taxpayers back on main street america that have to pack up --t have to pick this up tab? the democratic leadership has said the build-america bond program is about creating jobs. but i want to know if it's abot lining the pockets of wall street executives. recently i asked the c.e.o. of a large wall street investment bank a number of questions. -- about these larger underwriting fees that are subsidized by the american taxpayer. he confirmed that the underwriting fees for build america bond deals are larger than those of tax-exempt bond deals. the senate and house have recently passed different versions of the bill that we're currently debating which includes a provision that expands the build america bonds program, created in the stimulus

bill, so you'd assume it was just a temporary provision, and extend that to four types of tax credit bonds. i'll give you those four types. but before, let me remind you that this is another example that the word "temporary" really doesn't apply to very many things in washington, d.c. because it doesn't take long for a temporary program to become a permanent program. now, i talked about four types of tax credit bonds. they are: the qualified school construction bonds, qualified zone academy bonds, clean, renewable energy bonds, and qualified energy conservation bonds. the build america bonds program contains an option for the issuer bonds, which is the

non-tax-paying entity, to receive a check from the treasury department based on a percentage of the costs incurred by the issuer. some refer to this option as the direct pay option. the percentage of the interest costs on the four tax credit bonds subsidized by the american taxpayers under the direct pay option in the senate bill is a whopping 45% and is increased to 65% for small issuers. small issuers are defined as those issuing less than $30 million in bonds per year. the house version increased the direct payment subsidy to 100% for qualified school construction bonds and qualified zone academy bonds and increased the subsidy to 70% for clean energy -- clean renewable energy

bonds and the qualified energy conservation bonds. now, et me put this in context. the build america bonds program created in the stimulus bill contains a 35% direct pay subsidy and the president has proposed in his physician carry year 2011 budget that it be lowered to 28%. it was reported in the march 11, 2010, bond buyer article that a senior house staffer asserted that no issuers would opt to issue direct pay bonds under the lower senate rates of 45% and 65%. now, when i read that assertion, i asked the finance committee republican staff to reconcile that assertion with the scoring of the build america bonds proposal in the senate-passed bill. the republican staff of finance committee reviewed the joint committee on taxation's final

estimate of the senate-passed bill and found that the senior house staffer's assertion was directly contradicted by the estimate provided by the joint committee on taxation, which everybody knows is the nonpartisan official score keeper for congress on any tax matters. in fact, footnote two of the estimate of the senate build america bonds provision states that the joint committee's estimate of the senate direct pay bonds option includes an increase in outlays of $8.0 -- well, let's just say $8 billion. this means that the joint committee on taxation estimates assumed that a large number of issuers would elect to use the direct pay option contrary to that house staffer's assertion.

the bond buyer -- that's a upon indication -- "the bond buyer" also reported that the senior house staffer stated -- quote -- "there's nobody that i know who does not view the build america bonds program as an enormous success, with the possible exception of one person." i assume that staffer was referring to me. there are many federal taxpayers who do not view the build america bond program as an enormous success. to understand why, let's see what -- which states benefit the most from this build america bonds. in looking at data from thompson reuters on the ten largest build america bonds deals, california alone issues 73% of those bonds.

between california and new york together, those two states alone issue 92% of the bonds from the ten largest build america bonds deals. so california and new york are the biggest winners under the build america bonds, while american taxpayers from the remaining 48 states subsidize these states. as senator kyl pointed out in his "dear colleague" letter on build america bonds, circulated on march 15, the build america bonds program actually rewards states for having a riskier credit rating by giving them more money. build america bonds creates a perverse incentive that causes state and local governments to borrow more than they otherwise would borrow. this is especially true regarding the school tax credit

bonds. this bill crates incentives where states and local governments should not even care what the interest rate is. the american taxpayers are picking up 100% of the interest costs. and actually, the costs borne by the american taxpayer is, in fact, more than 100%. at least with tax credit bonds, the taxpayers includes the amount of the tax credit in income and the federal government collects taxes on that income. the only purchasers of tax credit bonds are those that have tax liabilities. otherwise, this makes no sense to buy tax credit bonds. however, build america bonds are technically taxable bonds. but most of the investors do not pay tax on these bonds.

for example, under our tax rul rules, if a foreign person or a pension fund or a tax-exempt entity buys a build america bo bond, they do not pay tax on the interest that they receive. thus, the federal government not only cuts a check for 100% of the bond's interest cost, but it also loses most of the revenue it would have collected from the tax credit bonds. state and local governments can view this federal money as what it really is, free money, because they don't even have to collect it from their residents. therefore, of course, state and local governments turn out to be very big fans of the build america bonds program. they get federal money that they don't have to pay back. and the large wall street investment banks love build america bonds.

why? because they're getting richer off those bonds. however, we all know that there is no such thing as a free lun lunch. now, inside of washington here, washington's an island surrounded by reality and, consequently, everybody in this town thinks that there are free lunches. and the common sense of the rest of the country has a difficult getting inside this island. and it's our responsibility to point out that this city, this district, that the only real industry is government, that you can't have everybody in the wagon. in this town, everybody's in the wagon. everybody outside this district is pulling the wagon. and that doesn't -- can't go on very long. so there is no such thing as a

free lunch. federal taxpayers are footing the bill for this big-spending program -- for this big spending program which only gets bigger every time congress touches it, and this legislation before us is just an example, as this program that started out as a little program in the stimulus bill -- and presumably the word "stimulus" means temporary, doesn't it? but this isn't turning out to be temporary. and it's not turning out to be small. because it's just been enhanced greatly in the other body. and the american taxpayers are the ones that we ought to be looking out for, and a temporary program ought to be temporary. a stimulus program ought to be stimulus and nothing else. and here we are expanding it. and american taxpayers are the ones who, in the words of the senior house staffer, do not --

or -- quote -- "do not view the build america bonds program as an enormous success." i urge my colleagues to look beyond the fancy, well-funded lobbying campaign for this rich subdivment tak -- subsidy. take a look at who wins. the winners are big wall street banks. maybe a small number of governments will issue bonds they otherwise wouldn't. main street is not helped very much by this program. the only certainty is that the federal taxpayers is on the hook for the interest costs. with regard budget deficits under this congress and administration, we cannot casually look away as new, open-ended subsidies are proposed. i yield the floor.

ms. murkowski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: thank you, mr. president. last wednesday, the department of energy submitted a motion to the nuclear regulatory commission to withdraw its license application to construct spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste repository at yucca mountain. now, what was the latest rationale for this? it was simply because we need it too much. now, that might seem like creative interpretation on my part, but just last week, secretary of energy, stephen chu, noted that due to the revival of the nuclear industry, yucca mountain's repository would hit its statutory capacity limit in the next several decades and would not meet future industry needs. so instead of moving forward with a permanent repository that billion dollars of dollars -- billions of dollars -- have already been spent on and simply expanding the arbitrary limit that the law puts on the size of the repository, spent nuclear

fuel from commercial nuclear reactors will be stored on-site at over 100 locations across the country for at least the next several decades. and if we do have the nuclear revival that many of us believe is needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet our energy needs, the number of on-site storage locations across the country will only increase. but, mr. president, not only is the department of energy seeking to withdraw its license application -- and i'm not absolutely convinced that they have the authority to do so -- they are seeking to withdraw it with prejudice, making it very difficult, if not impossible, to resurrect yucca mountain as a possible option for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, regardless of what future scientific and engineering advances may offer and regardless of what the administration's blue-ribbon panel, that is directed to

consider all of the options, may conclude. in fact, the department of energy argues in its motion that -- quote -- "scientific and engineering knowledge on issues relevant to disposition of high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel has advanced dramatically over the 20 years since the yucca mountain project was initiated." now, apparently, the department is also arguing that scientific and engineering knowledge on the same issues will not advance any further over the next several decades to address issues with the yucca mountain site. mr. president, setting the legal issues aside surrounding the department's motion to withdraw, i'd like to focus for a moment on what's stopping work on the yucca mountain -- what stopping work on the yucca mountain site will actually cost the american taxpayer. under the nuclear policy act of -- waste act of 1992, the

federal government has a contractual obligation to collect spent nuclear fuel from individual nuclear power plants starting in 1998. the government has clearly missed on that deadline. now, according to the department of justice, the federal government has so far paid $565 million in settlement costs for breaching this contract with the utilities. and i say "so far," because the ultimate cost to the american taxpayer we know is going to be much, much higher. utility companies have filed 71 cases in federal court alleging the department of energy's delay in taking title to spent nuclear fuel is a breach of contract. of those 71 lawsuits, 10 have now been settled, six were withdrawn, and four were fully litigated resulting in the $565 million in payments of the of the 51 cases that are outstanding then, the judgment

have been entered in 13 of those cases, putting the government liability so far -- so far -- for commercial spent nuclear fuel stored on site between 198 and 2007 at a cost of $1.3 billion. and there remains another 38 cases for judgment to be entered on, so the amount of the liability for that time frame is likely to increase significantly into the future. keep in mind, this number does not take into account the level of liability for the increasing amount of spent nuclear fuel stored on site from 2008 until the date when a permanent repository is opened, whenever that might be. and nor do the costs include the $24 million in attorneys' costs, $91 million in expert funds, $39 million in litigation support costs, or the thousands of hours that d.o.e. and the n.r.c.

employees have already expended on this effort. the department of energy estimates that the potential liability of the federal government to utilities will be $12.3 billion, if the government starts taking title to the spent fuel by 2020, which is just ten years from now. according to the c.b.o., the congressional budget office, utility industry reports estimate that the claims will total $50 billion, and both of these estimates were developed before the administration took steps to withdraw the yucca application. so we've got liability estimates of between $12 billion and $50 billion in taxpayer money, if a repository is opened and accepting spent fuels in the next ten years. now, dmeemed that took us -- now keep in mind in that took us almost 30 years to get this far on yucca mountain. with the current administration

shutting down all work on yucca and minute the search for a solution anew, it seems increasingly likely that the costs will greatly exceed the $50 billion estimate. and at a time when we're already racking up trillions of dollars of debt for future generations, the administration has freely closen -- freely closen to incur additional future taxpayer liability in terms of tens of billions of dollars by withdrawing the yucca mountain repository license application because, in the words ever secretary chu, the "statutory limit of yucca mountain would have been used up in the next several decades." so all americans are on the hook for tens of billions of dollars because the federal government is in breach of its contract to take title to spent nuclear fuel. but it gets even better for those americans whose utility gets some of its electricity from nuclear power plants. you -- you get to pay twice.

in return for the federal government taking title to commercial spent nuclear fuel, the nuclear waste wools act established a nuclear waste fund to provide for the construction after spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste repository. utilities that operate under nuclear power reactors are charged a fee by the secretary of energy and that fee is then deposited into the waste fund. the cost of that fee is passed on from the utility to the consumer. the utilities -- and then, hence, their customers -- contribute between $750 million and $800 million into the waste fund each year. as of september 30, 2009, payments and interest credited to the fund total just over $30 billion. that's a substantial amount of money. however, there are restrictions on what those funds can be used for. funds from the nuclear waste fund may only be expended for

the construction of a facility expressly authorized by the nuclear waste policy act or subsequent legislation. the only facility that meets this description is yucca mountain. yet the obama administration has shut down work on yucca and filed a motion to withdraw its license application. so that the natural question is: what happens to the money in the nuclear waste fund since it can't be spent on anything other than the construction of the yucca mountain repository? well, the nuclear waste policy act directs the secretary o secf energy to adjust the fee if the amount is in excess of the amount needed to meet the cost of the repository or it is insufficient. now, it is hard to see how the $24 billion balance in the fund is not sufficient to pay for work on a facility where no more work will ever occur. utilities have then suggested that the fee be dispensed with.

but secretary chu said that the collection will continue. so some ratepayers will continue to pay a higher electricity bill to contribute to a fund that no longer serves a purpose, at least until the courts should rule otherwise. now if or perhaps when the courts order the reduction of the fee and refund of the balances already paid into the fund, you can add the loss of over $750 million in income to the federal government per year, as well as the refund of the $30 billion already collected to the taxpayers' debt. now, i focused on the impact stopping work at yucca mountain will have on the commercial applications and the individual taxpayer but it will also impact those 13 states that host federal sites that hold high-level radioactive waste from the production of nuclear weapons dating back to the

manhattan project. these are the environmental lab in idaho, just as utilities have sued the federal government for breach of contract, the decision to terminate yucca should open the door to a lawsuit from a state like idaho, which has a court-approved agreement with the department of energy to remove nuclear waste from the state by the year 20356789 now i'm also -- by the year 2035. now i'm also concerned that the administration's haste to suspend work on yucca mountain, that valuable scientific data will be lost. as a sustainable fuel cycle task force noted, long-term corrosion samples contain decades of information that is irreplaibles. scientific information developed at considerable cost in the yucca mountain program should be -- i call upon the administration to preserve the dhat it is collected so far. i support moving forward with the yucca mountain license

aplilings indication but if the motion to withdraw the ally compages is successful, the knowledge and the data achieved so far in the process will be valuable for future repository site needs. so, mr. president, taxpayers are on the look for tens of billions of dollars. some are paying twice for a repository that's being taken off the table. valuable scientific data is at risk of being lost forever and all the administration can offer in return is a two-year delay while a panel studies the issue and offers a report. it is encouraging to hear the administration voice its support for the development of additional nuclear power and back those words with a request for greater loan guarantee funding. that's good. but in order to have support for new nuclear at a national level, there must be support among the communities with host existing nuclear power plants, and i'm

increasingly concerned that until we can resolve what to do with the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle, local support for nuclear will erode as questions aboutllowing it will be stored on site will persist. with the withdrawal of the yucca mountain license application we're become to square one and the american taxpayer will continue to pay the cost. -- without receiving any answers. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor. mrs. hutchison: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, i'm speaking as if in morning business -- is that the correct procedural status? the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, i'm rising today to speak on this health care reform bill that is purportedly going

through the house right now, and i just have to speak on it because it is so obvious that the american people do not want this bill, and now we seem to be pushing it through the house with these elaborate procedures, and so i want to talk about it as i know many others on this floor are doing and have done, because really the only way that we can bring to the attention of the american people what is going on here is to talk about it, both process as well as substance. the health care bill that passed this senate last december on christmas eve was passed under really a cloud that the american people immediately saw, a big cloud on the horizon for sure, and the bill has been bandied around so much that the american people have finally come to the

conclusion that what was passed was not in the best interests of america. we are still debating this legislation. the reason is, the american people don't want this bill. now why do they not want it? they know that it will do great harm to our economy. one-sixth of the whole economy of our country. and it is not going to significantly change the course of our nation's spending on health care, nor is it going to add to quality. the senate bill is a failure for resolving the concerns that americans have with our current health care system. most of us in this chamber agree that the health care system today is not what it needs to be. it is not sustainable. and we can agree probably on the causes. number one, health care costs are going up. and, number two, a lot of people can't afford and don't have access to health care treatment

and systems that work. so limited access to affordable options and rising costs. but this bill makes it worse, not better. the bill is so bad that the president and the leadership in congress are going to use the unique budget procedure known as reconciliation to force additional health care measures through congress. in fact, they're even talking about not actually passing the bill that passed the senate without any minority votes, but it does pass the senate in december, and they're talking about -- quote -- "passing it" by 2k50e8ing it i deeming it ino that the house won't have to actually vote on it because it's so bad. well, how much sense does that make? the media is continuing to speculate about whether the speaker of the house can secure the votes needed to pass the senate bill as well as a new,

unseen, unknown, additional bill that would change the bill that passed the senate and take out some of its flaws. but we haven't seen the new bill either, and we're talking about getting those over on the senate side next week. now, amid this media storm of speculation on whether a bill can be passed using reconciliation, we need to talk about why this bill represents the wrong approach to health care reform. number one is the cost of the bill. the bill costs more than $2 trillion. now, some may try to say that it's actually less than that, but the truth is, there are ten years of tax increases and ten years of medicare cuts to pay for six years of spending. yes, that's right.

the taxes start immediately, the medicare cuts start immediately, and four years from now, there will be presumed options for people to be able to have affordable health care. the true ten-year cost of this bill is $2 trillion. more taxes. the bill imposes ten years of taxes. half a trillion dollars of tax increases. most of which will start immediately or very shortly. more than $1 billio00 billion on prescription drug companies, medical device manufacturers and insurance companies are going to be levied. now, what do those taxes mean? well, clearly, every study shows and every economist says that those taxes will be passed on to

individuals. they will be passed on to individuals in the higher cost of prescription drugs, the higher cost of insurance premiums, and medical devices. now that is all before -- that starts before we ever see any kind of option that is going to reportedly give affordable health care options. i offered an amendment in the december debate that would say no taxes start until services are provided. i thought that was a pretty clear tax policy. one that maybe the american people would at least say, okay, at least it's fair. the taxes don't start until the services start. well, of course, my amendment was rejected and so now we have the bill that was passed, which is 10 years of taxes for six years of services.

there are taxes on those who can't afford insurance. the higher of $750 per individual or 2% of household income. that's the tax on people who don't purchase insurance. employers are also hit with new taxes. the penalty could be as high a as $3,000 per employee under the senate bill. what will this do to small businesses which create 70% of the new jobs in our country? in a letter sent to the majority leader, the small business coalition for affordable health care stated, with the new taxes mandates, growth in government programs, an overall price tag, the patient protection and affordable care act -- the health care reform bill -- costs too much and produces too

little. the small business coalition speaking out saying that it costs too much and delivers too little. here we are, a time when families are struggling, struggling to pay their mortgage, struggling to find a job, struggling to pay bills, an businesses are having a hard time too and they're not hiring. because they are so burdened that they are not hiring. and what are we doing? providing more burdens on small business and expecting them to hire more people? this is so counterintuitive that the american people certainly see what is happening. that's all, the taxes. the other side is the cuts to medicare. the senate bill includes a half a trillion dollars in cuts to medicare over 10 years. including $135 billion in cuts

to hospitals. the medicare program is unsustainable. the chief actuary of medicare has said that as much as 20% of medicare's providers will either go out of business or will have to stop seeing medicare beneficiaries. millions of seniors, including those who have chosen medicare advantage, will lose the coverage they now enjoy. medicare is being used as a piggy bank and it needs every penny that has been deposited. we cannot reform all of the health care system on the backs of our seniors. cuts to hospitals will threaten access for seniors. we've been asking the leadership of congress to scrap this bill and work with republicans to achieve the reform that americans want. reform that will reduce costs, increase competition and improve access. this bill achieves none of that.

i cannot understand why the president chose to base his proposal for reform on the senate bill that was passed by -- by the senate, but the american people have consistently opposed it. every poll shows that the american people do not want senate bill. they saw it for what it was, a failure. so, mr. president, i hope that the members of congress who are trying to be cajoled into voting for this bill will listen to the american people. they don't want the government to take over their health care. they want affordable access, and that means we have to bring the cost down and give more options. so let's talk about the right kind of reform, what republicans are putting on the table.

more chases. how about a -- more choices. how about allowing small businesses to pool together so their risk pool is increased and costs are lowered? create an online marketplace where the public can easily compare and select insurance plans. but it would be a marketplace that is free of mandates an government interference -- and government interference. the one that was in the senate bill had so many mandates and so many requirements that it was going to be out of sight in costs. so what happens? in comes the government plan to sub plant the new higher cost options because of all of the taxes that had been put on the companies that are trying provide health care. number two, how can we reduce costs and lower expenses? well, for one thing we can

reform our litigous system, it drives doctors away from the practice of medicine. many physicians are not seeing medicare patients because they're underreimbursed. so costs are going up and patients are getting worse care. tort reform alone could save at least $54 billion. that's the low end of the projections of what tort reform could save. and, number three, we could lower the cost to taxpayers by giving tax incentives to encourage the purchase of health insurance. we don't have to have a government takeover and we don't have to have new taxes. let's give incentives for tax breaks for individuals and families that will buy health insurance, will help them have the affordable access.

senator demint and i have a bill, and it was an amendment that we tried to offer on the health care bill last december that would just offer a voucher to families. $5,000 for a family to purchase their own health insurance, to go on the exchange, to determine what they can afford, to determine what their needs are and not tied to their employers so it's portable, so it's theirs and they own it. no preexisting conditions would keep them from having that policy again. and they could take it to whatever employer they decided to work for. they would not be tied to employment for health care coverage. these are options that the republicans have given to the majority to ask them to consider in a bill that would reform health care in the right way. so, mr. president, i urge my

colleagues to listen to their constituents. their constituents are speaking in volumes. at a time when we're seeing political games being played on the house side to strong arm people to vote for bill that their constituents don't want. and then they're going to send it over to the senate with a new bill that is going to supposedly correct the problems in the senate bill except that we will still have the taxes, we will still have the increased costs, we will still have the cuts to medicare, all of that will remain. it's a flawed bill. please, members of congress, listen to your constituents and let's start again and do this right. that's what the american people are asking for. and, mr. president, it's the least that we owe them. not to pass a bill that is going to destroy one-sixth of the

american economy and take away the choices that medicare patients have, cut the services in medicare, and tax every employer an every family -- and every family whether they have not enough health insurance, no health insurance or too much health insurance, you're going to be taxed no matter which way you go. that is not health reform. that is a government takeover of a system that needs improvement, but not killing. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mrs. hutchison: i have five i ask unanimous consent asks for committees to meet during today's meeting of the senate, they have the approval of the majority and minority lead, i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that they be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. hutchison: thank you, mr.

president, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order the senate stands in recess until 2:15, senate will resume consideration of h.r. -- nope. under -- recess until 2:15 p.m.

>> host:. >> this afternoon, attorney general eric holder testifies on the justice department's 2011 budget request. it is also possible he will answer questions on triering terror suspects in u.s. and closing guantanamo bay. see the hearing held by a house appropriations subcommittee later today at 2:00 eastern on c-span. last month marked one year since congress passed economic stimulus money of the 878 approved, almost -- 7878 billion approved. $198 billion paid out so far. to learn more about the he can s. go to c-span dt origina original/estimate. >> this week lawmakers make the final push to he get health care legislation to the president's desk. follow the latest from white house and capitol hill on only network that covers washington gavel to gavel. c-span

>> taking a look atest health care news. yesterday the house budget committee met to look at the measure and approved a bill under expedited reconciliation procedures. the riles committee plans to meet tomorrow to work out structure for debate and we could see the bill on the house floor by the end of the week. >> it is a guidebook, a travel log, if you will but also kind of a mini history work of, biography of each of these president. let's face it you can tell a

lot about people at end of their lives. >> earlier today the federal communications commission released plan for expanding access to high-speed internet, also known as broadband. the plan aims to connect 100 million households that lack broadband today. it is part of the $787 billion economic stimulus package that passed last february. from fcc quarters in washington, this portion runs about hour. >> well, good morning on this big day. welcome to the march 2010 meeting of the fcc our own

version of march madness. today's subject is the national broadband plan. for the record the plan does not include any tools to help you fill out your bracket and, that's it for the, that is it for that. i know everyone is eager to get to the plan. let's do it. further adieu, madam secretary please introduce agenda. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning to you and commissioners. today includes one panel presentation and one item for your consideration. first you will hear a presentation of the national broadband planning. next you will consider a joint statement on brad brand. this is your agenda for today. the first item will be a presentation of a national broadband plan for our future. >> thank you. we are very fortunate to be joined by blair levin and members of his incredible team that will talk about

the national broadband plan. by way of introduction a few words about the road to get here. the extraordinary process leading to this national broadband strategy has been unprecedented. unprecedented in its openness and transparency. unprecedented in its breadth and depth of participation. unprecedented in its professionalism. and unprecedented in its analytical rigor. the process involved the fcc's first comprehensive series of staff level workshops with 36 meetings attracting over 2500 participants in the room, and online. the 31 public notice issued were the most ever for a single proceeding, generating over 23,000 comments. totaling more than 74,000 pages. there were also commission level field hearings outside of washington around the country engaging with businesses on the on thes,

academics and citizens in an ongoing, interactive and productive process for the last many months. more firsts involved the broadband team's use of new media tools. this includes the fcc's first blog which attracted more than half a million page views and generated 1200 comments all of which entered into the official record. americans shared over 680 specific concrete ideas and comments on idea scale. and interacted with the team via twitter and facebook, all firsts. thanks to the engagement driven by the broadband and new media teams, the fcc has over 330,000 followers on twitter. more than its true, william shatner, yes we are boldly going. many of the ideas voted on by the idea scale community made the final plan, as did of course ideas and facts and data supplied in connection with the workshop

and interactive public comment process as well as ideas from my commission colleagues and their staffs. i'm pleased by excellent and productive level of cooperation between fcc other federal agencies and congress. i couldn't be prouder of the broadband team that drove this process and pulled the plan together. as part of an agenciwide process, that enlisted the talent and expertise of every single bureau and office at the scc. the broadband team includes dedicated and brilliant professionals from a broad array of disciplines and engineers, economists entrepreneurs, scholars, analysts, lawyers as well as leaders from non-profits, medicine, education, government all coming together as public servants to tackle vitally important issues, focused what's right for the country. i'll return later to well-key served thank you for blair and the team. for now before i ask blair the team to begin i want to

thank my colleagues on the commission and their staffs who have been engaged for many months in this process. in hearings, workshops, meetings, and briefing providing valuable input on priorities and specific topics throughout the process of the, giving important speeches including digital inclusion, disabilities and spectrum and providing very helpful suggestions on drafts of the plan. i look forward to continuing this partnership as we begin specific proceedings to address the issues raised by the plan. and finally, special thank you to commissioner copps as work as acting chairman to get this vital project off the ground. commissioner copps recognized the your -- urgency of this task. without his early, strong, leadership we simply would be here today. so i'm personally grateful for your early work and i appreciate it. that, blair, i turn it over

to you and your team. >> thank you, very much, mr. chairman, commissioners and let me echo what you just said about interim chair "cops" who, so graciously started this america must confront the challenge ever connecting the nation anew, above all else, this plan is a call to action to meet that challenge for your era. if we need it networks and devices and applications that create new solutions to seeming trackable problems. if successful, it will transform our country into. as america does when it transforms itself, transforms the world that is a bold claim, this consistent with meeting challenge that congress gave us. the congressional mandate was unique in the annals of this institution or perhaps any institution of the federal government. congress was visionary in

asking for holistic plan that asked us not to consider how we connect but what we do with the connections. congress understood that broadband is a profound, enabling technology whose impact goes through every aspect of our economy and society. congress asked us to assure a presence of a platform that connects every american and bring as information revolution to every sector of our economy. much as electricity transformed the american economy of the early 20th century, broadband internet access will drive increased productivity and innovation across many industries while enabling creation of new ones. the electric grid fundamentally changed our lives by allowing us to use energy in new ways and similarly the broadband internet will transform the ways we disseminate, aggregate, access information and knowledge. we have done a number of presentations before. some of which were very long. this time we'll be brief.

the plan is now line. i should note that it is not an interactive version but an interactive version will be o on line within a few days. many the key recommendations in this plan have already been discussed by you all and in the public. and we're not going to review those all today. in many ways this document which we're very, very proud of does speak for itself, and, we look forward people reading it and reviewing it. but to discuss briefly how this plan will help our country take advantage of the opportunities that congress saw i would like to turn to my colleague, dr. carlos kirschner. >> thank you, blair. i like to make two points about this amazing plan. first is about ecosystem. most people may have thought that an fcc broadband plan would focus solely on networks but i don't think

to come from silicon valley like i do, and i'm sure my sent gives it away. silicon valley accent. if you live there, you understand. to remember, so i don't have to be from there to know that the internet became the platform it is today when mosaic, when mosaic came to existence and then netscape. and you can observe today that the iphone and other smartphones are just changing the way people use broadband. so a real broadband plan, a real broadband strategy to consider network devices and applications. it has to consider the ecosystem. the plan was designed to insure that government creates, uses the labs it has at its disal to create consumer choice and create opportunities for private investment to drive a better, healthier ecosystem. any second to last point is about the plan's impact. if implemented this plan

will hopefully accelerate positive reformations or maybe some revolutions. he mentioned electricity, it changes the way we live and work. and, in the same way that electricity did in the 20th century, the printing press did it in the 15th and 16th century. by changing the way knowledge was captured, disseminated and acquired. it created revolutions that no one could foresee at the time. i'm sure, even though i can not prove and it is not in the record, that in the 16th century, many people said, i've seen things like books before. none of it is useful. but they ushered enlightenment they be chered the scientific revolution. they ushered the nation state. they changed the world. in the same way today, prod band will change how knowledge is acquired. created, shared, and disseminated. and it will change the world. it too revolutionized the world and this plan tries to

accelerate that. i'm very happy for the opportunity to have participated in the creation of this plan. i want to thank you all for that. i think now the hard work starts. it is the work of implementing recommendations and making sure that america has the best broadband infrastructure in the world, the best applications, the best devices that will create jobs, productivity and increase our standard of living. thank you. >> i now would like to eric garr to make a few comments. >> like many technology executives i read the recovery act with great interest i heard congress decided to make an investment in broadband. i spent my career helping companies and local governments use broadband to run their operations better. i thought broadband was a very wise investment for the country to. the most interesting part of the act for me was the part on national purposes. as someone who worked in a lot of different industries i was puzzled why you would

go in one industry like banking and see broadband everywhere and go into another industry like health care, boy, there is a lot more that we could do. i thought the act very well-recognized that well connection activity is important much of value comes down to how we use technology. when i had a chance to play a part on this team, much of my decision to move here from chicago was based on my interest in national purposes. the two presented these to you at the last commission meeting but it is worth highlighting a couple reasons why these things are so important. first the plan shows the opportunity for the health care system. broadband can help reduce the cost of care by billions and allow doctors to reach more patients to deliver high quality care. right now our health care system is very expensive. and our adoption of health i-t lag. we can't afford the cost of this system any longer and broadband can be an important enabler to make sure the system works as best as it can. the e-rate program long support the negativity to

our nation's schools. while the program is great success with broadband reaching 97% of the schools it recommends several actions to insure we do our part to drive more educational content. our students need access to broadband but we better content to inrich their education. in addition to strong -- electronic student record it will help teachers prepare lessons in the most efficient way. broadband can bring opportunity. my own city of chicago saw libraries overrun as the economic downturn took hold. library turned into employment office with lines of citizens to waiting for computers to search for jobs and post resume's online. it considers many ways that broadband can create opportunity for all americans and to train our workforce better and make it easier to find a job. the broad plan planning effort shown how broadband can improvement government engagement.

broadband.gov and fcc new media properties brought the public into this room. right the essence of the plan is being tweeted to draw attention to the content in realtime as we deliver it to all of you. the printed version will be taken to congress this afternoon and tomorrow but digital version can be downloaded across america in seconds. the plan also recognizes that while broadband makes it easier to obtain information about the government it can disrupt traditional media that play a vital role. commissioner copps pointed this out to us along the way and i look for additional work to build on what we've done in the plan. public safety may benefit most for the broadband. it recommends a network that will bring capabilities of broadband to tough operational problems our first responders enter. when they really need to network they really need to network. the plan outlines a range of activities to make sure our first-ondersave jobs.

kristin cane and her team did a marvelous job on the plan and pleasure to work with all of them. in addition to kristin brian david and let to work that formed a second, of the plan in important ways. i should thank fcc rookies and veterans that worked on the plan. everybody made a great contribution. the i also have to specifically mention the writers room without you we would have no plan. and finally i'd like to thank my wife who is in the audience who put our life in chicago on pause to come here for this adventure. in closing we should all recognize that this plan is america's plan. the country should consider these ideas and recommendations make decisions and forward. phoebe yang will describe where we go from here. with that. phoebe. >> thank you, eric. how we get there, this agency, thanks to the work of you the commissioners as well as your talented staff

as well as the bureaus and the hard work of the team sitting behind us, that has put in countless hours, to not only the plan but also thinking about the implementation of that plan, we have already begun to see progress. several items were presented and adopted at previous commission meetings relating to the plan. first the tower siting, declaratory ruling adopted in november 2009. where the commission cleared the way for broadband deployment establishing guidelines that will streamline review of tower siting applications by state and local governments. this action will accelerate the deof next generation wireless networks while respecting legitimate concerns of local authorities and preserving local control over zoning and use policies. secondly the e-rate community use waiver order nprm which month the commission adopted, in its order to enable after-hours

community use of broadband connections in schools funded by e-rate program. it expands public access to broadband and allows more efficient use of e resources funded by the e-rate program so all, excuse me, all without increasing size of the universal service fund. schools now have the option to permit the general public to use their internet connections whenever school is not in session. this allows adults to take litsy courses unemployed workers to seek online job search tools and citizens used in internet-based government services to benefit all. rural health care order and extension where wireline competition bureau recently extended a key deadline for pilots participants in the pilot program with deadline being 30th which helps insure the success of pilot projects a and allows additional time for building out networks benefit the e-health the entire country.

as many of you know consumer tools has been recently launched including last week. the cc launching the beta version of a new set of versions on fcc.gov and broadband.gov allow fixed and mobile broadband connections around america. . . the public can use the spectrum dashboard to produces spectrum bands, search for spectrum

licenses, produce maps and export raw data. and we're looking forward to receiving public input on how we can improve and augment the dashboard in future releases which we see as unprecedented. in addition, with respect to agency proceedings to come, we will be over the next few weeks releasing a schedule of proceedings for the next 12 to 18 months to begin implementation. more than half of the plans, roughly 200 recommendations are directed at the fcc. the plans recommendations will cover proceedings that that actually do cover proceedings of over 40 in both action as well as in count. roughly half are focused on promoting competition and consumer value through broadband network devices and application policy changes. infrastructure policy changes and unlocking the value of the 500 megahertz of spectrum. another quarter are focused on

the critical task of universizing broadband service for all americans through usf and intercarrier compensation reform. the majority of the rest focused on how fcc can promote public safety and protect critical infrastructure. and finally, there are several recommendations that are focused on other important issues such as people with disabilities in tribal lands. in addition, the mandate for the broadband plan extended beyond the purview of the fcc as you all know creating a comprehensive plan for the country that advances national purposes across a number of sectors required input from across the federal government and beyond. to develop recommendations throughout the plan, but particularly in the national purposes section that eric mentioned, we worked in consultation and partnership with more than two dozen agencies and offices as well as consulted with sector experts, leading companies, entrepreneurs, investors and others. the recommendations directed to other agencies are simply that.

they are recommendations. we hope the executive branch will convene a multidisciplinary council and set benchmarks and track progress. we also recommend the fcc serve as agencies as they intergrate broadband into their work. their engagement in the planning process has been extremely helpful and has allowed us to build upon work already underway and explore new practical opportunities to intergrate broadband into their work. finally, we wanted to point out because there have been a lot of questions about congressional action and budget impact. we have kept our requests to congress limited and focused to address key points on competition, adoption, and public safety. we believe our plan as proposed is revenue neutral. the transformation of usf to broadband will require no new funding and the freeing up of frequencies proposed by the plan are expected by analysts to generate billions from spectrum auctions.

this will more than cover the plan's recommendations regarding to funding. public safety adoption efforts and an optional funding request to accelerate the connect america fund deployment of broadband. we appreciate the time they have invested in this process and we all know this is beginning and we look forward to the next day. thanks. >> thank you, phoebe. as a demonstration of how rapidly things move on the broadband team. let me correct something i said earlier. in fact, our fabulous new media team not only has the pdf version of the plan up but also has the interactive html versions and they have been a

tremendous part of this operation and worked tirelessly over the last couple of weeks that all america could read the plan at the same time as everyone else. there's a spanish and braille version that will be forthcoming that are not up yet but expect them shortly. i would like to say two things. i would like to thank my colleagues on the omnibus broadband. the merry band of brothers and sisters took on a challenge with very difficult odds. and in my view succeeded in ways unimaginable at the start. each deserves personal praise but i won't do that here. i would thank my colleagues at the table who was a great intellectual sparring partner not for me but every partner on the team. the nation would be grateful for among other things the many things that are not in the plan because carlos correctly pointed out their hidden flaws. i recall with amusement in an article in july -- you might recall this that said you and i,

mr. chairman, already knew totally what was in the plan. i assure you whatever thoughts we had at that time carlos kicked it out of the system very quickly. [laughter] >> phoebe's contributions to this effort are far beyond measure with her intellectual rigor, her complete command of the briefing process both on the hill and with the floor. and the read of the panel which was critical in the last few days she shaped, guided and improved this project in ways that can only be known for few but for all who can be eternally great. and mr. chairman i know that you understand how difficult it is for me to say this that after working with phoebe i'm convinced that stanford law school is probably the best law school in the country. [laughter] >> above all, let me thank eric garr who ran this process. today's "wall street journal" has a headline broadband plan faces many hurdles to which i say, that is nothing compared to the hurdles we already faced and to which eric already jumped over.

for eric, no job is too big, no job was too small. his ability to pull together this document through the process was a finest example of leadership and professionalism it's been my pleasure to witness. i asked him to produce a plan without pure precedent and he delivered. and finally, a few -- a final thought on the plan. this is my eighth appearance in nine months in this room and my last. i have sat with each of you at least a half dozen times privately in your offices to discuss any topics you wish to discuss. we discussed many of the plan's recommendations which like my children are all fantastic or least like the children of the lake all above average but my final thought is not to suggest that you adopt them all without change. precisely the opposite. this plan is in beta and always will be. like the internet itself the plan should change in light of new developments. implementation requires a long-term commitment to measuring progress and adjusting

to improved performance. so i know i speak for all the team when we say we welcome any improvements that the notice and comment process develops. but evaluation is no excuse for paralysis. the important point now is to act. one of the great lessons in my life by a monk who said crises are brought about in the failure to work. this plan is an attempt to prevent crises by doing the work. we know there's a crisis coming with universal service. we know the current intercarrier compensation system is not sustainable. we know we will face a spectrum crunch. we know the cost of digital exclusion is growing leading to crisis on any fronts. we know america is hinted world in using the power of broadband to solve critical national problems and if we don't, it will cause all kinds of crises throughout the economy. the value of this plan will be judged ultimately by what comes of it.

by the actions you take not just the ideas we have. back in september when we had an interim update commissioner mcdowell told us while we did well on the midterm only the final exam counts. based on the preliminary reactions from the public, from many in the industry and stakeholders i think we more than passed. but today your exam begins. history will judge us all by how efficiently and effectively you address the problems this plan tackles. history will judge us all not by our slogans but by our solutions. so you have a plan and now is the time to act. i've enjoyed working with every one of you and i'm very grateful for the opportunity to serve. thank you very much. >> thank you. thanks to each of you.xd more to say but first let -- let's move to comments from the bench. commissioner copps? >> well, at long last here we are and here we go. since walking through the door of this building as a newly

minted commissioner in 2001, i have called for and hoped for and dreamed about this, a national plan to ensure that every american has high-speed opportunity creating affordable broadband. for too many years government was asleep at the switch. and the results showed as your country and mine dropped way down in the rankings of broadband penetrations among oecd countries. it took a long time for good news to come and come it has. in the american recovery and reinvestment act congress and the president called on the fcc to develop a national broadband plan. now it's been done. built together under the visionary of the leadership of chairman genachowski and with the hard work of a truly impressive team of both old and new fcc faces, managed by blair levin with remarkable ability and equally remarkable grace under pressure, we finally have a clear objective and a

considered strategy aimed at ensuring that everyone in this country has equal opportunity in this new digital age no matter who they are, where they live or the particular circumstances of their individual lives. the plan to develop this plan has been more comprehensive, open, public, transparent than any that i have enconsidered at this commission. the team cast a wide net to make the process inclusive. it search out a traditional and nontraditional stakeholders that deserve to be heard with special emphasis on folks who don't have a corporate lobbyist or lawyer working for them in washington. after all shouldn't a broadband policy for the american people be a broadband policy be for the american people. broadband is the great enabler of our time. the technology intersects with just about every great challenge confronting our nation today. jobs, business growth, education, energy, climate change, the environment, international competitiveness,

healthcare, overcoming disabilities, opening doors of equal opportunity, news and information, our democratic dialog to name only the most obvious. there's no solution for any of these challenges that does not have a broadband component to it. there are so many important matters that this plan covers including recommendations to reform the universal service fund to identify additional licensed and unlicensed spectrum for broadband. to implement a public safety network. we can't possibly delve into the merits of each of them here. and do them any semblance of justice. but i do want to highlight a few. foremost among them is digital inclusion. every one of our citizens must have access to this enabling technology in order to participate fully in 21st century life. this is not something that would be nice for us to do. it is everyone's right and i think of it, excuse me, as a civil right to have this kind of

access because access denied is opportunity denied. america can no longer have divides between races and ethnic groups between haves and have nots and those living in big cities and those living in rural areas or tribal lands and the able bodied and disability. there's a potentially debilitating irony here. the technology that can make so many things better could end if we don't do the job thoroughly and do it right by creating even wider divides in this country going forward than we have had in the past. the technology should close divides not widen them. and that's what puts such urgency into moving forward immediately and comprehensively to implement this plan. so broadband must leave no american behind. african-american, hispanic american, asian-american, disabled american, rural american, inner city american. it must also include the original american, the native american.

i've seen first hand the unacceptable state of communications in much of indian country in so many places where native americans live poverty endures, education languages and public safety falls fall short than what people have a right to expect. state-of-the-art communications facilities and services are still strangers to most of indian country. even the plain old telephone service that so many of us take for granted is at shockingly low levels of penetration there. below 70% of native american households. we don't begin to have data of internet subscribership on tribal lands because nobody collect. we need a plan that works for indians too. implementation of the plan's recommendations, a federal tribal broadband initiative, an

fcc tribal task force and fcc office of tribal affairs, data-gathering on tribal lands, universal service reforms among others will give native american communities the visibility they deserve, day in and day out at the fcc. and will build upon the trust relationship that bill kinard did so much to promote while he was chairman of the fcc. another important focus of the plan is ensuring accessibility for persons with disabilities. in my time at the commission, i've had the wonderful and totally inspiring experience of working with numerous communities beginning with my very first speech as a commissioner which was to the deaf and hard of hearing audience. i've come to see and appreciate the talents these folks have and to begin understanding the challenges they must constantly overcome every day, all day. these are individuals with so much talent, so many skills such dedication and genuine desire and all they ask is an equal shot at being productive members of society.

we just cannot discount their further exclusion. at a broadband hearing i chaired to solicit their plan we saw how new technology can change lives and create opportunities for people who want to be and who need to be full participating mainstream citizens. we made some progress in recent years. there's no question about that. but there is so much still to do. implementation of the recommendations in the plan, a broadband accessibility working group and an accessibility and innovation forum among others will help ensure that communication services, equipment and content are accessible with persons with disabilities and just last week the commission demonstrated its renewed commitment to address the very important issue of accessibility for all by naming karen pelz strauss a long time advocate and champion of disability rights issues to lead the implementation of the accessibility components of the plan. i congratulate the chairman on the selection and i'm grateful to karen for agreeing to take on

this very important job. inclusion of all americans is all the more important given the critical role broadband will play in informing our civic dialog and stimulating civic engagement in our democracy. we are late in understanding the broad civic implications of broadband as we begin to have our conversation to the internet. american future town square will be braved with broadband bricks and it must be accessible to all and reflect the diverse voices of our diverse country. sustaining democracy by effectively informing all of our communities in the digital age goes in my humble opinion to the core of what we are trying to achieve. and what we must achieve as we implement this plan. with high-speed internet those who are connected have the world at their fingertips. for the unconnected that world is beyond reach. already we see a blooming and patis appear culture on the internet and platforms that astound us from smart phones to

tablets to the advent of at-home 3d viewing and we can communicate with someone on the other side of the world as easily as with our next door neighbor. but an increase of technology does not by itself guarantee a more informed citizenry. a 2001 study indicates that as a country we consume in excess of 1.3 trillion hours of media per year. yet the production and distribution of essential news and information content has never been more in doubt. the same hyperspeculation that wreaks so much havoc on the media. and the complete dismantlement of our public oversight of the broadcast stations decimating news, newsrooms and media. a new report shows a 50% decline in network news reporting and editing capacity since the 1980s. that just came out yesterday and a 30% drop for newspapers since 2000.

the pink slips that have replaced pay stubs for so many thousands of beat journalists and the evaporating state of watchdog journalism have left us to be frank on a starvation diet when it comes to nourishing our democratic dialog. serving daily news and information is about 500 calories short of a healthy meal. opinion should feed on facts, not on more opinion. and right now neither are traditional nor media are supplying the nourishment of maintaining the health of the body politic. we will have fat-filled chatter with not enough of the protein of fat. terabytes of opinion but journalism of what's telling us what's going on. information aplenty about celebrities and weather but a famine of real local, national and international news. this is not just about the future. it's about the present, too. so it's a two-pronged challenge we face first ensuring the internet of the future can

support the information infrastructure which democracy requires. and second for the years have the media ahead stemming the decline of traditional media journalism that still supplies the overwhelming bulk of our news and information. what we need urgently to avoid is seeing the same arms that have been visited upon our present day media inflicted on the new media of the digital age. so i'm pleased that the national broadband plan recognizes the need to come to terms with the news and information implications of the digital transition. and i'm also pleased that the commission has launched a separate but really inherently-related examination focusing on the future of media and information needs of communities and in digital age. a commission without steady focus on this would ignore one of the core implications of broadband infrastructure. this is an area where public policy needs to be proactive. technology in and of itself is neutral. it can do great harm. it can do great arm g-. what determines the outcome is what we make of it. in closing, there's so much teed

up by this plan. the public safety chapter is based on a level of data and analysis far better than the commissioned previously available. the ems on ict research and development is long overdue. something by the way that the statute instructs us to consider but which has gone largely ignored for the past several years. much to the nation's competitive detriment. and a commitment that i see throughout this document to digital literacy for the young and for all of us strikes another cord that i have been sounding for several years. broadband should become a platform of venue for much of our communications. how can we not supply the training and the education that people need to use it and to control it. each of us would have, i suppose, some variations on the plan that has been prepared. and, of course, implementation of the plan would entail many difficult decisions. it in matters involving spectrum, for example, i'm always conscious of the fact that the airwaves belong to the american people and the stewards

of this precious resource should at all times be serving the public interest. our allocation of the people's spectrum find its touchstone right here. in matters involving competition in our communications echosystem, we'll have to be vigilant to ensure that our strategies actually work. lack of competition could conceivably require us to take action beyond what is generally discussed here. i dare say i don't need to remind people competition is not the defining hallmark of the telecommunication sector but it's at the core of our statute. in competition and elsewhere should we find we lack the tools we need to conduct effective public interest oversight of the evolving broadband network, we may have to invoke other available authorities already invested in the commission. or should we lack some authority that we may need, we may have to request it. we are dealing with a broadband information ecosystem where many

parts come together to form a complex and interdependent hole. if we lack the oversight tools to treat it that way, to treat it systematically we do the ecosystem an injustice and we invite serious harm so robust decisions and difficult decision-making await us. time is not the friend of a nation that has so much broadband work that has gone unattended. but i am encouraged by the chairman's determination to move quickly to put this plan to work for the american people. it is not a static plan. it will require adjustment and flexibility as we proceed. but this is one of its strengths. not a weakness. taken as a whole this plan is a -- is the right path. there are fewer answers than there are questions and fewer still easy answers.

but at its core the basic challenge we confront here is either new nor novel. and just to build the century's infrastructure in order to create opportunity for each of us. previous generations of americans have faced the very same challenge to the great benefit of our nation they usually found ways to get the job done and they did it by deploying their combined strengths and their resources to build the infrastructure their particular times demand it, whether it was turnpikes, roads, canals, bridges, electric power even basic telecommunications. this generation's challenge is to build the infrastructure of the digital age. in presenting this plan today chairman genachowski walks in all-american path totally in keeping with how the generations who came before us built this country. at last we begin to walk the broadband walk. thank you. >> commissioner mcdowell? >> thank you, mr. chairman.

first, to the many hard-working members of the broadband plan team. who have spent countless hours away from your loved ones, absorbing terabytes of information over these many months. if you remember nothing else i say today, please remember these few words. thank you for your efforts. you have floated ideas and taken some arrows. your blood, sweat, toil, and tears and more often than not laughter, at least with me, are appreciated. your commitment, energy, and sense of mission have not gone unnoticed. while you've had to give up your personal lives including holidays with your families, i imagine that this st. patrick's day will be one to remember. [laughter]

>> even if you're not irish. [laughter] >> second, we should be mindful that blair and his team are presenting this plan to congress during a tumultuous time and, no, i'm not referring to the debate over healthcare legislation. i'm talking, of course, about march madness. [laughter] >> it should be obvious to policymakers everywhere that the ncaa basketball tournament and broadband enjoy a symbiotic relationship. to find definitive proof of unfettered innovation at the edge of networks, one needs to look no further than the statistics emanating from march madness on demand or mmod known to those of us who suffer from march madness.

last year mmod recorded 7.52 million unique visitors which represented a 58% increase over 2008. furthermore, online viewers consumed more than 8.6 million hours of video and audio in 2009. that is a 75% increase over 2008. if this trend continues, march madness could be the holy grail of killer apps needed to accelerate broadband adoption to near ubiquity by 2020. increasing demand for watching march madness online, however, may not help us meet all of the national purposes outlined in the stimulus act, specifically, economic development. although the ncaa tournament is heralded by many as one of the greatest human creations, some have trumpeted a recent innovation as surpassing the

tournament's prowess in improving the human condition. yes, the boss button. a recent press release reveals that, quote, the boss button, which was clicked over 2.77 million times during the 2009 tournament hides the live video action on the screen and silences the audio replacing it with a business like image in quote. this may not be great for workplace productivity but it could embody a market-driven solution to increased adoption. but in all seriousness it is important for everyone to understand that the plan offered up today for congress' review represents of a tremendous amount of hard work and thoughtfulness. however, it does not carry with it the force and effect of law. in other words, the plan itself contains no rules. not having a commission vote has given the broadband plan team the flexibility to make their

recommendations to congress and the commission freely. rulemakings, opportunities for public comment, subsequent debates and votes on proposed rules spawned by the plan still lie over the horizon. in short, today marks the beginning of a long process, not the end of one. in the past several years america has made great strides in the deployment and adoption of broadband services. in 2003, only 15% of american adults had access to broadband at home. today that number is well over two-thirds. some form of broadband is available to roughly 95% of americans. out of 114 million american households, only 7 million lack access to broadband. 7 years ago only 180,000 homes had access to fiber-based broadband. by the middle of last year, that

figure had spiked to over 17 million households. additionally, america has experienced phenomenal growth in wireless broadband adoption. mobile broadband was virtually unheard of in 2002. but by the end of last year, an estimated 100 million americans subscribed to wireless broadband activities. america is home to more wireless companies than any other countries in the world. more than half americans have a choice of five wireless providers. 94% have a choice of 4. similarly, we lead the world in 3g buildout and adoption. not only has investment and innovation been dynamic in the telecom core of the internet environment, but economic activity at the edge of networks has been nothing short of explosive as well. for instance, last year americans led the world by

downloading over 837 applications on their mobile devices. not only does the u.s. have one-third of the world's market share of mobile apps, but the american mobile app market has seen an astonish nine fold increase in just two years. as impressive as that statistic is, it will seem small two years from now. hundreds of thousands of mobile applications are pouring into the market while countless more are on the way from thousands of developers for years to come. as a direct result of adopting policies that ensure the net would be regulated only with a light touch, the internet environment is growing and evolving faster than any individual company or government can measure. today the net operates in an open and free marketplace where innovation and investment are thriving. in fact, some estimate that

private sector investment and broadband infrastructure exceeded $60 billion last year alone. as the commission and congress move to consider the ideas offered up by the office of broadband initiative, we should make sure that first and foremost we do no harm. for instance, cable modem services are available to 92 million households. merely by upgrading cable systems with the 3.0 system which is expected to happen over the next few years anyway, over 104 million american homes will have access to speeds of up to 100 megs. in other words, unless the government provides disincentives to investment, the plan's goal of reaching 100 million households with 100 meg services should be attained well before 2020 if -- if we allow current trends to continue in an unfettered manner.

i look forward to working with my colleagues to adopt policies that allow investment, innovation, competition, and adoption in the broadband market to continue to flourish. now, as we go forward, i agree that some aspects of the plan deserve further investigation. for example, although the plan places great emphasis on long-term spectrum needs and rightfully so, i'm hopeful that we will also consider ideas that call for more efficient use of the spectrum. these include more robust deployment of enhanced antenna systems, improved development, testing and rollout of creative technologies where appropriate such as cognitive radios. and enhanced consideration of more targeted consumer education on the use of cells. each of these technological options already available in the marketplace augment capacity and coverage which are especially important for data and multimedia transmissions.

as i've said for quite some time, we should accelerate our efforts to create a more specific framework for allowing unlicensed use of the television white spaces. i'm also interested in using some portion of this spectrum to provide wireless backhaul in rural areas. our work on white spaces started under fcc chairman michael powell. and we are long overdue to make it a reality for all american consumers. similarly, we should explore our authority under section 336 to provide television broadcasters an incentive to lease that spectrum. focusing on this statutorily permissible and voluntary mechanism for leasing parts of the airwaves may be an easier path to of accelerating deployment of advanced services than more coercive means. furthermore we should bring spectrum that is lying fallow to auction as quickly as possible.

i agree with the plan's recommendations that government should strive to lead in relinquishing spectrum it does not use effectively or sometimes at all. improved interagency coordination is vital in this pursuit. reform of our universal service fund and intercarrier compensation mechanisms is of embarrassingly overdue. as a commission, we came very close to codifying consensus on reforms in late 2008. unfortunately, needless procedural road blocks got in our way that prevented us from consummating any agreements. i hope we can rekindle that same bipartisan spirit that existed at that time and any future proceedings. since 2007, i've said that any uss reform must accomplish five basic objectives.

the commission must number one contain the growth of the fund. number two, broaden the base of contributors. number three, reduce -- reduce the contribution burden. by the way, the contribution factor has grown from 5.53% during the first quarter of 1998 to currently a level of 15.3%, which is an all-time high. this money-grab not only burdens america's consumers the most. it is evidence that the fund's viability is in question. number 4, we should ensure competitive neutrality and number 5, of course, we should continue to eliminate waste, fraud and other abuses of the system. all of this should be accomplished before -- before embarking upon any effort to alter the distribution system.

i'm sure that the plan contains many ideas that i can support and further study of it will reveal such proposals in the days to come. at the same time, though, i would be remiss if i did not point out some ideas that do give me some concern. first, the plan opens the door to classifying broadband services as old-fashioned monopoly-era circuit switch voice of the communications act of 1934. broadband's deployment and adoption have flourished in the absence of such regulations. not only do i doubt that such a reclassification would survive appeal, i don't see how foist ago regulatory framework first devised in the 19th century would help a competitive 21st century marketplace continue to thrive but we'll have plenty of time to engage in this debate. second, the plan has the markets

deployed since the agency deregulated some of these components. as a result -- as a result of that deregulation, final enter deployment has spiked in recent years. rather than reverse course, the commission should ensure that any future actions will not create regulatory uncertainty and have risk that could spur away capital investment. third, the plan refers to the elephant in the room. the proceeding that has shadowed the plan since last fall. the open internet or net neutrality proceeding. although the plan does not take a position on that proceeding, i take this opportunity to reiterate my serious concerns regarding this agency embarking on such a regulatory journey to begin with. additionally, i question the recommendation that appears to ask congress to fund a new communications venture that unlike current funding for

public broadcasting would cover new online digital platforms and expand the eligible pool of applicants beyond fcc license holders. i cannot in good conscience today endorse new federal spending for this or other ideas contained in the plan when our government is spending record amounts by taking on monumental levels of debt all while america's families and businesses are cutting their budgets in an attempt to restore fiscal responsibility. in the same spirit, i'm concerned that the plan may have given new life to ideas that could -- could result in the imposition of new taxes on the internet. federal preemption of internet taxation could be beneficial but only if result -- it results in more freedom. furthermore, although the recommendation that congress amend the fair use provision of the copyright act has been the subject of recent constructive edits, it is still not clear how broadly the plan's proposal actually sweeps.

copyright issues in the digital era are highly complex. more importantly, policies that support strong enforcement of property rights including intellectual property rights will encourage the creation of more compelling content that could help spur more investment. i caution the commission to tread gingerly. technological mandates by the government almost never result in robust innovation. in fact, history shows that such mandates more often than not are counterproductive. it is my hope that if the commission is to act at all in this area, it starts with a notice of inquiry to explore whether any further action is necessary. finally, after the commission's

workshop on capital investment on the broadband sector last october i was hopeful that the plan would contain a chapter discussing and making recommendations on the ideas several commenters submitted in the record regarding tax incentives to spur more broadband deployment and adoption. helping to elevate that discussion could lead to new ideas that could further our goal of greater broadband ubiquity. in sum, today's plan is the product of countless hours by the undaunted broadband plan team. now is the time to debate the recommendations in a positive, constructive and civil manner. while we may disagree at times on the best paths to follow during our upcoming journey, we can agree on at least the primary destination. a country that offers faster broadband access to more americans at affordable prices.

and now it is time to get to work on this important endeavor. mr. chairman, i also want to take this opportunity to thank your senior legal advisor for his continued generosity, graciousness and leadership. it goes without saying that i look forward to working with you, all of my colleagues, and the entire fcc team in our effort to achieve our common goals. thank you very much.

>> we're going to take you live to the white house. robert gibbs about to start the briefing. live coverage here on c-span2. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon. i think as the weather gets nicer we might want to move this -- like class we should move this outside and everybody -- >> absolutely. >> oh, wow! wow! all right. wow, i didn't think that would be easily accepted. without objection, so ordered. i will have -- i will have -- i'll have walker start setting that up. that sounds like a great idea. that sounds good. mr. fell? >> thank you, sir. >> now that we've broken all the news.

let's move forward. go ahead. >> on healthcare a few questions. does the president support the idea the house passing the healthcare bill without ever actually voting on it? >> ben, i think you've heard the president express over these past couple of weeks, this week there will there will be a final vote on healthcare. there will be an up or down vote on where we are on healthcare. on the president's plan to reform our healthcare system. and i think that is -- that's what he's focused on. that's what -- that's why he's talking to members to gain their support for. >> but there's a scenario unfolding in which the house would vote on the bill as you know. but never actually vote on the underlying senate bill. and the house speaker has been candid on that. if that happens, would the president be okay with that? >> ben, there's going to be a

vote on healthcare reform this week. you're going to know where people are on healthcare reform. i'm sure there are those who want to make this about the legislative process rather than the heart-wrenching stories of people that the president discussed yesterday. but the vote that we have on healthcare this week -- and i'm not under the impression that the house has made up its mind on what that process is going to be. i haven't read it. but i don't think there's any doubt the -- this will be a final vote on healthcare. you'll know where healthcare is. >> well, the president, along with policy, has said the process is important to the american people's transparency. so when you said a vote, don't you think it's important that we vote on the bill? >> again, i don't think anybody is going to be missing -- i don't think anybody is going to misinterpret the outcome as to where people are on healthcare. i anticipate i'll get questions today on who the president is

speaking with and who's he meeting with. and you're going to ask me -- right. and you want to know that -- hold on. let me finish my point. and you're going to want to know where they are on healthcare. when you do your whip counts, you're trying to figure out who's where on healthcare. i don't imagine there's many republican strategists that you will interview this week that will say we will look at the vote that's going to be had on friday or so. and it's not about healthcare. so again, the president is focused on -- after having worked on this for a year, getting this done, focusing on the stories that he repeated yesterday outside of cleveland, on behalf people like natoma canfield and believes that the stakes are higher than the next election or somebody's poll numbers next week. >> so just to follow up, who's

the president meeting with and speaking with? >> since you brought it up. >> undecided members of congress who will vote this week on healthcare reform. >> and just to follow up on that, when he does meet with lawmakers particularly one-on-one, what is he -- what is he offering them in exchange for the votes if anything? >> offering the case for why healthcare reform should be passed this year. offering the case of why 60% of small businesses will receive a tax cut in helping provide their employees with healthcare. offering the case for why the mother of a young child won't sit on the phone anymore with an insurance company arguing about a so-called preexisting condition. those are the types of anecdotes the president will be offering members of congress about why it's important to put aside the day-to-day politics. put aside the next election. put aside your poll numbers and

instead focus on the problems that the american people have. >> so you're saying he's just making that case for the bill. no quid pro quo? >> no. [inaudible] >> let me get around. we'll be here for a while, i presume. >> i would like to move to china. if the administration has any reaction to the bill that's being put to the senate by schumer and graham? -- gramm. >> i don't think we saw the text of the legislation. you saw the president a few days ago that he wished and hoped that china approached their currency -- using more market-based interpretation. and i would point you to the treasury for any further announcements on that. >> there does seem to be rising rhetoric. is the president concerned that it would undermine with china collaborating in the g20 -- >> as i've said before, the

president believes that diplomatic relationships sometimes come with disagreement. we've been reading about a few recently. but that doesn't -- that doesn't curtail our ability to work on problems of mutual concern like the global economic recovery. >> but does the president still believe as he said in the campaign that does manipulate its currency? >> again, i would refer you to what the president said a few days ago. >> i want to push a little bit on the up or down vote. the president said, look, ohio, that's the proposal and i believe congress owe a final up or down vote. he's promising the american people repeatedly in the last couple of weeks including the east room with the doctors in the white coats a straight up or down vote. why are you not being clear with the american people about what you want the house to do? >> ed, we're being clear. we're being clear with the people of the united states and with congress that there's going to be a vote this week and

you're going to know how people are -- where they stand on healthcare >> but it may not be a vote on the actual legislation. >> again, this, i think, is a legislative process game -- no, no -- >> why won't democrats go on the record -- >> let me stress this point. i'm sure that cnn is going to be filled with stories between now and when that vote happens about where people are on that vote. you're asking people where they are on healthcare reform. you're trying to get -- you're trying to get -- find out what meetings are happening here so you can ask people where they are on healthcare reform. that's what this vote is going to be about. you're going to know where people are on healthcare reform and where they are on the president's proposal on healthcare reform not on where they are on a rule. >> sure, but it's also -- that part is true. leading up to the vote but it's been a fundamental part of this republic that basicallyçó at th end of a long debate like this, there's -- >> no. let's understand that this is --

again, i'm not under the impression the house made a final decision. that announcement -- [inaudible] >> because i'm not the speaker of the house. she will make that announcement. she will make that decision. but understand, ed, again, we hear the same process arguments from the same people that used very similar arguments on their side of this in many previous congresses. so again it's a little bit like reconciliation. i was against it before i was for it and now you point out that -- >> the weight of your arguments are so much on the right side of history. why not just go before the american people and say -- >> i don't think when you go out in the public next week after the legislation passes and ask testimony how they will feel about their congressman or congresswoman's vote on healthcare reform. that's what this is vote is about.

>> robert, without getting into specific numbers can you tell us what percentage of the president's day he's devoting to making these calls. is he getting a lot of push-back? are these long conversations? are they short? what are the nature of these calls. >> longer with some than others. [inaudible] >> in english? >> as opposed to other words. no. this is children-approved programming, helen. let's be good. i have not gotten a list of members that he's called today. but i know -- obviously, he talked with representative kucinich yesterday on air force one. he's talked with and called either -- met with or called members over the past several days. and again, made the case for why reform is important now. why this has to be the time we

do something with healthcare >> why is this argument -- >> i think we are making -- making steady progress toward passage of the bill this week. >> do you think that this is his entire day is devoted to making these calls? is it half the day? >> no. i'd have to go back and look at his -- at the in depth schedule to give you an educated guess on percentage. but, no -- i mean, look, the president again, you know, has a pdb every day. we have a senior advisors meeting. and he's got stuff later today that doesn't deal with healthcare. [inaudible] >> pulling out of these horrible wars where innocent people are killed and take care of the desperate needs in this country in the city, for health, education and welfare? >> helen, obviously, relating to

iraq, we have -- we're on a path to getting our combat troops out of there by the end of august. you've seen in both iraq and afghanistan -- we obviously are -- we have apologized on numerous occasions for the loss of innocent life. >> to human life? >> no. it certainly doesn't. those are the type of actions that you obviously regret. you've seen ambassador eikenberry and general mcchrystal say those exact things. >> but there are people -- >> to civilians in afghanistan. but i would say we would not be in afghanistan if the president didn't think it was in our strong national interest to do so. as it relates to the other part of your question, i think the president has outlined a robust

agenda for improving healthcare reform in this country or improving healthcare in this country for -- i think we laid out many ways to improve our educational system and make our children more competitive and ready for either a career or college at the end of high school. and to address other problems that the president believes has been there for quite some time. [inaudible] >> again, we've made some tough decisions about how to pay for healthcare reform. different than has been done in the last few years in washington. we believe there are priorities that the president should pay for and we have. chip? >> thank you, robert. you talked earlier about what the president is offering people when he makes these calls. is he offering to campaign in their districts and to come out and raise money for them? >> the president is focused on the case that he will make and the case that he hopes everyone makes on why this legislation is

important for the american people, important for the constituents of their district. >> there's been numerous reports that he and/or the white house have made specific offers to campaign and raise money for wavering democrats. >> bale there's reports we won't campaign for people that don't which are also -- those are incorrect. >> so the president has not made any -- >> i've not been in every meeting, chip. again, the president is focused on outlining the merits on behalf of the legislation and the policy that again will cut costs for the american people, make healthcare more affordable. >> i understand he's focused on that but also he at the end of the call hey, i'll campaign for you and i'll raise money for you? >> i assume we'll campaign for many people. some will vote for it and some will vote against it. the president doesn't spend his time doing scheduling in political events. >> is there a quid pro quo? >> no, i said that earlier to ben that's not the case. >> and he's not going to make

the campaigning and raising money -- >> he's focused on -- he's focused on the legislation at hand. >> you said speaker pelosi will make the decision -- or will announce the decision on how the house proceeds procedurally on this. is the president involved in any way in making that decision? >> not that i'm aware of. >> and are people in the white house involved in making that decision? >> i assume that we have been involved for many, many months on getting healthcare done. i don't know all the conversations whether they weighed in on process. >> the final decision is hers and not the white house? >> yeah, the final decision is on the speaker's. >> last week you went through the different states where there had been special deals, louisiana, nebraska, montana. do you stand by the list of deals that were taken out of the legislation last week? >> i'm happy to look at it again. i don't have any reason to

believe -- >> is the president still fighting to keep the special deals out of this? >> i think we've taken quite a bit out of there and have asked the senate to take anything else out that again as i think you saw people outline would benefit one place or one state rather than something that can be -- that can affect a broader group of people. >> how about montana, for example, does the president support keeping that in? >> i think i addressed that last week. >> do you stand by it now? >> i do. >> do you believe this demon path scenario constitutes an up or down vote? >> i think that -- i think that you're going to ask people how they stand on healthcare. you're not going to ask them how they stand on demon pass. you're going to have a vote count that constructs not on the -- >> but you guys would be satisfied since you extolled the

virtues of an up or down vote you would be satisfied with this demon pass scenario? >> again, i think there are many that would want to conflate this process into something that's different than the product. that is different than the heart-wrenching stories of people as i've said like natoma canfield that -- who made decisions to give up -- who made a decision to give up her healthcare to keep her house, a gamble that she's lost. >> i ask about the up or down vote because speaker pelosi said i'm quoting, i like it, the scenario because people don't have to vote on the senate bill. >> i would ask one of her -- i would ask one of her capable spokespeople on what she had to say. >> all right. but would you agree that there's there seems to be some inconsistency between what she said -- [inaudible] >> and then real quickly would

you agree that it exacerbates the perception that this is a dirty or underhanded process? >> no. >> thank you, robert. there's been some reporting today that the israelis are considering even more settlement activity after their announcement during the vice president's trip last week. what is the reaction of the obama administration to this latest increase in the settlement activity? >> these are reports of? i don't want to base my comments off of would-be reports of. i'm certainly happy to comment at some point based on -- on whether or not the reports are actual. i would say this. i think that last week the vice president -- last week the vice president was in israel to reaffirm our unwavering commitment to the security of israel and its people.

as i said earlier, mature bilateral relationships can have disagreements. and this is one of those disagreements. it does not -- it does not break the unbreakable bond that we have with the israeli government and with the israeli people on their security. we have throughout this process hoped to engender the type of trust between the two sides that would lead to sitting down and discussing directly these issues. events on either side that complicate that, we condemn on either side. and we'll continue to do that. >> can i follow up on that. >> the president has said the problem with the politics of the healthcare bill is not with the policy and the process.

what is the difference between a demon pass or a self-enacting rule and the kind of process that the president was condemning when he made those statements? >> i think we were -- i think the president was talking about the end of the senate bill on some of the deals that chip asked me about that are gone. >> so the deals are different from the final announcement? >> well, again, jonathan this is a process that has been used -- again, i'm struck by the richness by which people can pivot to believe what they used 4 out of 10 times in a previous congress to pass things now have great objections -- >> what be -- >> i'm not holding -- i'm not changing the standard we're holding ourselves to. i'm pointing out the low standards with which many of the people that you're asking me about have quoted as saying.

when republicans use these types of rules 4 out of 10 times in a previous congress and then vociferously object to the use of that rule now, i think -- i think that is -- no, again, the standard is to embrace something and then find it objectionable, a pivot that requires something few figure skaters in the olympics are able to pull off. >> is this the first -- is this the most significant social policy legislation to pass in 30 years? or is this another run-of-the-mill bill going through a process that has been used -- >> well, that's a quantatively different argument you're making now. right? [inaudible] >> jonathan, jonathan, but neither can somebody else have the argument. so you're saying that it's not whether that is used. you're talking about -- you're saying that the use is based on the scope; is that right? >> yes. >> well, then -- so it doesn't anymore have to do with the use of the rule. you've now switched the argument

to be the rule can only not be used if the scope exceeds some arbitrary barrier, right? it's not whether i would agree with it. i'm asking whether your agreement to the previous scenario extends to the latter scenario? i'll come back to you. you can think about that. yeah, go ahead. >> on to the schumer and the china currency stuff, schumer and gramm says it helps to put pressure on the chinese. do you agree that the congressional pressure helps go towards the goal. the president has been very clear about which is to have more market-oriented appreciation of the yuan. >> not having evaluated the legislation or the proposal, i think the president has been clear recently. the president was clear with the chinese in beijing about a market-oriented approach to their currency. >> i don't want to get in the specifics of the legislation.

the language, the body language from capitol hill. does that help? does the president thinks that helps with the leverage of the chinese? >> look, i think the most leverage the president has is sitting face-to-face with leaders in beijing and telling them that a market-oriented approach to their currency -- i think that's about as much leverage as one can bring to bear in a single sive. >> do you think some of the rhetoric gets toned down from capitol hill? >> i didn't pass judgment on their proposal. >> eric cantor called rahm emanuel a couple days ago and asked him to tone down the rhetoric -- >> i think it was yesterday. >> against israel. he said when you -- when you scold israel basically you take some of the pressure off the palestinians to do their own negotiating. do you disagree with that? >> again, as i said -- as i said earlier today and as i said last week when asked about this, there are actions that each side

takes that hurt the trust needed to bring these two sides together. the state department reiterated -- or i will reiterate what the state department said yesterday about the deep concern that we have around inflammatory rhetoric around the rededication of a synagogue in jerusalem. again, prime minister netanyahu has apologized and found regrettable the timing of the decision that was announced during the vice president's trip. i think what is -- what is important to understand, and i believe congressman cantor understands, that despite a disagreement that you might have, our commitment to israel's security is unchanged. our commitment to its people is unchanged. the vice president --

[inaudible] >> the vice president reiterated that at the beginning of his trip. that was the reason for his trip. he reiterated that in his speech after the prime minister found cause for regret. the vice president reiterated our commitment to israel's security. >> also on healthcare, in order to get the senate bill through the house, if there is a specific vote, you're going to have to change the minds of some of the 31 democrats voting against the house bill in november. what gives you confidence that you can do that? what gives you confidence? especially since there are a number of democrats who voted in favor of the house bill who now say they can't support the senate measure? >> right. but -- you're talking about somebody like a member who is more -- well, i'll say this.

look, i think there are those that -- that voted against the legislation for any number of reasons, not believe that there was enough cost control in the legislation or disagreeing with the mechanisms that were set up around choice and competition that they might -- may find the senate bill more to their liking in terms of of that. i think that -- again, i think the case that the president will make -- i also think the case -- one of the strong cases the president will make as we get to the end of this debate, i do think it becomes far more crystallized in people's minds that this is the last chance to do something. and what does our healthcare system look like if we do nothing?

we know. letters come with skyrocketing rate increases. on the individual market. families will see over the course of the next several years average premiums for a family go from $13,000 to $24,000. that's what happens if we walk away. and i think that in many ways is having a positive effect on the idea of doing something now. >> is that the case the president made to dennis kucinich? >> i think that's probably part of the case that he made to him. and then he was helped by somebody in the crowd that the president asked that person to repeat. so the congressman could hear. yes, sir. >> robert, by your way of thinking, by the end of the week, friday or saturday, we'll have a vote and either healthcare will have passed or it will have failed, is the --

>> just by the way, i think -- i'm not going to go way out on a limb here. but i'm -- i moderately believe most in the room believe that. >> will his voice be absent in the week following that as the reverberations from whatever happens on, you know, one way or the other that he will be halfway around the world. >> they'll be asking him ad nauseam about indonesia and australia about democracy over here. we better get a much better indonesia briefing for the president. >> but i mean, he's prepared to be there during that -- during that week? >> yes. and i'll say this, michael, more seriously, when the president,

as i said last week when the president talked to the speaker and the majority leader, while there was an agreement to give both sides a few extra days of the president's time to help passage, the president was also -- the president and the leaders also agreed of the foreign of the trip. -- importance of the trip. i went through some of that on the trip and we're critical to indonesia in helping on counterterrorism and ultimately on protecting our country. the type of trading relationships that we have with these two countries and that we hope to expand with these two countries. help grow our economy. so it is -- it is -- it is an important trip that the president will take. and i think he's -- he looks forward to it? >> can i just follow up? >> sure. >> are there people that you are

leaving behind that you would normally -- it would normally take that trip but are staying here to deal with that week -- >> and we will show you all of this later in our program schedule. we're going to leave this live coverage and take you live to the u.s. senate gaveling back in to continue on a work that extends faa programs. live coverage here on c-span2. amendment 3475, and amendment -- an amendment that has been at the desk on f.a.a. re-authorization and -- they are all at the desk. and the other four concern the federal aviation administration development of finance proposal for developing and implementation of technology for the next generation air transportation system. the presiding officer: is there objection?

no objection, so ordered. report the amendments. the clerk: the senator from arizona, mr. mccain, proposes amendments en bloc 3472, 3475, 3527, and 3528. mr. mccain: parliamentary inquiry. is 3528 on the grand canyon national park? the presiding officer: yes, it is. mr. mccain: i thank the chair, and i would like to discuss all four amendments briefly. the first is the prohibition of amendments -- prohibition of earmarks in years in which there is a deficit. i have been pleased and somewhat surprised over the past week to hear about the renewed bipartisan interest in banning earmarks. i'm thankful for the attention, and i welcome the house democratic leadership to fight against earmarks.

according to last thursday's "washington post," i -- quote -- facing an election year backlash overrunaway spending and ethics scandals, house democrats moved wednesday to ban earmarks for private companies. sparking a war between the parties over which would embrace the most dramatic steps to change the way business is done in washington. i was pleased to see the speaker of the house and chairman of the house appropriations committee have recognized earmarks for what they are. they are a corrupting influence that should not be tolerated in these times of fiscal crisis. i applaud my republican colleagues in the house and senate, especially senator coburn and demint, who have called for a year-long moratorium on all earmarks. i fully support and join them in those efforts, but i think we need to do more. we need a complete ban on earmarks until our budget is balanced, and we have eliminated our massive deficit, and this amendment promises to do just

that. i encourage my colleagues to join me in this effort. it's what the american people want. we have an obligation to give it to them, and i'm pleased to be joined by my good friend from indiana, senator bayh. the next amendment that i'd like to discuss very quickly is that no funds from the past year facility fee could be used to construct bike storage facilities at airports. as many -- as many know, the passenger facility fees assessed on every ticket or any flight. currently, this fee is $4.50 per flight, and during these very difficult economic times for most americans, the bill from the house raises this fee to $7 and indexes it to inflation. it's frustrating but more frustrating is that taxes and fees make up as much as 25% of every passenger's airline

ticket, and i think that most airline passengers would agree with me that they would see -- rather see more improvements to ensure faster travel times and safer departure and arrivals. the "atlanta journal constitution" reported earlier this year on january 14, 2010, that $1.5 million of passengers' facility fees were used for a, quote -- "function art project of glass panels laminated with patterns of tree bark." sounds beautiful, but i know most americans want these excessive fees and charges to be used effectively and for the goal that congress intended to improve safety and performance. on the issue of the amendment concerning -- to move the next generation air traffic control forward, this amendment would require the f.a.a. to report

back to congress in 90 days with proposals for innovative financing mechanisms, to further the deployment and implementation of a modernized air traffic control system known as nextgen. specifically, the report requires these innovative financing proposals to not increase our federal deficit and consider public-private partnerships. as the distinguished chairman of the committee knows oh so well, modernizing our outdated air traffic control system will positively impact all americans by decreasing airport delays, improving the flow of commerce and advancing our nation's air quality by reducing aircraft carbon emissions. every day, americans sit on a runway and miss meetings, children's soccer games, family dinners, and other important events due to air traffic delays that could have been avoided if our nation had a modernized air traffic control system. thousands of goods are delayed for delivery each year due to

air traffic delays which results in more than $40 billion of costs each year that are passed on to consumers according to the joint economic committee. the government accountability office estimates that one in every four flights in the united states of america is delayed. the airlines have called our air traffic control system -- "an outdated world war ii radar system." the f.a.a.'s next generation air traffic transportation system, nextgen, will transform the current ground-based radar air traffic control system to one that uses precision satellites, digital, network communications, and an integrated weather system. moving from a ground base to a satellite based system will enable more flights to occupy the same airspace, meaning that the on-time performance improvements would be a reality with triple the aircraft capacity, according to the

airlines. however, the administration and congress have not provided adequate funding toward air traffic control modernization and instead continue to fund billions of dollars of earmarks. the f.a.a. estimates that it will cost up to $42 billion to implement a modern air traffic control system. congress appropriated appropriated $188 million for air traffic control modernization in 2008 and and $638 million in 2009. then another $358 million in the fiscal year 2010 department of transportation appropriations bill. however, that same bill dedicated $1.7 billion on transportation earmarks. we have got to stop spending billions of dollars and instead spend our -- cut spending or at least spend taxpayers' dollars on worthy projects. and again, i would like to thank the chairman of the committee for his efforts over many years

on f.a.a. modernization. there is no doubt that the airlines are right when they describe our air traffic control system as, quote -- "an outdated world war ii radar system. "it's really a shame that all these years, we have had attempts that failed and wastes of billions of dollars in our efforts to modernize the air traffic control system, and we have failed, but we have got to redouble our efforts, and as we expect the economy to recover, there will be more aircraft flying in crowded airspace, there will be a more dangerous situation unless we modernize our air traffic control system. the final amendment that i have is to provide standards for determining whether the substantial restoration of the natural quiet and experience of the grand canyon national park has been achieved and to clarify regulatory authority with respect to commercial air tours operating over the park. i see my colleagues waiting, and

i won't take a lot of time on this amendment but i'd like to mention to my colleagues that it was approximately 25 years ago that i proposed legislation to restore natural quiet in the great experience of the grand canyon national park. all of these years have intervened and there still has not been regulations written to implement that legislation. all of us share the same goal. we have been able to sit down with the help of the majority leader's office, senator ensign's office and senator kyl's office and others to try to make progress on this important issue. i think we have brought all parties together. i think there is consensus, but -- and so i'm hoping that we will be able to adopt this amendment without further disagreement. it's important that we restore the natural quiet and experience the grand canyon national park.

at the same time it's very important also that people from all over the world have the opportunity to enjoy one of the great and magnificent experiences that any person can have, and that is to view the grand canyon from the air as well as from the ground. i think this legislation represents that careful balance. i thank senator reid and senator ensign and senator kyl for their efforts in crafting this legislation. it's time we acted. i appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues. mr. chairman, i yield the floor. mr. rockefeller: mr. preside? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. rockefeller: i would say to the good senator from the state of arizona that we have a number of amendments that are already more or less agreed to. more amendments are coming in including several that he has mentioned here, and we want a chance to look at those to see

whether those are -- i heard one amendment, for example, that sounded pretty easy to do. the earmark amendment -- i actually -- i'm not dissing this, but i just can't resist but point something out, and that is on earmarks. this would ban earmarks for the foreseeable future. let me redefine that. in the last 71 years, the congress of the united states has had a budget -- has not had a budget deficit in only 13 years. so you can see for the foreseeable future, it's sort of a large matter. nevertheless, we welcome the chance to look at that and work on it, and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey.

mr. menendez: mr. president, i rise to talk about two issues. first, i will talk about the pending business before the senate, which is the f.a.a. re-authorization in a moment, and i certainly want to commend my dear friend and colleague, the distinguished chairman of the commerce committee, for what he has done in bringing the re-authorization to the floor, the manner in which he has fashioned it, and this is an opportunity to create 150,000 jobs, modernize our system for this 21st century, save millions of gallons of fuel that gets spent under a system that is antiquated and people sitting in planes just idling. $9 billion in lost revenue to the nation as a result of an antiquated system. all of this will be dealt with with the f.a.a. re-authorization, but before i get to that, i want to speak for a moment on an item that we will be voting on tomorrow which is critically important, the hire act, to make sure we put the nation back to work.

and one of those items that i think is incredibly important that has been getting, i think, the wrong view here is the question of the build america bonds. it's one that has been debated quite a bit on the floor the last couple of times we have been in session. my view is that these bonds have been one of the most successful pieces of the economic recovery package passed last year. they have helped to finance nearly $80 billion in economic development projects in all 50 states. those are projects that are win-win for america. by helping state and local governments finance vital public infrastructure projects, we're putting americans back to work, building better, stronger communities, better schools, retooling our infrastructure, preparing for the new economy. that's what makes the build america bonds so effective.

by lowering borrowing costs, these bonds incentivize investments in our communities across america. this gives state and local entities the resources to fund badly needed projects, projects that we all benefit from. now, mr. president, these bonds have been a resounding success. as a matter of fact, in a november article by steven gandell that appeared on time.com, it ran under this headline -- "a stimulus success: build america bonds are working." in this article, amy resnick, the editor in chief of a publication which followed bond markets was quoted as saying -- "it's clearly been a success as a means of stimulating the economy." and when we talk about stimulating the economy, ultimately we're talking about putting americans back to work. the the

bill we have before us that we'll vote on tomorrow expands this successful program to allow issuers of school construction and energy project bonds to convert these tax credit bonds into a build america bond. seems like a rather simple provision to me, a commonsense provision that says if it's been successful, why not expand on it? if we can stimulate needed construction for schools in communities across america, if we have a proven way to promote putting people to work on critical energy projects, why wouldn't we do it? now, some of my republican friends say they want to work on job creation, but i find it ironic that on one hand they speak about creating jobs, on the other hand they criticize build america bonds for -- quote -- "doing too much to create jobs and facilitate investment in vital public projects in communities across america." mr. president, you can't have it both ways. you can't blame the majority for

not focusing on job creation while criticizing one of the most successful programs as having done too much. at a time of 10% unemployment, the question is not are we helping our communities too mu much. rather, the fundamental question the congress must be focused on is how do we create more investment so that we can create more jobs, so that we can put more americans back to work. i think the lessons of history are important. build america bonds, the jobs they create, the good they do underscore some of the historic differences between this side of the aisle and the other side. history tells us that in difficult economic times, creating badly needed jobs for families struggling to make ends meet strengthens the economy and helps us rebuild a better future. in the great depression, franklin roosevelt understood the need for government to step in and create jobs. he rebuilt america's rusted, old

19th century infrastructure, retooled old systems and prepared the nation for the 20th century. history has a way of repeating itself. we shouldn't ignore it. we should, instead, learn from it, learn from our great successes so we don't repeat our worst failures. a proactive government creating a jobs agenda and putting people back to work during the new deal, rebuilding our infrastructure was one of those successes. on the other hand, a static government, doing nothing to create jobs in the face of massive unemployment, as herbert hoover did, was one of our worst failures. it seems to me the lesson of history is clear: if we're too shortsighted to repeat the things that work, we're doomed to repeat the things that failed. finally, mr. president, on the second issue i want to talk about and the pending issue before the senate is that we

need this f.a.a. reauthorization bill because it will create jobs over 150,000, it will reduce congestion, that $9 billion lost for america by airplanes idling and people not being productive at work as they try on get to their business appointments and others who get lost along the way in items of the time that they've lost being with their families and friends. and it also improves safety, which should be job one. it will get an investment in infrastructure that will get more people to their destinations on whic two words e want to hear more and more, which the chairman is trying to make happen: on time. on time. and it will address several essential safety issues relating to oversight, pilot training, pilot safety, pilot fatigue after the tragic colgan air crash last year in buffalo. this bill takes several steps to

ensure that, one, extremely high level of safety exists throughout the entire transportation system. it protects passengers from being stranded on the tarmac like those at stewart airport in new york who sat on a plane that ran out of food. things got so bad that each passenger was given four potato chips and half a cup of water. that's simply ridiculous and unacceptable. this bill will put an end to these stories by requiring each airline to provide adequate provisions to stranded planes and give all passengers a right to deplane after three hours, if not sooner. so i want to salute senator rockefeller and the members of the commerce committee who've worked to bring this important bill to the floor. there are some things i hope that we have offered that will be accepted into a managers' amendment. i look forward to some opportunities. you know, we have something called the clean airfares act.

i believe that when you buy a ticket, you should have a right to know what you're paying for. anything short of that is simply unfair. my amendment number 3506 would require airlines to be upfront with their fees so consumers can make an informed decisions. it seems like the airlines have never met a fee they do not like. and these are some of them, mr. president. we've got two he's he wills here -- easels here just to make the case. rather busy. but this gives you a sense, these two charts that lay out 13 common airline fees that 18 different airlines assign. fees for ordering your ticket by phone, fuel surcharges, fees for traveling with a pet, last year they invented a new fee, it's called the holiday fee. because these fees don't appear alongside a ticket's base air fair, consumers have little --

airfare, consumers have little idea how much the ticket will eventually cost them. so i bought an example that we worked on to dramatize what we're talking about here. airline a's ticket from b.w.i. airport to laguardia airport appears to be $2 cheaper than airline b's ticket, $223.40 compared to $225.40. but then come the hidden fees. airline a charges you $120 round-trip to check two bags plus an additional $200 to travel with a pet. by contrast, airline b allows you to check two bags for free and charges you $150 to travel with a pet. the end result, when you add the fees up, is that what appeared to be the least expensive ticket

for the same exact flight is actually $150 more expensive. $150 more expensive. my amendment shines the light on airline fees and surcharges so consumers have an accurate picture of what their trip is likely to cost them. so we hope that the committee will accept that. you know, we also have an amendment on focused flying, which was written in response to the flight that flew 150 miles beyond its destination, allegedly because the pilots were too distracted to notice the airport. i'm pleased that working closely with senator dorgan and the committee, we were able to include language in the underlying bill that would prohibit unnecessary electronic devices in the cockpit. however, i believe it's important that we look at all pilot distractions, and our amendment calls for the f.a.a. to conduct a study on the broader issue of distracted

flying and its impact on flight safety. and the last amendment i have filed will require the f.a.a. to monitor the air noise impacts of new jersey, new york, philadelphia airspace redesigned and simply provide that data to the public. i have not been supportive of the airspace redesign, in part because it was done in such a way where noise impacts are rather severe. now that the redesign is being implemented, i think simply the public has a right to know what consequences there are in that redesign and that some level of transparency should be provided to the flying public and the communities that are affected. lastly, i look forward to what i hope in the end product, as we move through this chamber and have a conference, that no longer makes it tougher for some workers to organize unions than others who do the same work. i believe the rules should be applied evenly across the board.

unions help improve safety standards which not only benefit workers, it touches all of us who drive on our roads or fly in our skies, and i hope the ultimate result will create that opportunity. so it's time that we finally pass the f.a.a. reauthorization. it will create jobs, it will make our flying experience saf safer, it will make it more efficient, we will save money in our economy, and i look forward to working with chairman rockefeller to make the bill one that we can continue to be proud as we fly the skies of our country. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. rockefeller: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. rockefeller: i want to compliment the senator from new jersey, who is complimented far too little for doing so many good things, but he did a lot of them on the floor this afterno afternoon. i really appreciated what you said, which is not related to aviation, about the school

bonding. it makes an enormous difference that's been changed a bit to make it more effective at the state level, and i appreciate the fact you said that. and the points that you made with respect to some of the amendments to the aviation bill seem to make a lot of sense. the last one may cause some discussion, but i know the senator and i know what's in his heart and he always speaks the truth. so that's what i have to say. i thank the presiding officer. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: may i simply thank my distinguished colleague and chairman for his remarks, his observations, and i -- we look forward to working with the committee to achieve some of these things and to achieve ultimate success with you at the end of the day. mr. rockefeller: you know, you could -- you could join the commerce committee. i mean, you're right up there in the leadership and i know the junior member of the -- no, no, no. i won't take that any further.

anyway, i respect everything you do. mr. menendez: thank you, very much. mr. rockefeller: i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

qowbility qowbilitroll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. dorgan: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be vacated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. dorgan: mr. president, i just visited with senator rockefeller and, of course, we, along with senator hutchison is trying to pass an f.a.a. reauthorization bill. this is not as easy as it sounds. this is not one of the most controversial or difficult or passionate issues that divides america. we have plenty of those issues around. this is about modernizing our air traffic control system, about reauthorizing the airport program, airport safety. a wide range of issues. still, anything that is brought to the floor of the united states senate these days slows down way, way, way down and that is the case with this bill as

well. i've described it as walking through wet cement trying to get something through congress. we have amendments pending dealing with school vouchers, with putting discretionary caps on budgets, eliminating earmark -- or earmark reform. things that have very little or in most cases nothing to do with this underlying will. it is just that this is an authorization bill and opened for amendments and we have amendments on a wide range of issues. we have amendments on issues that are germane and related to this piece of legislation much we have been working to put together an amendment with rockefeller's staff and working with other colleagues make suggestions that make a lot of sense and i think we're making progress there i've described

before the need for this. i last year met with some of the europeans who put together the modernization program in europe. this issue of modernization of the air traffic control system -- i think i heard senator mccain talk about world war ii vintage air traffic control. it is the case that those who are now taking off this minute from national airport, when that airplane leaves the runway and is in the national airspace, it is the case that someone in a control tower somewhere is watching that airplane. why? because there's a lot of traffic up there. this is the most complex airspace in the world here in the united states. and the f.a.a., the federal aviation administration, does, i think, a really terrific job in operating the most complex system in the world. we have the safest skies in the world. there's no question about that. we've had one fatal accident in the last year. that tragedy occurred in buffalo, new york, with colgan

air where 49 people tragically lost their lives, including the pilot and co-pilot an flight attendant. but the fact is we have safe skies, and i would be the last to come to the floor of the united states senate and say that the american public should be worried about safety. it is the case, however, that the colgan crash gave us a road map to some changes that i think are necessary and that i and senator rockefeller and senator hutchison have put in this bill. the issues that we discovered from that tragedy persuaded us that a number of things needed to be done. the f.a.a., itself, has worked on aviation and safety for a long while. the national transportation safety board, which investigates aviation accidents, has made

recommendations. in fact, they have a most wanted list. there are some recommendations that will improve air safety that have been on the most wanted list for a long, long time. some for well over a decade and not yet adopted. and so the administrator of the f.a.a., randy babbit, has worked with us and i know he's working diligently to try to address some of those issues. let me mention safety in just a moment. but let me just talk a moment about modernizing the system. when people say, what's that about? it means we're moving from the -- the tracking of that airplane that just left national airport. we have about, i think, one a minute that's authorized at that slot airport. so every minute somebody's leaving that airport. and when that airplane is at cruising altitude and on its way to up -- up to cruising altitude, it has a transponder and that transponder is showing

signals. that screen is in front of an air traffic controller, and that screen shows that airplane, in most cases by number, and that air traffic controller is directing that airplane with its traffic through other routes flown by other airplanes. it's all about safety, making sure that airplanes can fly in a congested, crowded sky. by the way, it's been relatively safe. it's certainly safer than in the old days when they first started flying at night. well, during the day they'd fly by sight, years and years and years ago. at night they'd fly by bond fires, you would fly to a bond fire 50 miles. and eventually to lights, they'd fly to lights and then eventually to ground-based radar. it's been around a long time. the problem is that ground-based radar shows a jet at that moment. at that nanosecond or in that sweep of the radar shows that airplane in that airspace,

that's exactly where it is, but a nanosecond later, it's somewhere else. especially with a jet, the next five or seven seconds it takes to sweep the radar, that jet is somewhere other than where the dot shows it on the screen. now, we have the capability to know much more precisely where the airplane is. but because we only know about where that airplane is, we have to space airplanes for a margin of safety and we fly less direct routes and the result is we use more fuel in that plane by flying a less direct route. we have to have much wider spacing of airplanes in a congested airspace. we are polluting the skies with more fuel used. we're costing the airplanes and the passengers the extra fuel. we're also taking extra time for the passengers to get to where they're headed because of less direct routes. all of that can change with a new system of goabl positioning,

g.p.s. everyone understands what g.p.s. is. you have g.p.s. in your automobile in many cases. you type in an address and it shows you where the car is and where the address is and takes you right to that address. if your child has a cellphone, in most cases they have access to g.p.s. in their cellphone and in many cases your cellphone, with some of the providers, to link with their best friends, their five best friends, for example, and each of them in their cellphone can have g.p.s. locaters so you can access each of your five friends and know where each of the five are. we can do that with children and cell fence, we can't do it with commercial airliners? we can't know where the airliner is with g.p.s. technology? that's because we haven't yet modernized. that's what this is all about modernization of the air traffic control system. when we did, and we will, we have have -- be able to fly

direct routes, save fuel, save the environment. we will do all of these things. other parts of the world are doing these things and so must we. that's why senator rockefeller and i have brought a bill to the floor that moves more aggressively called modernization of the air traffic control systems. it sounds complicated. it is less complicated than one would think. it needs the f.a.a. to build the facilities on the ground and it needs the airplane to have the equipment in the jet or the airplane itself. when we do that and have the procedures and developed process, we will have modernized the air traffic control system. that's what this legislation is about. the legislation is also about building infrastructure across the country. if you're going to fly, you're going to have to have someplace to land and for passengers to embark and disembark, that means terminals and a wide range of things. it includes the essential service air service program, which provideses air service to

smaller communities. as i indicated earlier, it addresses the issue of safety. now, let me describe safety just for a moment as i've done a couple of times on the floor just because i think it's very important. one half of the passengers in this country -- one half of the flights, i should say, in this country are by regional airlines. the passengers don't necessarily know it's a regional airport they get on a -- in most cases a small airplane, and it says united, u.s. air, delta, continental. but it's not that company at all. that's just the brand on the airplane and it's a regional company in most cases that is flying for the larger carrier. in some cases the harmer carrier owns the regional. but in most cases it is a regional flying under contract for the regional carriers. what we have discovered in several hearings in the aftermath of the colgan accident, is some very difficult circumstances in terms of

mistakes that were made and things that we think we need to improve and correct and some of it we do in this bill. the pilot who was in charge of the colgan plane that evening flying at night, in ice in the winter into buffalo, new york, from laguardia airport, that pilot, we discovered later, that pilot had failed a number of pilot exams along the way, and we have learned that the c.e.o. of this company, colgan, indicated, had we known about these multiple failures along the way of this pilot's credentials, we would not have hired the pilot. but they didn't know because they didn't have access to all of that information. this legislation provides that that access -- information shall be made available so that the hiring decisions will be better decisions. the issue of fatigue is very important and was very evident as a part of the cause, i believe, of -- of that accident in colgan.

they're in buffalo by colgan, there was never a circumstance where there was an airplane accident in this country where the accident report says this was caused by fatigue. but we know, of course, that there are a number of treanldz that were caused -- tragedies that were caused by fatigue. let me just point out something that we learned with respect to this particular flight. and my aassumption is that it's not peculiar to this particular flight. this is colgan before the flight, on that evening, the co-pilot who got in the right seat of that cockpit flown from seattle, washington, to laguardia airport. she lived in seattle and worked out of laguardia. she flew all night long, dead headed on a fedex plane to

memphis, changed and flew to laguardia, all night long. the pilot commuted from florida and commuted from florida to laguardia. you have two people in a cockpit, one from florida that commuted to laguardia and one from seattle that commuted to laguardia. what we now have heard from testimony from the national transportation safety board is the pilot of that airplane had not slept in a bed the two previous nights. the co-pilot had not slept in a bed the previous night. was this crash caused by fatigue? there will never be something that suggests that. but if you were a passenger on an airplane and in the cockpit sat a pilot and co-pilot, neither of whom had slept in a bed the previous night or two nights, would you believe that fatigue was the cause of perhaps a misjudgment in the cockpit? i would. i would. and the question is not can you

end all commuting? i don't expect that you can end all commuting. but the question is: does some of this commuting invariably cause fatigue? i believe it does. and how do you begin to address that? the f.a.a. administrator has now sent to the office of management and budget, i believe, his rule making on fatigue. so that's a step forward. because we have to address that. this was -- this was a discussion by a regional pilot in the "wall street journal" september 12, 2008. he said -- "take a shower, brush your teeth, pretend you slept." that's what a regional pilot says about the kind of work on regional carriers where you have a lot of -- of stops, small routes, short routes." take a shower, brush your teeth, pretend you slept." well, again, i think it raises the question and a reasonable question about how do you make

this circumstance change? how do you promote greater safety in circumstances where there is so much commuting, where you have duty time that often allows for less than is necessary to sleep at night? i mean, there is a full eight hours to be sure, but by the time you get to a hotel somewhere during duty time, it's very often the case that you have not slept the full night. in this case of the colgan air, what we have now learned is the copilot on that airplane not only traveled all the way across the country in order to reach her duty station, but she was someone who was paid in the neighborhood of $20,000 to to $23,000 a year. does anybody really believe that a copilot on a commercial carrier paid $20,000 to $23,000 a year is going to be able to afford hotel rooms when they get to their duty station prior to taking a flight? i don't think so. that's not a reasonable thing to expect to have happening. so let me say that my discussion

of this is not to tarnish regional airlines. they play a very important role in our air traffic system, in the commercial aviation system, very important. my hope is, though, however, working with the regional carriers, these safety provisions that we have included in this piece of legislation will substantially improve safety and avoid the kind of circumstances that existed on that particular colgan flight. i have mentioned previously the families of the victims on that colgan flight have been real champions for aviation safety. they have never, never missed a hearing. they have shown up at all of the events in washington, d.c., whether it's a hearing or other activities to say i'm here on behalf of my son, my daughter, my brother, my mother who per nished that crash. and the fact is that diligence and that effort has made a difference and shows itself in this piece of legislation. we also in this legislation are

addressing the issue of pilot hours as qualifications, and i will talk about that at some other time, but i just think there is a lot here to commend this bill to my colleagues. it is urgent that we get this passed through the senate, get to conference, be able to reach a conference agreement with the house and get a bill signed. we will by that i think improve the infrastructure in this country, substantially increase jobs. we are estimating 150,000 new jobs as a result of it. dramatically change the air traffic control system from an archaic system to a modern system. all of that is good for the country. there is way too much that is needed to be done in this country to improve things, especially in areas of infrastructure and modernization that is left undone. let's at least get this piece for commercial aviation, for all of aviation completed. i have mentioned almost exclusively the issue of commercial aviation, and i don't

want to leave the floor again without saying there is another component to aviation in our country, and that's general aviation. many of us fly on small planes a lot. i awed to -- -- i used to -- i learned how to fly a small plane years and years ago. general aviation plays a very important role in the area of aviation in our lives. in states like alaska, the presiding officer's state or perhaps west virginia, north dakota, in states like that, the ability to get on a cessna 210 or king air if we're lucky or perhaps even a mooney or a 172 cessna and go someplace and get there, sometimes in circumstances where there aren't a lot of roads as would be the case in alaska and other circumstances where you have wide distances to travel on a saturday or a sunday or friday. general aviation is so important and they do so much good work in

addition. they talk about general aviation and commercial aviation the mercy flights, flying a heart for a donor in a mercy flight or flying someone for needed desperate treatment to save a life goes on every day, all across this country. in corporate jets, private planes, and yes, even with commercial airliners. we're in the process right now of beginning to fight a flood in fargo, morehead, in north dakota. that river will go up 20 feet in about ten days. it's going to be up 20 feet by friday from two weeks ago. i recall last year when the flood occurred, then northwest airlines, now delta airlines, flew some very large planes into fargo for relief purposes. never asked for anything. just said they're coming. you know, there is a lot of work that goes on by some of the major carriers as well as corporate and general aviation that's very important. mr. chairman, again, let me

thank senator rockefeller for the work that he and senator hutchison have done and i and senator demint are pleased to share and be the ranking member of the subcommittee in aviation and work with him. madam president, i yield the floor and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. specter: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. specter: madam president, i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be terminated.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. specter: madam president, i have sought recognition to comment on the current controversy between the united states and israel on the settlement issue. before the current controversy before the united states and israel escalates further, i suggest all parties cool the rhetoric, avoid public recriminations, determine exactly what happened and consider some fundamental questions. what are the facts? it has been reported that there are 1,600 new settlements in east jerusalem in violation of israeliy commitments. the announcement by midlevel official at the minister of the interior involved only planning subject to judicial review with no groundbreaking for three years.

another report said that u.s. officials extracted a secret promise from prime minister netanyahu not to allow provocative staffs in east jerusalem. is it true that the united states accepted the 10-month moratorium on settlements with caveats that excluded east jerusalem in line with the insistence by israeli officials dating back to prime minister gold meyer that jerusalem was under israeli exclusive sovereignty? it is conceded that prime minister netanyahu was blin blindsided by the announcement. it is further acknowledged that the israeli prime minister -- it is further acknowledged that the israeli minister of the interior is a member of the ultra conservative shoust party whose participation is essential to

the continuation of a coalition government. these matters need to be thought through before public pronouncements could significantly damage the u.s.-israeli relationship and give aid and comfort to the enemies of the mideast peace process. the rock-solid alliance between the united states and israel has withstood significant disagreements for some spectators. the mutual interests which bind these two countries together have always been stronger than the most substantial differences. the united states needs to respect israeli security interests, understanding that israel cannot lose a war and survive. the united states has many layers of defense to protect our security interests and survive. i suggest that if we all take a

few deep breaths, think through the pending questions, and reflect on the importance of maintaining a u.s.-israeli solidarity, we can weather the storm. i now ask that a few comments be captioned under the heading of "the fugitive flight problem." the presiding officer: without objection. mr. specter: i am now introducing the fugitive information network database act of 2010. on december 12 of last year, "the philadelphia inquirer" began a series of articles that served as a blistering indictment of the philadelphia criminal justice system. the "inquirer" described it as a

-- quote -- "system that too often fails to punish violent criminals's criminals, fails to protect witnesses, fails to catch thousands of fujitives, fails to decide cases on their merits, and fails to provide justice." "the inquirer" article three days later elaborated on the fugitive problem noting that as of november 2009, there were almost 47,000 long-term fujitives at-large. the warrant situation in philadelphia is complicated but the fact that the philadelphia police department only enters into the national database a few hundred bench warrants deemed by the district attorneys' office to concerning extraditable offenses. those who flee to other states likely will not be captured because the information for

their warrants is not automatically entered into the ncic database. the legislation that i'm introducing today with senator durbin as a cosponsor builds on legislation previously entered by then-senator biden and senator durbin. the proposed legislation will provide substantial federal funding to assist the states in tracking and returning these fujitives. i ask consent that the full text of my statement, which i've just summarized, be included in the record and that the full text of the bill be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. specter: i thank my distinguished colleagu from connecticut for awaiting those few comments and yield floor. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lieberman: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: it was a pleasure to yield that time to my friend from pennsylvania, which he used very well.

madam president, i rise to continue a discussion of amendment number 3456, which has been offered by senators collins, byrd, feinstein, voinovich, and ensign, and myself, which would reauthorize the opportunity scholarship program for students -- needy students here and deserving students here in the district of columbia. sometimes referred to as "the d.c. voucher program." madam president, this amendment would, as i say, reauthorize this program, which otherwise would act either -- which would either atrophy over time -- there are still 1,300 students in it, but now for the last three years it has not been reauthorized. president obama in his budget says this is probably the last year that federal funding would

be in it. the nonprofit corporation that has administered this program has said that under the circumstances that the congress, by our inaction and in some sense interruption have created, they cannot continue to administer the program. no one else has come forward to do that. and this amendment says effectively, it would be a tragedy -- a human tragedy, 13,00 human tragedy, 1,300 economically disadvantaged students in the district of columbia who have been given a lifeline out of failing public schools to try to educate themselves so -- better educate themselves so that they can live a life of self-sufficiency and satisfaction. that -- all that hope would be ended, all that opportunity would be ended.

and this amendment would turn all that around and say, the senate feels that this program is at least worth continuing as an experiment. but, more than that, it's worked by independent evaluation. why terminate it? there's no good reason to terminate it. the chancellor of the district of columbia school system, michelle rhee, obviously an advocate of public schools systems here, as the other senators are -- would the chancellor support this program if it wasn't a good program? of course not. would she support it if she thought it was a threat to the public schools? of course not. that's her first and major commitment. she supports a five-year extension of this program that this amendment would authorize,

because as she said poignantly to our government affairs committee, which has jurisdiction over the district of columbia, matters related to the district of columbia, she said, until she can say to a parent of a child at a school that has been designated under federal law as a failing school, a school that has failed to give those children an equal educational opportunity, until chancellor rhee has told us she can say to the parent, that public school that your child is in here in the district of columbia, our nation's capital, is prepared to give your child an equal and good educational opportunity, then she can't say, terminate the d.c. opportunity scholarship program, which gives low-income, economically disadvantaged children a lifeline, a passport, a schola scholarship that they can use at

the private or faith-based school of their choice. this program was started after difficult and intricate negotiations in 2004. it was started with a basic premise that is deeply and i think wonderfully american, which is this is the country whose declaration of independence said that the government was being created in the first place in 1776 to secure the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that everybody has as an endowment from our creator -- not by the government. the government is there to secure those rights. the endowment came from god, from our creator. and one of the fundamental ways in which we have attempted over our history to secure those

rights is through the public school system. through our school system. look, generations and generations of americans, new americans, immigrant americans, have come here and the school system has given them an opportunity for education and they've gone on to not only make a success of themselves but contribute enormously to our country. the sad fact is that a lot of our public schools today are failing, particularly our economically disadvantaged students. there is a terrible gap based on income and race and ethnicity in achievement -- an achievement gap in our public school system. no child left behind, various systems trying to close that. but it's not been closed yet. that's why a lot of us got together in 2004, and administration and both parties and tried to negotiate and

ultimately did negotiate a compromise which was based not on supporting any particular educational institution, but founded on that goal that was there and the declaration of independence, and that is characteristically fundamentally american: the individual. in this case, the individual child. how many individual children in, this case, in the nation's capital, can we give a better education so they can develop their god-given talents to the highest level possible? which they can't do if they're not getting a good education. and so in this compromise that was enacted in 2004, we created basically three new income streams. some people say, d.c. opportunity scholarship program, it looks like it's working. it's a good idea to help kids get a scholarship to a private

or faith-based school but i'm against it because it takes money from the public schools. wrong. that was the whole premise. in fact, to even it out, when we adopted this program, we gave an equal amount of additional money to the d.c. public schools as went into the d.c. opportunity scholarship program. and then a third stream of money into charter schools here in the district of columbia. that was the agreement we made, and it was a good agreement. those of us who support the d.c. opportunity scholarship program were not at all unhappy to give an equal amount of extra money to the public schools and to the charter school movement here in the district. the program is controversial, i guess, because some people don't want to give, want to experiment with something other than the

public school system on how to educate the individual. okay, i respect that. i understand that. teachers union are at the forefront of the opposition here. they're against this bill; i understand that. but i disagree respectfully. this is not an assault on teachers or the public schools. as chancellor rhee has said, this is a temporary lifeline for students who are in schools designated under federal law as inadequate to educate them, to give them an opportunity to step up and go to a private or faith-based school where they can do better. i don't know why anybody would want to terminate this program. it's a small program. and as i'll make clear in a few moments, it's been positively evaluated, and particularly -- i repeat -- why would we want to intervene when the leader of the d.c. public schools says this opportunity scholarship program

should be continued because it's good for kids in the district of columbia. and she can't really say to parents, i can give a good first-class education to all of your children. parents like this program a lot. kids like it. we hear moving testimony from children in the system. polling in the district of columbia shows very strong support for it, particularly and not surprisingly, in economically-disadvantaged areas. look, let's just talk the facts. most of us -- i will say "us" including me -- have the money to send our kids to either private or faith-based schools because we think they can get a better education there, or a kind of education that we want them to get, particularly if it's in a faith-based school. these are parents who don't have that choice because they don't have the money.

and imagine the frustration that we'd feel if our children were trapped in a public school where we knew they were not getting a good education, that would compromise the rest of their lives, and yet we didn't have the money to get them to a better education. that's all this program does. opportunity scholarship program. it's a scholarship to give economically-disadvantaged students an opportunity to rise to the limits of their abilities. a vote against this amendment, i really believe, is a vote to take away opportunity for 1,300 economically-disadvantaged students who are now in the program and hundreds of others who would join if and when this program is extended. there have been hundreds of students involved at its peak.

there were 1,930 students enrolled for the 2007-2008 school year. because no new students could enroll, because the program wasn't reauthorized to that extent by congress, enrollment declined by 1,721 for the 2008-2009 school year and it's now at 1,319. here's a terrible thing that happened: last year 216 students were offered a scholarship for this -- for the year that followed. and the -- the school year that followed. and then that offer, because of opposition to this program and a decision not to allow new students into it, was revoked by the secretary of education of the united states. since its inception, the

opportunity scholarship program has served over 3,000 students and more than 8,400 have applied to participate. over 85% of the students in this program would be attending a school in need of improvement, corrective action or restructuring as designated under federal law. this is a remarkable program that really does deserve to be continued. madam president, i note the presence on the floor of my colleague, friend and cosponsor, senator ensign. if you would like to speak at this time, senator ensign, i will be glad to yield the floor. and then i'll take it back after you've concluded. mr. ensign: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. mr. ensign: madam president, first of all, i appreciate all of the great work that the chairman has done on this piece of legislation. this is a bipartisan piece of legislation that we're talking about today.

we are talking about the d.c. opportunity scholarship program. why is it on the bill that deals with the f.a.a., people would ask? it's on there because we've been trying to get this reauthorized for a long time, and in the united states senate, you have to kind of take whatever vehicle you can get. and so i appreciate the leadership, though, of senator lieberman and the work that he has done, as well as many of my other colleagues. unfortunately, there are forces on the other side who apparently think that giving opportunity scholarships for 1,300 poor children in the district of columbia, that this is somehow a threat to our public education system in america. i heard the chairman talk about michelle rhee. michelle is really one of the true reformers of education. she's a believer in the public

education system in america, as i am. i know that chairman lieberman is a big believer in the public education system. that's one of the reasons that we want to explore and test various reform proposals that actually -- see if they will work, see if they don't work. so farther d.c. opportunity scholarship program, there's 1,300 of these scholarships out there, children participating, and it's serving based on the satisfaction of the parents, it's serving them well. remember, when they get a scholarship, they don't have to go. let me repeat that: if you're in a public school system and you're zoned for that public school system, you can't afford to go any place else, you don't have any choice. but if you get one of these d.c. scholarships, nobody forces you to use it. nobody forces you to go to one of these other private schools.

why do the parents -- and when you talk to the kids, why do the kids like it? they like it because they're escaping a bad school. senator lieberman talked about 85% of the kids who participate in this program are from failing schools, failing based on objective criteria. the average household income is about $25,000 a year for the families of these kids who are participating. these are kids who are in low-income families. they can't afford to take their kids out of these failing schools by themselves. that's why we wanted to experiment to see whether these programs work. did it help the kids' educational system? education in america has been called the new civil right. well, i think that's exactly right. i think we need to look at education as a way to lift

people out of poverty. but, just because kids are getting to school, an education, if it's in a failing school, just because you're calling it an education, it doesn't give them the opportunities that other kids are getting. and it isn't a question of money. the d.c. school system spends $15,000 per year per student. it's one of the highest, if not the highest, in the country. it's about $4,600 a year more than the national average. it's almost three times more than what my state spends per student. but i can guarantee you, i don't know of anybody in nevada who would rather have their kids going here in washington, d.c. public schools than going to public schools in nevada. it's because of the poor peformanceance. now, michelle rhee, to her

credit, is doing a good job bringing -- improving the public schools. but they have so far to go. the mayor of washington, d.c. supports the program. the parents of these children -- there were over 7,000 people who just signed a petition in washington, d.c. to continue this program. but more than that, is when you meet the students and you talk to them -- i've met many of these students now. and when you talk to them and you look in their face and you say "do you want this program to continue? is this something that has helped you in your life? literally to a person, when you look at their eyes, they light up and they say it's one of the best things that ever happened to them in their life, because it got them out of a school that was high crime rates, that was low peformance, where sometimes the teachers didn't have great

attitudes. and they went to a caring, loving atmosphere where they had a chance to succeed. and that's really what this whole thing is about. recently data show that about 62% of eighth graders in the d.c. public schools score below basic in math. students in d.c. public schools rank near the bottom in the nation in both s.a.t. and a.c.t. scores. about half of the d.c. students don't even graduate from high school. on the other side of the coin, when you look at what has happened with the d.c. opportunity scholarship kids, rigorous study by the institute of education and services found that students in the program experienced statistically significant improvements in reading that were equal to more than three months of additional schooling. the study also found that students in five out of the ten

subgroups improved in reading and parents experienced increased satisfaction with the quality and the safety of their children's schools. dr. wolf, who was the principal investigator for the department of education study, has stated -- and i quote -- "the d.c. scholarship program has proven to be the most effective education policy evaluated by the federal government's official education research arm so far." rome wasn't built in a day, and i believe we owe it to the d.c. -- d.c.'s children to continue this program and to continue the research on these promising gains. do we know that this thing will work in the future? no. but it's promising research so far. so we shouldn't discontinue the program. we should fund it, make sure that it continues, and continue to study it. unfortunately, what has happened

is that in the public school system, there are forces who believe that giving parents choice is a threat, somehow a threat to our public school system. to me, it's just about the kids and their education. that's who should come first the education system. it's the children. their education, their future. let's put them first. let's don't have special interest deciding who's going to control education. let's put our kids, their education first much that's what the d.c. opportunity scholarship program really is all about. i appreciate -- i see senator collins is on the floor. i appreciate her work. senator lieberman and senator voinovich and many others have worked in a bipartisan fashion. let's not let this bill go down.

secretary duncan is a reformer. there's no question he has brought some reform proposals that i think deserve looking at. he's talked a lot about putting our kids first in our education system. this is one way that we can do it. we need to support michelle rhee and her efforts in the public school system, but we need to keep this valuable program, the d.c. public scholarship program intact for those kids and their families who are enjoying the benefits of this pilot program that we've had in effect so far. so, madam president, i yield the floor, and i thank the chairman for allowing me to speak. mr. lieberman: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. madam president, i want to thank senator ensign for his cosponsorship. he's very convincing to me and informed argument for this amendment. i -- i couldn't agree more. there's such an irony here,

secretary duncan of education is a reformer. the president supporting school reform, michelle rhee is trying very hard and valiantly and effectively, i think, to reform the d.c. public schools. so why would secretary duncan and members of the administration and some in this body and our colleagues in the other body oppose this program, an opportunity scholarship program, which chanc chancellore supports and secretary duncan to reform our public schools. the only thing i can think is that certain interest groups, and teacher unions oppose this amendment and that's not a reason to turn the hopes of 1,300 children in this program in our nation's capital. madam president, i note with pleasure the presence on the floor of our colleague from

maine, senator collins, and i would, therefore, yield the floor. ms. collins: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you, madam president. let me begin by saluting the leadership of my colleague, the chairman of the homeland security committee, senator lieberman. he has been so persistent in ensuring a debate on this program. and his leadership on this issue, as on every other issue that i work with him on, has been exemplary. mr. president, we're talking about averting a true tragedy by adopting senator lieberman's amendment, which i'm pleased to cosponsor. and i do not use that word,

tragedy, often nor do i use it lightly. that's what we're talking about here. we are talking about the futures of young people in the district of columbia. that is what is at stake in this debate. it is that serious. it's important to go back and look at the history of the d.c. scholarship program. more than five years ago the leaders of the district of columbia became so frustrated with the institutionalized failure within the district's public school system that they came to congress and worked with members of congress on both sides of the aisle to design a

new three-sector strategy that provided new funding for public schools in the district, for public charter schools, and for scholarships for low-income children who might choose to attend a private school. and working with the district's leaders, congress then passed the d.c. school choice incentive of 2004, giving birth to the d.c. opportunity scholarship program. for many of these students this was their first opportunity to access a high-quality education. an education that would give them the opportunity to excel, the opportunity for a bright

future. mr. president, that is what the debate is about. and, indeed, we've seen incredible enthusiasm for this program and the three-pronged approach has helped d.c.'s public schools to get on the path of improvement and d.c.'s charter schools, which are also providing some quality educational opportunities. but a young man who testified before our committee, our homeland security and governmental affairs committee, put it very well when he was asked by a senator who opposed the d.c. scholarship program why we shouldn't just instead focus solely on the d.c. public schools.

he said, "mr. senator, the d.c. schools didn't get back overnight and they're not going to get better overnight." and, clearly what he was saying, was why should he lose the opportunity for a good education and a bright future while he is waiting for d.c. public schools to get better. now, i join in the admiration for michelle rhee, who is working very hard with the mayor and with the city council to improve the d.c. public schools. and we are making progress. we rejoice in that progress. we support that progress. that's why we're continuing to provide federal funding for d.c.'s public schools. but as this young man told us, the d.c. schools did not get that overnight and they are not going to get better overnight no

matter what extraordinary leadership they are receiving. the program -- the d.c. scholarship program has clearly felt a need. a fact that is illustrated by the long lines of parents waiting to enroll their children in the program. since its inception, more than 7,000 students have applied for scholarships with demand so high, with the stakes so great it is dismayinmaying, to say the least, i think it's tragic that critics are seeking to dismantle this program. the inspiring stories that we've heard from parents and students participating in the d.c. scholarship program parallels what we've learned from recent

independent rigorous studies conducted by the the university of arkansas and the institute of education sciences at the u.s. department of education. and senator lieberman and i heard firsthand from the researcher who conducted that study. and he told us that parents were overwhelmingly satisfied with their children's experience in this program and they -- and they also told us that the students offered scholarships had higher reading achievement than those not offered scholarships. the equivalent of an additional three months of learning. given that these students had not been enrolled in these better schools for very long, that is impressive progress. and i'm certain as their

education continues, if it's allowed to continue, that we will see even more substantial educational gains. it is so disappointing -- it's discouraging and dismaying that we are having to fight for the continuation of a program that each and every day is making a difference in the lives of these children. so i'm going to challenge my colleagues before you decide how you're going to vote on this program, if you are inclined to vote against our amendment, first talk to just one student and their parents who are enrolled, who is enrolled in

this program. if you've -- if you then can come to the floor and in good conscience vote against the lieberman-collins amendment, well, suffice it to say, mr. president, i don't think our colleagues can, in good conscience, vote against our amendment if they've talked to any of the students and their families who are benefiting from this program. it would be truly a tragedy for the children of the district of columbia if this program is not continued. let me just end my comments with one startling fact, if congress were to discontinue funding for d.c. opportunity scholarships, it is estimated that 86% -- 86%

of the students would be returned to schools that are failing schools. that schools that did not meet the adequate yearly progress standard for reading and math for the 2006-2007 school year. we simply cannot in good conscience allow that to happen. so i hope that my colleagues will take a close look at the facts revealed by our hearing, the rigorous studies that have been done to compare educational progress, the recommendations of the d.c. public school's chancellor. and most of all i hope they will

listen to the students and to the families whose lives have been changed for the better due to this program. thank you, mr. president. mr. lieberman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: mr. president, i really thank my colleague, senator collins, for coming to the floor, for being a cosponsor of this amendment and for the really passionate and reasoned way in which she spoke. i mean, this -- two things at least come to mind in listening to her remarks. one is that we are very often dealing with big national or international matters on the floor of the senate, health care reform, jobs acts, whatever. they all involve people, of course, but here's one which is local and -- and we can actually quantify the people. we have 1,319 children who are

in private or faith-based schools because of this opportunity scholarship program getting, by their own telling and that of their parents, so much better in education, feeling so much better about themselves, being on the road of opportunity. and if we don't authorize this, though the administration has said it's committed to at least following these students through high school, there's not enough money there to do that. the president in the budget said that this is probably the last year they -- that they will fund this program. there is not enough money to carry the students through high school. with all of the uncertainty in the program, the current administrator of it, a nonprofit corporation, has said they don't want to do this anymore. so far no one else has been found to do it. so this definitely closes the door to opportunity for hundreds of other students in the district and their parents to give them a better education

while chancellor rhee over the next five years is trying to make every school in the district of columbia a good school. but, secondly, it really focuses us on the possibility that these 1,319 children will be forced to go back to public schools in their neighborhoods. and 86% of those schools, as senator collins has said, are designated under federal law as inadequate. none of us would let our kids go there and we would pay their way out. senator collins has really spoken of that as a tragedy, a human tragedy. she is right. and as i said, it's very rare that you could -- you could look into the face of each of these 1,319 kids and say sorry, you can't go on in this school that you all are so happy to be going -- going to at this point. the second point is this, and i

say this respectfully. it's been very rare when i have been involved in a debate in the senate on a matter where i haven't felt that there were some respectable good arguments on the other side. i didn't agree with them. on balance, they didn't convince me that my position was wrong, but i must say on this one, i can't think of a single good reason to be opposed to this amendment. five more years of an experimental program, program, $20 million for the d.c. opportunity scholarship program out of, by my recollection, $13 billion of federal taxpayer money that goes to title 1 schools, and over over $25 billion that goes from the federal government to public schools around america in the no child left behind program, a total of $25 billion or

or $26 billion. this is $20 million for these d.c. opportunity scholarships, alongside $20 million for to the d.c. public schools that they won't otherwise get and and $20 million more for the charter schools. in fact, if this program is allowed to die and those 1, 319 students are forced back into the public schools in their neighborhoods, that adds by estimate of one independent authority i've seen at least least $14 million more to the expense of the d.c. public school systems to take them back. so, you know, i welcome people to the -- who oppose this to the floor to debate it, but honestly, i -- i -- listening to you, senator collins, i can't think of a good reason to be against this amendment. i thank you very much for coming over for your cosponsorship for all the work that we have been able to do together.

i say why did this come before the homeland security and governmental affairs committee, because historically, presiding officer, now proud to say new member of the committee, the governmental affairs jurisdiction that we have has been given jurisdiction over matters regarding the district of columbia, and it's in that capacity that we have done oversight of this program. i note the presence of another cosponsor, and i'll give her a moment to get ready. senator feinstein of california who i will yield to whenever she wants to speak. one of the arguments against this -- actually, since no one is on the floor opposing this, i'm going to use a memo sent out this afternoon by staff to senators opposing the amendment from the democratic leadership

office, i believe, and i will just pick out a few of these. first problem cited -- this program was passed in 2003 as a five-year pilot program. it's now been extended twice through appropriations bills to minimize the destruction for students already in the program and a plan for winding it down is in place, but that's the point. so they say re-authorization is not needed to keep students and the schools running. that, according to the d.c. authorities on this, is not true. there is not enough money to keep them in there. the president said in his budget this year that this would probably be the last time he would recommend appropriating to this program. the promise was to keep these students in the opportunity scholarship program right through graduation from high school. there is not enough money there. but more to the point, there is every reason based on the independent evaluation of the program, based on michelle rhee, chancellor of the d.c. public

schools. supporting five-year re-authorization because she feels it's necessary. incidentally, this re-authorization is also supported by mayor fenty, supports the tri-apartheid appropriation, public schools, charter schools, and opportunity scholarship programs, and in a letter from a majority of members of the city council of the district. i want to quote, and i will come back to it again, michelle rhee, and this is why it's not subcommittee on september 16 of last year.

she says -- "on a regular basis, i have parents from wards seven and eight which are our highest poverty wards, which are also the home of our lowest performing schools, come to me and they have done everything a parent should do, and they say say -- and then again this is michelle rhee, chancellor of the schools -- i have loorkd at all the data, this is the parents. i know my neighborhood school. the schools are not performing at the level i want them to. so i participated in the out of boundary process. i went through the lottery and i didn't get a slot in one of the schools i wanted. so they look at me and say now what? what are you, michelle rhee, going to do? and michelle rhee answered in her testimony, "i cannot look at those parents in the eye right

now at this point and offer every single one of them a spot in a school that i think is a high-performing school." and here's a gutsy comment from this chancellor, and really devoted to the improvement of the public schools." chancellor rhee says and until we are able to do that, and i think it's on that five-year horizon, then i believe we do need to have choice for our families, and i think they do have to have the ability to participate, either to move into a charter school or to use the opportunity scholarships," end of quote from the chancellor of the d.c. public school system. i have the greatest respect for her. it took a lot of guts for her to say that. she says five-year horizon. that's what this re-authorization does, give these kids, these parents who know their children are not

getting a good education in the public school or haven't been able to go to one of the out of boundary, out of their neighborhood schools because the schools are packed. haven't made it into a charter school because i gather there are thousands waiting who can't get into the existing charter schools, let's give them an opportunity to get one of these opportunity scholarship programs and have a chance for a better education and a better life. mr. president, i'm going to stop now. i'm very grateful for the cosponsorship of the distinguished senator from california, a former mayor, of course, intimately knowledgeable on public education, committed to public education, and yet really concerned about every child. that's what this program is about, so i wld yield the floor at this moment. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: i want to thank

the senator for the recognition. and i want to thank the distinguished senator and chairman of the committee for his leadership in this. also, the senator from maine is on the floor. i want to thank her for her support. this has not been an easy program, and it has always surprised me why people oppose anything that might give an individual another opportunity. i believe very deeply that some children do well in one kind of setting. other children do well in another kind of setting, and that the real goal of education ought to be to provide a number of different choices for youngsters, so that you can see where do they learn best and then enable them to be in that situation. i also have always had a hard time knowing why only the well-to-do can afford a private school, why youngsters have to go to schools that are among the

most troubled and candidly the worst anywhere because that's the way it is and that's what public education insists it be. so i've supported this program for some six years now since its inception under the leadership of the district of columbia mayor anthony williams, and i strongly believe it should be continued. it's right. it started out as a five-year pilot program to determine whether youngsters, low-income students do, in fact, learn more and learn better in some of d.c.'s private and parochial schools. the program's most recent evaluation show that this program is, in fact, valid, and students are, in fact, improving, so i say why not re-authorize it. what is everybody scared of? why not re-authorize it? the scholarships of up to $7,500

that are offered through the d.c. student scholarship program help children make their education in a private or parochial school possible. currently, we know this. there are 1,319 children who attend 45 private and parochial schools. they all come from families where the average income is is $25,000, and 85% of these students would be in d.c.'s worst-performing public schools if it were not for this program. so this amendment would extend the life of this worthy program for five more years and allow both current and new students the opportunity to participate. what are we afraid of? it's supported by d.c. mayor adrian fenty. as the chairman said, d.c. schools chancellor michelle

rhee, one very gutsy, young superintendent, a majority of the district council, and by parents in the district. what are we afraid of? preliminary evaluations by the united states department of education's institute of education scientists have shown academic gains and student improvement. when these students entered the program six years ago, they were performing in the bottom third on reading and math tests in the district's public schools. last year's more comprehensive evaluation shows that reading test scores of students receiving a scholarship were higher by the equivalent of three months of additional schooling. it showed that it increased to the 35th percentile on the s.a.t. 9 national standardized test from the 33rd percentile

where they were before entering the program. so progress has been made. specifically, pilot program students scored four and a half points higher on reading in the s.a.t. 9, with the total score of 635.4 when compared to the district's public school students' score of 630.9. these academic gains are despite the many challenges these students face outside the classroom, coming from families where the average income is is $25,000. i look forward to learning more in the months ahead of how students are performing in the program and the impact it has had on them, but in the meantime, there are these results. they may not be major, but what they are showing is that youngsters are learning to read better in this new setting than

they were in the public school setting, and that indeed is something. i'd like to share three examples with you of how the program has helped to change the lives of the district's youngsters and who it -- how it has shown to give them a chance to reach their highest potential. let me give you the first one. okay. here we are. cherly ann tomedio, a ninth grade student at georgetown visitation high school. now, i have someone very close to me at georgetown. this is a top academic school. so this youngster has gone from one of the worst to a very strong academic school. the scholarship has allowed her to attend this school for the past five years. she is now a ninth grade student at georgetown visitation school,

and she wants to go to college and become a surgeon. she is the eighth grade valedictorian at sacred heart middle school which is located in the district's neighborhood of columbia heights. shirley ann said at her eighth grade graduation speech last year that the d.c. opportunity scholarship program is important to me because without it i wouldn't be able to receive the best education possible. it should continue so that my brother, sister and other students get the same chance. every child should get the chance to go to a good school." who can disagree with that? that's her statement. she's one of the lucky ones, and she will go on and she will do well. the second one is carlos battle. he is a 12th grade student at georgetown day school and he has

attended a private school for the past six years, since the program started. he's a well-rounded student, participating in schal plays. he enjoys classes in classical and modern dance, he plays on the basketball team and he maintains a solid grade point average of 3.1. he wants to go to college and has already been accepted to northeastern university with a possible full scholarship and loyola university, among other colleges. he comes from a family with a single mother, has a younger brother named calvin, who is currently an eighth grader at st. francis xavier academy, also with a scholarship from the program. and carlos has said this about his experience in the progra program -- quote -- "the scholarships i have received through the washington scholarship fund have afforded me countless opportunities, but

most importantly, i have been given the chance to better myself. now, instead of wanting to be someone who is well-known on the streets, i'd rather be someone who is well-known for his education, communication, and advocacy skills. i now no longer have to worry about fights breaking out in my classroom or being threatened on a constant basis. with this security, i'm able to focus harder and become more active in my school's community. even better, i can look forward to the future. if i keep on this same track, i am almost guaranteed a better future for my family and for myself." why should we be afraid of this program? and let me show you a third youngster, sonya arias. now, this is someone who went through the five years and is

now attending st. john's university in new york. she graduated last year from archbishop carroll high school with a 3.95 grade point average and is now in her first year at st. john's university in new york with a full scholarship. and she loves it. the d.c. opportunity scholarship helped sonya attend archbishop carroll high, where she was vice president of her class, captain of the soccer team, on the lacrosse team, and president of the international club. in addition to her many extracurricular activities, sonya took all honors and advanced placement courses. she said this about her experience in the program after just graduating from archbishop carroll high school -- quote -- "it just shows the difference

from seventh and eighth grade to where i am now. where my friends strive to succeed and they influence me to want to succeed along with them, so i'm really grateful for this opportunity." why don't the words of students like sonya, carlos, and shirley anne, why don't they affect us? why don't they enable us to see that choice in education isn't something that's threatening. i serve on the appropriation committees -- on the appropriations committee. i was one of the deciding votes in that committee when this came up. we put a like amount of money additionally into the district to be able to public education, to be able to sustain a simple choice opportunity program. and this program goes to the district's neediest students from the district's most failing

schools. and i've just shown you three who have succeeded. isn't that worth it? isn't that worth it? i don't understand why we are so afraid to give needy youngsters the opportunity of choice in education. to allow someone who can't do well in a certain setting to have a different setting in which they may well be able to do very well. so i say to these three youngsters, all the more power to you. i'm just very, very proud and i think we should listen to students like sonya, carlos, and shirley anne and continue to provide this program to the district's neediest children. so we need different modeled for different children, and i think this program is showing it. i don't know. there's a lot of lobbying

against the program. the teachers' union doesn't like the program. i don't understand why. i don't understand what's to fear. i don't understand why, if you provide some funding for poor children to go to a special environment to learn and they learn, and this youngster now is in university because of it. i think that's what we're all about. so i strongly support this program. i thank you, senator lieberman, for your support and advocacy for it and your leadership in bringing this to the floor. i just hope we have the votes. thank you. i yield the floor. mr. lieberman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: very briefly, i want to thank my colleague and dear friend from california for a really wonderful statement. first, i'd say, as officially an independent, that you have again demonstrated your independence of mind and spirit and heart. secondly, i -- i can't tell you

how important it was that you did what you did with those three students because this is personal, this matters to individual students. and it's just hard to imagine the talents that these three have shown and have developed would have been developed in the same way, unfortunately, at the school that they were consigned to by their neighborhood. so years ago i used some expression by some wise person hundreds of years ago, that if you save one life, it is as if you saved the whole world. because every individual has all the potential of the world within them. and that probably was talking more about physically saving a life. but the truth is, in a way that's real, by giving these kids an equal educational opportunity, we're giving them the ability to save their own lives.

i can't thank you enough for a wonderful statement. i appreciate it very much. mr. president, i note the presence on the floor of my friend and colleague from ohio, senator voinovich, been a longtime advocate going back to his days in ohio for better educational opportunity for every child. and i'm going to yield the floor and look forward to his statement at this time. mr. voinovich: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. voinovich: i thank you, mr. president, and i want to thank senator lieberman for the leadership that he has shown on this effort to make a difference in the lives of students in the district of columbia. i think that the senator from california did a beautiful job of outlining the difference that it has made for just the few that have been able to participate in the program thats far. i rise, of course, to support the amendment, an amendment that

will continue to give thousands of children in the district of columbia an opportunity for a good education. it was first authorized in 2004 and the program has the potential to provide 1,700 children with scholarships of up to $7,500 each to attend the school of their choice. to qualify, students must live in the district and have a household income of no more than 185% of the poverty line, and in the district, recipients' average family income is $24,300, so these are very, very poor kids from families that are just making it. and it's not something that we've created to make available to everyone. unfortunately, mr. president, while the program can provide 1,700 children with scholarship, it does not. increasingly, prohibitive language in the appropriation bills and a hostile administration -- and i mean

hostile -- has already decreased participation significantly. the program now helps just over 1,300 students. you know, it's baffling to me why this administration has focused so much attention opposing a successful program which has provided a high-quality education to more than 3,300 children. according to the independent evaluator of the program, participating d.c. -- this is a quote -- "participating d.c. students are reading at higher levels as a result of the opportunity scholarship progra program." that is why since 2004, approximately 9,000 families have applied for spots in the program. nearly three applications for each available scholarship. in its fiscal year 2011 budget request, president obama has indicated that this will be the last year he expects to request funding for the program based on declining participation. give me a break. i would say to the president, it's difficult to participate in

a program that's closed to new applicants. participation levels are down because the secretary of education rescinded more than 200 scholarships to deserving children for the current school year, as he did so after enrollment in desirable charter and public schools had already begun r. we really going to allow these -- begun. are we really going to allow these children to return to failing, unsafe schools? high school graduation rates in the district's public schools are consistently among the worst in the nation. according to "the washington post," who, by the way, has editorialized in favor of this over and over and over again, just over half the district's teenage students attend a school that is persistently dangerous. as defined by the d.c. government. on the average school day, nine violent incidents are reported throughout the school system. i'd like to say that michelle rhee is doing her very best to bring back this school system. our d.c. tax tuition assistant

grant program has been helpful to many of these students. in fact, we've increased the attendance to college education before before -- because of the tag program. she's doing everything that she can. but here's someone that's come in here, she wants to make a difference in the district, and she, before our homeland security and governmental affairs committee, came out strong and said, this program should be continued. mayor fenty, the mayor of the district of columbia, again said this program should be continu continued. what i find troubling is that some of our leaders who have exercised their right to school choice are denying that trite district -- that right to district parents. president obama enrolled his children in private school. there's no way he'd allow his kids to attend the d.c. public schools. and listen to this, secretary of education arne duncan moved his family to virginia, saying, "i didn't want to try to save -- i didn't want to try to save the

country's children and our educational system and jeopardize my own children's education." hear that? "i don't want to try to save the country's children and our educational system and jeopardize my own children's education." he's got that opportunity. these people that take advantage of the program don't have that opportunity. to quote former d.c. mayor, anthony williams -- quote -- "it's only fair to allow income -- low-income parents the same choices that we all have: to select the best educational environment for our children." in a letter to senate democrats regarding the d.c. program, the national education association wrote -- quote -- "throughout its history, n.e.a. has strongly opposed any diversion of limited public funds to private school schools." unfortunately, the letter neglects the fact that the scholarships were designed according to a three-sector approach under which not a single dime has been cut from public schools. in fact, when we came in with

this program -- i think the senator from connecticut remembers that we put $14 million into charters, $14 million into the public school system, and $14 million into the scholarship program. so we didn't take a dime away from the district. in fact, they made out quite well on it. $add up, three times $14, whatever that is, that's not bad coming from the congress so we could move forward with some new ideas. but i've got to tell you something, the merits of the program are of little importance to the n.e.a. i know this because after endorsing my 198 -- 1998 senate campaign, here's what they said, it is fair to say -- i love this -- eye it's fair to say that to other governor has done for ohio's children." that's the n.e.a. thethen quickly -- quickly -- withdrew support for my 2004 senate campaign because i supported the d.c. school act. and i was told -- i've never forget it.

i went it for the interview, and they all sit around -- you know how it is -- i answered the question and my opponent did the same thing, and then later on i heard back from the people who were there. and they said, you did a terrific job, we appreciate what you've done, bus you're not going to -- but you're not going to get it, because we've been told from the boys in washington there's no way that you're going to be allowed t to endorse voinovich because he came out for the d.c. scholarship program. mr. president, yomr. president,e same kind of pressure is on many members of this senate, and what they're afraid of is if they vote for this amendment that senator lieberman has, it's going to hurt them with the o.e.a. or the n.e.a. that they have in their respective -- respective states. now, this is -- senator lieberman's done the job explaining what this is. this is not a big deal. why can't they stand up, okay, and say, this is a little-bitty program that's helping a bunch of kids in the district of

columbia? give me a break. why shouldn't i support it? why shouldn't i support it? now, mr. president, i may be a little emotional about this, but ohioans knew that this was a good program way back in 1995, as governor when i supported opportunity scholarships in the cleveland scholarship and tutoring program. but ohioans, you know -- they weren't -- this was opposed, of course it was. but ohioans knew that it was a good program. over 1,9 students participated in the first year. so with hard work and dedication, we fought for the program for nearly a decade and finally on june 27,2002, the united states supreme court in a landmark decision agreed that the program was constitutional in cancelman v. simmons v. harris. when i leave the senate, i am

going to write a book. one of the things that i'm going to talk about in that book is the landmark decision that state started out in the state of ohio because i told the legislature that the cleveland system was going down the tubes and they needed to do something else and we finally got them to agree to put that scholarship program into cleveland, ohio. and as a result of that program, over 1,900 -- over 1,900 participated in the beginning of it. today there are 6,000 students that are participating in that program. ant benefits i would like to say go beyond the academic. i think that the senator from california did a beautiful job of laying out how this helps academically. but a study by the buckeye institute in ohio found that students involved in the cleveland program are gaining access to a more integrated school experience. and i -- this is very important, that they have this kind of

experience. i know that my children -- this program wasn't available when i was mayor and probably wouldn't have been eligible for it, but i'll never forget that my son george was the only white kid in his class in a major work program in the city of cleveland and i have to tell you that he is a different person because of the fact that he had that experience. my daughter was one of two white kids that were in a class that was all african-american. the program was terrific and they took advantage of it, but they had a learning experience that they wouldn't have had if it hadn't of been nor this program that brought kids together -- for this program that brought kids together for a special program. in his closing testimony before our committee, former mayor anthony williams said -- quote -- "quite frankly, i'm befuddled by the proposal to have the program die by attrition. i cannot understand why anyone could eliminate a program that has uplifted the lives, fulfilled the dreams, and given hope to thousands of low-income

families." end of quote. mr. president, i am also befuddled by that idea, and i urge my colleagues to stand up and be counted, support the lieberman amendment. let's let these kids have an opportunity that without this program they're not going to have available to them. mr. lieberman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: mr. president, i rise to thank senator voinovich forb for his statemen. it actually brings several thoughts to mind. the first is, senator voinovich, i am going to miss you when you retire at the end of this year. you are a straight shooter. you are a straight talker. you speak from your heart. you've had a lost practical experience as a mayor, governor, member of the senate. and you bring it all to bear in what you just said. secondly, i look forward to buying that book that you're going to write. i hope it's about your career broadly, but i'd be realed in that of ohio opportunity

scholarship or voucher program -- mr. voinovich: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. voinovich: i would like to shea that i hope that one of the things i write about is the lieberman amendment that passed when i was in my last year in the senate. mr. lieberman: well, lealts cal--well, let's call it the lieberman-voinovich amendment. in the ohio case, it is the one that sometimes people say that the opportunity scholarship or vouchers or constitutionally success -- are constitutionally suspect or unconstitutional. not true. the supreme court has ruled that the ohio voucher program was a neutral private choice program that did not violate the establishment clause. but i tell you what rings in my ear is the questions that have been raised by my colleagues in support of this amendment. senator voinovich said, why would you vote against this amendment? why would you vote against this program? and senator -- the senator from california, senator feinstein,

said, what is there to be afraid of in this program? it's -- it doesn't take money away from the public schools. the head of the d.c. public school system is for the program because she thinks it'll benefit the children who need it, who she knows she can't give a quality education over the five years of the authorization of the program. this program has been tested by an independent evaluator -- dr. patrick wolff, principal inverkt for the u.s. department of education study -- and he concluded that d.c. voucher -- -- quote -- "the d.c. voucher program has proven to be the most effective education, innovation policy program evaluated by the federal government's official education research arm so far." end of quote.

of the 11 innovation programs investigated, studies showed only three have reported any statistically significant achievement gains, and the gains reported in the opportunity scholarship program in the district of columbia are the highest thus far. mr. president, i know senator rockefeller wants to return to the f.a.a. reauthorization bill, so i'll begin to wind this up. i thank all my colleagues to came over to speak on behalf of the amendment. i regret that nobody has come to speak against it. i was looking forward to a good debate. and so i've got to go back to this staff memo sent out to senators against the amendment. we've actually dealt with all of the arguments made. public dollars should be spent on public schools that accept all students. subject to uniform public

standards. this program accepts the students who apply, and when there are too many, they subject them it a lottery. it is a wide-open program. they criticize the department of education study. they don't do it fairly. they speak wrongly. d.c. parents already have choices about where to send their children with the public charter school network and yet we know that those programs are oversubscribed. the fact is that all the arguments made in this memo against the opportunity scholarship program and keeping it alive and the hopes of a limited number of students in the d.c. school program -- 1,300, maybe with this reauthorization the they'll be e to add a couple a hundred more in the next -- for the next five

years. maymaybee it'll be more children for whom the doors of opportunity will be opened up in a way that they're not opened up now. why would anybody oppose this? i can't think of a good reason, and the group that's been most vigorously opposed has been the teachers unions. and i understand why, but their interests do not outweigh the interests of these children, economically disveininged with dreams and -- economically disadvantaged with dreams and hopes that can't be realized in the schools they're in. and in those three beautiful pictures of students who have been in this program that senator feinstein showed. just along with chancellor rhee, i hope for and in fact envision a day when the d.c. opportunity scholarship program is not

needed. and it won't be needed because the d.c. public school system is providing a good education to every student who lives in the district of columbia. but that, as chancellor rhee has said, is not the reality, that these children and their families live in today. many schools in our nation's capital, as the chancellor has said, are just not providing an adequate education to the students. i repeat again, i bet there's not a member of this senate, if their children were consigned by neighborhood allocation systems, would not spend the known get their children out of those schools because the children's lives and hopes and dreams would be compromised through no fault of their own simply because the schools were mott adequate to educate them. -- this is all about helping some

of those students by supporting this amendment to reauthorize the opportunity scholarship program, five more years. i hope and pray that what changes lore rhee said is right that in five years she can look every parent of every student in the d.c. public school system in the eye and say, your child sat a school where she or he can get a good education, so we don't need the opportunity scholarship program anymore. but for now, chancellor rhee says we need it. mayor fenty says we need it. former mayor williams, helped to create the program, strongly for t a july 2009 poll conducted in the district of columbia said 75% of district residents want and need the opportunity scholarship program. i just don't see a reason why a majority of members of this

senate -- hopefully an overwhelming bipartisan majority -- would speak against, would frustrate the hopes of all these families, all these students, and all these leaders of education here in the district of columbia. so i am going to yield the floor with the hope that we can have a vote on this soon. and i urge my colleagues, just think about the 1,319 children whose lives will be compromised, whose dreams will be stifled, if this program is not reauthorized. i thank senator rockefeller for your patience while we continue on this amendment. and with that, i yld thefloor. mr. rockefeller: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. rkefell: got the state right, thank you. mr. president, i rise to get back to something called the federal aviation administration

reauthorization bill. that's the bill that we were on. i do not hesitate to say that my daughter was one of the cofounders of a charter school, a very successful one in washington, d.c. but i would also say to her, as i would to proponents of this legislation which is being discussed -- vouchers -- that if the f.a.a. bill we're talking about 500 million americans who fly every year, and not to diminish them, nor my daughter's incredible work, 1,300 students, that figure is going to rise very shortly to over a billion, and, therefore, what we do in the federal aviation bill, which is the pending business, is incredibly important.

senator byron dorgan has discussed safety issues and other aspects of it, and he is the head of the aviation subcommittee, which i was for about -- for ten years before i became chairman of the committee. so i care passionately about the federal aviation administration bill and i recognize it's not the most colorful gallant legislation in the history of the world, but believe me, it affects every single american. used to be that only 60% of americans flied. now everybody flies. there's no way to describe how frustrated passengers are. and they have every right to be. and what we've done on this federal aviation administration bill, which has been, incidentally, extended, laid over 11 different times, 11 different times we have not been able to get to it until this day. so i'm glad that we