress should provide it. By adopting this bill, we can improve fishing safety by providing the legal and financial clarity necessary for these vessels to be rebuilt and replaced. In a rapidly-aging fleet that has already experienced the tragedy of ships and men lost at sea, it is the least that we owe them--the means to prevent such tragedies from happening again in the future. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a technical corrections bill relating to the replacement of vessels in the Washington and Alaska non-pollock groundfish trawl catcher-processor fleet. In Washington State, our history is based on a rich maritime tradition that contributes as much as $3 billion to the State's economy each year. There are 3,000 vessels in Washington's fishing fleet that employ 10,000 fishermen. Seafood processors employ another 3,800 Washingtonians. And fish wholesalers employ an additional 1,000 people. Each year thousands of fishermen risk their lives on the high seas attempting to provide food for American families and for the world. All too often, however, the vessels fishermen use are old, antiquated, and sometimes even unsafe. It's that very concern about fishing safety that moved this Congress to pass new, more stringent fishing vessel safety requirements through the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010, which was signed into law by President Obama on October 15 of this year. Our work, though, is far from done. The bill I am introducing today is designed to clarify an ambiguity in the law that some believe could prevent fishermen in the Washington and Alaska non-pollock groundfish trawl catcher-processor fleet from replacing old, unsafe vessels with new ones. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council and U.S. Department of Commerce are currently taking action to promulgate regulations that would allow vessel replacement in this fleet. The Federal Government believes it has that authority, and I agree with that conclusion. Because of ambiguity in the law, however, my colleagues and I are introducing this legislation today to erase any uncertainty or ambiguity on whether the Government has the legal authority and ability to embark on its current course of action. Congress certainly never meant to prevent the replacement of old, unsafe vessels with new or refurbished ones, and where additional clarity is sought on that question, Congress should provide it. By adopting this bill, we can improve fishing safety by providing the legal and financial clarity necessary for these vessels to be rebuilt and replaced. In a rapidly-aging fleet that has already experienced the tragedy of ships and men lost at sea, it is the least that we owe them--the means to prevent such tragedies from happening again in the future. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010, which we have passed back to the House, with amendments. Hopefully, they will pass it later this evening, and it will be the first time we have gotten this authorization passed and the work that we have been doing for the last 4 years on reforming the Coast Guard's Deepwater Acquisition Program from the mistakes made in the past and setting on a new course will actually become law. As the Presiding Officer knows, the Coast Guard is a vital agency for us in the Pacific Northwest, everything from maritime safety to protecting our environment to our fisheries and the important missions they carry out. Obviously, making sure the Coast Guard has the tools it needs to get the job done is very important. I thank Senators Snowe, Rockefeller, and Hutchison for their hard work and for Members on both sides of the aisle for working on this legislation. I said it has important acquisition reforms, and I wish to mention a few of those because the Deepwater program, with its acquisitions, ran into many problems. First and foremost, the Coast Guard will return to its appropriate competitive procurement practices. This legislation ends what was an industry self-certification process, and it codifies the very rigorous process that the Coast Guard should have with the Major System Acquisition Manual. It establishes the right leadership and oversight for that and, an important aspect, I think, of all procurements related to acquisitions of this size, analyses of alternatives conducted by an independent third party. This legislation also has other important safeguards for oilspill prevention and for fishing vessel safety, as the Presiding Officer knows, because one of the provisions in this legislation is to require a tug escort of double-hulled tanks in Prince William Sound, something the Presiding Officer, the Senators from Alaska, Mr. Begich and Ms. Murkowski, asked be included in the bill. This is important legislation, as we can see from the gulf incident and from incidents before. We obviously have to have large vessels escorted in and out of sensitive areas. I appreciate the leadership of the Senators from Alaska on this legislation. It also adds new protections to the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary off the State of Washington, making sure it is protected from vessels that pose an oilspill threat. It also extends the important oilspill response assets through Washington's very vulnerable Strait of Juan de Fuca making sure that it, too, is more protected and has more resources to deal with incidents in the case of oilspills. Finally, there is a new requirement for fishing vessel safety designed to protect the life and welfare of those fishermen who risk their lives to bring seafood to our tables. It requires that large fishing vessels get a safety certification from independent third parties, and it mandates that smaller fishing vessels meet the same Coast Guard safety standards as recreation vessels. This is important because we know our fishing vessels take great risk in providing catch to us in the product they bring to market. But it is important we do so in a safe and responsible fashion. Having this type of independent safety requirements will be much needed. It allows the Alaska-Washington pollock fleet to replace their boats to help meet the new safety standards. As the President knows, the fishing fleets for Washington and Alaska are large operations. The pollock fishery alone is over a billion-dollar industry. Making sure these vessels operate in a safe manner is critical for our industries to continue to succeed. I thank the Presiding Officer for his input and for my colleagues on the Coast Guard Subcommittee of the Commerce Committee and the committee at large for their help in getting this legislation passed. As I said, it has been nearly 4 years in the making to get this important legislation through Congress. It comes at a time when we continue to want the Coast Guard to have the best resources to meet the missions and requirements of their job but to do their acquisition in a responsible way, to right the wrongs that has been in the Coast Guard acquisition process at the beginning of the Deepwater program, to make sure there is oversight and third-party evaluation of that, and to make sure, as I said, that this bill establishes new laws on oilspill prevention and on fishing vessel safety so we can continue to operate in these pristine waters in a safe and effective manner. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. I move to concur in the House amendments with amendments, and I ask unanimous consent that at the appropriate time, a budgetary pay-go statement be read; further, that the motion to concur in the House amendments with amendments be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statement related to the bill be printed in the Record.