Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I yield to Senator Paul to allow him to offer an amendment into the pending amendments so we will have that done before cloture is filed.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, we yield back.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I appreciate what the chairman has said. His message is the same as my message; that is, this is a very important bill. It is one--the authorization of the FAA--we have extended, since 2007, with 18 short-term extensions. Neither the chairman nor myself want a 19th short-term extension. That is, as he mentioned, not the way we ought to be doing business. We ought to be able to assure that a contract will be let for a new runway or a repair on a runway and that it will be finished. I hope we can get through some of the thornier issues, and there are several of those. I ask my colleagues to come down and get their amendments pending because we want to close out amendments and then deal with the ones we have and move on. Senator Wicker and Senator Collins are going to be here very shortly. They will be talking about the Wicker amendment. That is one I think they have now agreed to sponsor together. They have made some good changes. We have others that are also being worked on. It is time, if a colleague wants to offer an amendment, to come down and do it. We are continuing to work on the perimeter slot rule from Washington National Airport, with the hope of coming to a consensus that will increase the number of opportunities for people from the Western half of the United States to come into Washington National Airport. I will say, I believe it is in everyone's interest to open Washington National on a limited basis. We do not want to add to the congestion. The proposals that are being put forward would not add to congestion. They would be mostly incumbent carriers already flying, just transferring to longer haul flights but not with bigger airplanes. So you can't make the argument that it is going to add to ground congestion or air congestion because you are not going to add that many new flights. It certainly is not a noise issue anymore, because we have Stage III aircraft that have made a significant improvement in air traffic noise for people who live near airports. I think it is in the interest of the people who live around National to have that same convenience--to be able to go to the western part of the United States, just as people who live farther away from the airports. So I think we are working through this. We need to come up with something that everyone would say is a fair compromise, and I hope we can do that. The underlying bill is important because it does increase the safety measures we need to have. It certainly will modernize the air traffic control system and put America in the forefront of putting our air traffic control on a satellite-based system, rather than a ground-based radar system. That is the key reason for needing to go forward on this bill so we can start that transformation. It will take time, and it is something that needs to be done, but with a longer term authorization, which we are trying to do. It will improve rural small town access to our aviation system. There are also good consumer protections. We don't think anyone should have to sit on an airplane for more than 3 hours on the ground with the door closed, and that is provided for in this bill. If you are sitting on the ground in an enclosed aircraft for more than 3 hours, the airline must open the doors and let passengers get off. There are a lot of things we need to put into law. We have made a good start, and I would ask my colleagues to give us their amendments, if they have them, and let us work through them to move this bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I rise today to speak in support of the Diana Saldana confirmation to serve as a Federal judge for the Southern District of Texas in Laredo. Judge Saldana's career has given her a breadth of experience that I believe will serve her well on the Federal bench. She received her B.A. in history and government from the University of Texas and then went on to receive a J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law. She was born in Carrizo Springs, TX, only a stone's throw from where she is currently serving as a U.S. magistrate judge in Laredo, TX. Prior to that, Judge Saldana served 4 years as an assistant U.S. attorney. She handled as many as 350 active Federal criminal cases a year, ranging from immigration to narcotics to health care. It was in this capacity that she was selected coordinator for Chief Judge George Kazen. Before her work in the U.S. Attorney's Office, Judge Saldana spent time as a lawyer for the U.S. Department of Justice in the Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Department of Agriculture in the General Counsel's Office. She also served as a law clerk to Judge Kazen in the Southern District of Texas. Judge Saldana has been admitted to practice before the U.S. Southern District of Texas Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court. Judge Saldana has good professional experience, and she is well respected in the South Texas community. The American Bar Association gave her a unanimous ``well qualified'' rating, and I believe she will be an effective Federal judge in South Texas. In September, I introduced Judge Saldana before the Judiciary Committee, and today I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support her nomination and confirm her as a Federal judge for the Southern District in Laredo, TX. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise to speak also on the 100th anniversary of the birth of Ronald Reagan, and I am so pleased to follow my colleague from California who has been under the weather for a little while. We are very glad she is back. I think all of us will have an opportunity to talk about one of the great Presidents of the last century and to mark the 30 years since Ronald Reagan's inauguration. When Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, America faced an anemic economy, high unemployment, and a sense of malaise emanated from Washington. But President Reagan never doubted that America's potential was unlimited. During his second inaugural address, he said America ``can out-produce, out-compete and out-sell anybody, anywhere in the world.'' The Reagan Revolution was fueled by the understanding that, given the opportunity, Americans would dream, create, and build. He also knew the road to greatness was through an individual's effort, not through expanded government. So President Reagan set about reinvigorating the stagnant economy. He cut government spending. He reduced government regulation. He ended the practice of wage and price controls. He passed tax cuts for all Americans. He famously noted that ``Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.'' The American economy responded with sustained growth, and a new era of economic prosperity had been ushered in. Reagan's vision of the greater good also extended beyond our shores. He was a fierce advocate for freedom. With our Cold War adversary, the Soviet Union, imposing the tight grip of communism on much of the world, President Reagan launched a resurgence of American military might through the Strategic Defense Initiative. As he said: Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the United States was too strong. It was his firm resolve to negotiate from a position of strength that led to successful arms talks with the Soviets and ultimately to the downfall of the Soviet Empire. During his first inaugural address, he clearly stated where America stood: As for the enemies of freedom, those who are potential adversaries, they will be reminded that peace is the highest aspiration of the American people. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it; we will not surrender for it--now or ever. President Reagan understood that all people, regardless of where they live, long for liberty and freedom. He believed that America was a beacon of hope to all of the oppressed people of the world, a ``shining city on the hill,'' as he described it. As Jeffrey Bell wrote in the Weekly Standard, Ronald Reagan ``believed that people all over the world craved self-government just as much as Americans did.'' Even today, he is still being proven right. He said: Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty. These words still echo in today's tumultuous times. We witnessed the poignant photographs of women in Iraq voting and joyously holding up their purple-stained thumbs. We are now seeing the marches of people in Egypt who long to be able to vote in a real election for the first time in 30 years. He also understood the importance of information in promoting freedom, calling it the ``oxygen of the modern age. It seeps through the walls topped by barbed wire; it wafts across the electrified borders.'' His words are as true today as when he uttered them. Freedom and individual liberty are America's greatest assets. They are the core of our national identity. They are the foundation of our economic prosperity, and these precious assets have been protected by the service and sacrifice of patriots in every generation from the beginning of America's history to today. Ronald Reagan understood and appreciated the duty we all have to preserve these American ideals. As he said: Democracy is worth dying for, because it is the most deeply honorable form of government devised by man. When President Reagan died in 2004, there was a spontaneous, worldwide outpouring of grief and tribute that caught some seasoned political pundits by surprise. Throughout his political career, Ronald Reagan was underestimated by ``establishment'' political intellectuals of the day. He was dismissed sometimes by the media. But when he spoke, the American people listened, they understood, and they agreed with this down-to-Earth but very profound man. And so did the world. We all remember him fondly, with great respect, and are honored to have known him. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, how much time does Senator Paul control?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to withhold until the other side has had a chance to speak. Then I will take part of Senator Paul's time.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the Paul amendment. The Davis-Bacon Act was passed in 1931. We had a very different labor and diversity of wages. There were not minimum wages to the extent we have today. Today, every State has a different cost of living, different standards of what kinds of construction requirements there are, and thousands of buildings in this country are built in the private sector very safely, very efficiently. But when Davis-Bacon kicks in, for a government program, it skews the entire wage scale of that community, causing an inflation to other projects. The studies I have seen prove that Davis-Bacon increases costs throughout a community because it sets an artificial standard, not taking into account the cost of living in that area. No one can argue that the cost of living in New York is very different from the cost of living in Texas or West Virginia or Tennessee. We should not be trying to change the norm in an area by artificially inflating the costs, and that is exactly what Davis-Bacon does. If we are going to hear the voice of the people, who said last November: We are tired of business as usual in Washington and in Congress, we will pass the Paul amendment because this is the first step toward efficiency--to say that the projects going forward in this bill will not be subject to Davis-Bacon; they will be subject to bidding on contracts. And bidders do not necessarily win because they have the lowest bid. The person who is doing the contracting has the leeway to take into account quality and the reputation of the builder. So it is not as if the lowest bidder gets every bid. It is a process that is orderly. But Davis-Bacon does inflate the cost. I think the Paul amendment is an excellent one. I think it will show that the people in this Senate got the message in November--that we don't have to sit with a 1931 law that is no longer necessary because the protections are in place, and we need to build our taxpayer-funded facilities in the most efficient way that saves taxpayer dollars. I support the Paul amendment and hope it will pass.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, if I may, I ask the Senator from Kentucky if he is ready to yield back time and I ask the majority if they are ready to yield back time on the Paul amendment. If so, we can move on to the Whitehouse amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will reserve an additional 2 minutes for Senator Paul, and we can close this out.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Paul amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I support the Whitehouse amendment. It will add to the security of our aircraft flying. I urge my colleagues to support it as well. If time has been yielded back, I call for a vote.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I commend the chairman of the Commerce Committee. He and I have been working on this bill since 2007. As we mentioned when we began consideration of the bill yesterday, this is the 18th short-term extension we are on. I think any person in America, any person who flies in America, any person who is subject to FAA regulation, and certainly any businessperson in America knows you cannot do long-term planning and ensure that your agency is doing its work knowing what they can expect in support from Congress in short- term extensions for over 4 years. That is not good business, it is not good management, and it is certainly not the way government should run. So I am in agreement with Senator Rockefeller, our chairman, that we need to act on this bill. I hope it is going to be an effort that is bipartisan, that we will address the issues that have held up the bill in the past in a reasonable way so we can get on with, hopefully, a 3- year authorization of the FAA, and especially so we can start next year. America is the premier user of air traffic control systems. Our system is based on the 1960s technology of ground operations and use of radar. We want to move to a satellite-based system that will increase the capacity at our clogged airports--the bigger airports that have more traffic than they can accommodate--and where the traveling public is in the most need. We need the efficiency and we need the modern technology. That is what this bill will set us on the path to do. So I agree with the chairman in that respect, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on their amendments that pertain to this bill going forward. I wish to take a few moments to speak to the amendment that is at hand, which is not an amendment about the FAA authorization, but it is a very important amendment. Basically, it is Senator McConnell's amendment that would repeal the health care reform that was passed over a year ago. He is trying to say: Let's stop right now. We have seen every signal that the concerns we had when we spoke against this bill in December of 2009 are coming home to roost. In fact, the concerns we raised are now being shown to be a huge problem in this country. The health care reform bill that was passed cost $2.6 trillion. Over 6,000 pages were added to the Federal Register to implement this law. All of this indicates the bill does a whole lot more than my colleagues are referencing right now in the floor debate because when I hear the floor debate, the people who supported this bill are saying all we did was fix a few problems with our health care system that we all agree on. But in reality, this is a bill that costs $2.6 trillion, $500 billion in new taxes on business and on individuals, and it cuts $500 billion out of Medicare, a program that isn't working to the maximum extent possible. It is certainly not considered the most efficient program. Now we are putting $500 billion out for a new government entitlement program that puts the Federal Government between patients and their doctors. Here are a few of the provisions that are in the 2,000 pages of the health reform law. First, if you don't buy government-approved health insurance for you and your family, the health reform bill says you must pay a new tax. That is the individual tax. If you own a business and don't buy government-approved health insurance, which is going to have a formula and a requirement for how much businesses have to pay and what has to be in it, then you must pay a new tax. If business owners want to grow their employees over the 50 mark where it kicks in for businesses, then there will be costly new Federal regulations with which they will have to comply. So here we are in an era where unemployment is at all-time highs, and we are putting a cap on employees for businesses that are going to incur huge expenses if they go over 50. So if an employer is in the 40- to-45 range, they are looking very carefully at not going above 50. Is that really what our economy needs right now? I don't think so. What we want is to encourage businesses to hire. That is what every one of us in this body should want, and we should be passing laws that would ensure that businesses have the freedom to hire, not a stifling effect on that kind of effort. We need to get the government off the backs of our job creators and not put up miles of redtape and more bureaucracy and more regulations and more taxes and fees that would curb the ability to hire and still make a profit. Next, it was said during the health care reform debate that if you like your current health plan, you will be able to keep it. But everything that has happened since the bill passed says you can't keep it because even the administration is now admitting that when it issued the rules that employers now have to follow when deciding what health care plan it will offer, that because of health reform, by 2013 as many as 80 percent of small businesses will no longer offer the same health care plans they offer today. Families who rely on their health savings accounts or flexible spending accounts, which have been a wonderful boon for families to be able to put money aside before taxes to be able to use on the health care expenses they have that are not covered by insurance, that is being used by more and more people--in the millions. But in the health care reform bill there is now a restriction, a cap, on how much you can put aside, and you have to have a prescription drug to be able to pay for it with your pretax dollars. You can no longer buy a bottle of Tylenol or aspirin off the counter and have your health savings account help you pay for that. So here we are. The Presiding Officer and I have children. Are we going to stop and call the doctor or run and get a prescription if we have a health savings account to buy aspirin or Tylenol? That is not helpful. Why would we put a restriction on what people can set aside for their own health care costs? Why wouldn't we make it easier for them? Instead, the health care reform bill makes it harder to use those pretax dollars. There is no reason for it. I will have an amendment that will try to take the caps off and take the restrictions off so that people can provide for their health care out-of-pocket expenses with pretax dollars. That is the kind of incentive we need, not the opposite, which is in the health care reform bill. If you are a woman under 50, whether you have access to routine mammograms is going to depend on a task force that was granted new and unchecked powers by the health care reform bill. The same task force that is going to have that power has already given the indication that mammograms under the age of 50 are not necessary to be covered. The women of the Senate stood firm years ago when the Clinton administration was trying to pass a health care reform bill to say we are absolutely not going to stand in the way of a woman and her doctor, knowing her history and her family, from having a mammogram whenever it is needed. There is not one person in this body who doesn't have a friend or a relative who has had breast cancer before the age of 50 and probably before the age of 40. So that is in the health care reform bill, and it needs to come out. This week, another Federal court announced that the Federal Government could not force individual Americans to purchase a private product--even health care. The judge in the most recent case in Florida said when Congress passed health reform it exceeded its constitutional power and, therefore, the court voided the entire law. This is the second court that has found the health reform bill unconstitutional. Now, this lawsuit is going through the judicial process. Yet even though it is being appealed by the Obama administration, it will most likely go to the Supreme Court of America. We shouldn't have to wait for the Supreme Court to rule that this law is unconstitutional. We shouldn't have to wait for them to reassure the American people that Congress most certainly shouldn't be regulating anything and everything just because the Federal Government says so. We don't have to spend millions more in taxpayer dollars implementing a bill that ultimately could be struck down by the highest Court in the land. The Senate has the opportunity, and I believe the responsibility, to say: Moratorium. Let's wait until the Supreme Court has ruled on this enormous bill and the enormous cost that is being incurred for implementation right now. Let's wait. Let's repeal this bill now and start all over so we do not have to spend taxpayer dollars that we know are being borrowed to implement a bill that may be unconstitutional, and we have now had two Federal courts that have said so. Why not repeal and support this amendment? Some of what is in the bill could be reenacted because it is good, but some of the things I have just talked about should be repealed immediately. Most certainly we could repeal items such as the 1099 which will be another amendment we can vote on. That 1099 form is the biggest thing I hear about from my small businesses in this country, and certainly those in Texas have said: What are you all doing up there? Well, of course, I am happy to say I didn't support this bill. But these are the kinds of things we can repeal today and start all over. We can take the good parts of the Obama health care. Let's do away with the bad parts instead of spending millions of dollars to make a mom have to get a prescription from a doctor to get Tylenol with her health savings account. The American people have made their opinion on this bill known loudly and clearly. They spoke at the ballot box: Enough is enough. That is what the voters said. Enough deficit spending; enough government intrusion into our businesses, our families, our lives, and our health care decisions. The people of America support the repeal of this bill, and they will work with us to substitute responsible health care reform that will allow them to have health savings accounts to provide for the costs not covered, that will give them affordable coverage which we all want to have, but not with the government prescription, not with a government task force that can tell a woman that she doesn't need a mammogram before the age of 50. We don't need a task force to tell us that. We need the doctor who is looking at this patient and her family history. Those are the things that need to come out right now. Repeal and replace. That is what this Senate could do, and we can move forward on a bill that we can get a bipartisan consensus to pass that I think would show the American people we heard what they said. We know we can do better, and it is our responsibility to do so. Thank you, Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, will the Senator from Washington allow me to make a couple minutes response to the Senator from West Virginia?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I appreciate so much what the chairman has just said. That is a major statement because what he says is true. There is one flight from Washington National to California. That is all we have, one direct flight. That is not fair. It is not fair to the people in the West, certainly in the largest State in population in America--California. I hope what he has said will lead us to a table to negotiate this issue so we can be fair to the entire western half of the United States, so that we are also taking into account the people who live in and around the Washington metropolitan area, which is what I think the Western Senators have tried to do. But let's talk about it, let's get something on the floor, let's negotiate this because with that, this is a bill that, with a few tweaks perhaps, ought to pass for the right reasons for our country and for the traveling public. I thank the chairman for his leadership, and I thank Senator Murray.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, I, too, wish to discuss the FAA reauthorization bill and agree with the chairman, Senator Rockefeller, who has just spoken, that we have worked in a bipartisan way on this bill for 4 years. I am glad he mentioned Senator Dorgan, who was the chairman of the subcommittee, who pushed so hard last year for us to come to a conclusion and try to pass a permanent bill. The bill that is before us is the bill that passed last year. There are many good provisions in this bill. It passed unanimously in the Senate, and we were on our way to conference with the House. But the House bill was quite different. We never got to the point of being able to work out the differences. I do think there was one part of the bill, which I will discuss more later, where we worked on a compromise to achieve a goal of easing the perimeter rule at Washington's Reagan Airport. We were able to come to an agreement among the leaders on the committee, but we were not able to get the full agreement of the Senate. That was a gentlemen's agreement, if you will, that we would work on putting that into the conference report, but that never came to pass. The perimeter rule around National Airport has slot restrictions and mileage restrictions on how far a plane can go directly in and out of National Airport. The perimeter rule prohibits flights traveling to or from points that are more than 1,250 miles from National Airport unless there is an exemption. Many Western States would like more of those exemptions, especially given that the airport can now handle additional capacity. I want to be clear at the onset of this process, I cannot support a final bill that does not address this issue. We need to work out either a consensus majority or an agreement that addresses the issue rather than just leaving it out. The FAA has operated under a series of short-term extensions since 2007; 18 short-term extensions have occurred. That is not providing the policy to keep us in the forefront of modernization of our air traffic system. We need to have a bipartisan, commonsense, multiyear FAA reauthorization to provide the stability that the FAA and its stakeholders--the airlines and passengers--need to make sound investment decisions for our future aviation system. The current short-term extension expires March 31. If we address these issues in our Senate bill, I believe we can work with the House that has already begun to formulate the basis of its bill and have a true multiyear reauthorization bill that would be able to pass on March 31 instead of yet another short-term extension. The House version last year was quite different from our bill. While a year now has almost elapsed, many of the bill's provisions need to be updated. The one we have before us would modernize the air traffic control system, NextGen, which was mentioned by Senator Rockefeller. It would improve aviation and it would ensure passengers are treated well, especially if they are delayed and stuck in an aircraft for more than 3 hours. I call it the captive passenger rule that we need to enact. First, modernization. Probably the most important area we address in this bill is expediting the FAA's air traffic control air modernization program, known as NextGen. The FAA operates the largest and safest air traffic control system in the world. In fact, the FAA's air traffic control system handles almost half of the world's air traffic activity. The United States has been a leader in developing and implementing new technologies to create a safer and more efficient airspace system. However, today's air traffic control system is not much different from that which was started in the 1960s. The system is based on radar tracking and ground-based infrastructure. NextGen will move much of the air traffic infrastructure from ground based to satellite based by replacing antiquated, costly ground infrastructure with orbiting satellites and onboard automation. By doing this, the FAA will be able to make our aviation system more safe and efficient while increasing capacity at our Nation's busiest airports. Some of the modernization provisions in the bill include establishing clear deadlines for the adoption of existing Global Positioning System navigation technology. It mandates 100 percent coverage at the top 35 airports by 2014, with the entire national airspace system to be required to be covered by 2018. Aviation safety. As a former vice chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, I understand well the critical and difficult mission the FAA has in overseeing our Nation's airlines and aviation system. Aviation safety and the public trust that goes along with it are the bedrock of our national aviation policy, and we simply cannot allow any degradation of safety for the flying public. This bill goes a long way to advance and promote the air travel system. Last August, as part of one of the short-term extensions, several of the important safety provisions were enacted into law that were the direct result of weaknesses identified from the tragic crash and aftermath of Colgan flight 3407 in Buffalo, NY. While those provisions were of great importance and will have an impact on creating one level of safety through all sectors of aviation, we still have important work to do, and in this bill we do it, such as addressing inconsistent application of airworthiness directives by improving the voluntary disclosure reporting process to ensure adequate actions are taken in response to reports; limiting the ability of FAA inspectors to work with air carriers over which they had oversight.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will be happy to yield if the leaders allow me to come in when they are finished and continue.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Probably about 5 or 6 minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. So I will speak after Senator McConnell, and before Senator Stabenow.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased we are starting on the FAA bill and having an open amendment process so everyone can be heard. I will finish my remarks, as the ranking member of the Commerce Committee, and then I know Senator Stabenow wants to speak on the first amendment that is going to be offered. It is probably unrelated to our FAA bill but nevertheless is very important for our country. Let me go back to where I was on the part of the FAA reauthorization bill that addresses aviation safety. We do limit the ability of FAA inspectors to work for air carriers over which they have had oversight, and we will require the conducting of independent reviews of safety issues identified by employees. We also need to require enhanced safety oversight of foreign repair stations, including a minimum of two FAA inspections annually, with exceptions for those that have comprehensive bilateral aviation safety maintenance agreements with the United States, and requiring alcohol and drug testing at any foreign facilities that perform maintenance on U.S. commercial aircraft. Finally, the bill also provides infrastructure investment to our Nation's airports. As we all know, you can have the best planes and the best air traffic system but they mean nothing without the proper airport infrastructure in place. This bill contains many important provisions and deserves the support of the Senate. We have been operating under short-term extensions for far too long. It is also one of the reasons we need to finally address the DCA perimeter rule, which has impeded the passage of this bill on too many occasions. While I have been talking about what is in the bill, this is the one issue that is currently not included in the bill and must be addressed if we are to have a successful final passage. After months of negotiation last year, the chairman, the subcommittee chairman, western Senators, and our ranking member on the subcommittee and I reached a compromise agreement that we hoped would finally resolve the issue, but we didn't have an opportunity to bring the consensus version to the floor before we adjourned. It is a very reasonable approach. Here are the provisions of the compromise: It would add five new round-trip flights beyond the perimeter for new entrants or limited incumbents, which means airlines that have very small bases at National Airport now. This means we would add competition with the five new round-trip flights. It allows for conversion of 16 round-trip flights from large hub airports inside the perimeter to any airport outside the perimeter phased in over 2 years. The conversion concept seeks to address congestion concerns by replacing existing flights rather than creating more new flights. Since 2000, there have only been 12 new flights at National Airport. That is since the year 2000. Now we are asking for five more new flights, which would increase competition. The conversion flights would have no impact on congestion at the airport because they will not be new flights. It prohibits the use of wide-body aircraft for converted flights to address any noise concerns from local residents. But in reality, the noise issue is so different today than it was when the first aviation authorization was passed. We have Stage 3 aircraft now, which are much quieter than the planes that have gone in and out in the past. And not to allow the use of bigger aircraft protects the residents who might live around the airport. In fact, I would argue it gives them an added convenience, because those residents would also have access to the long-haul flights at an airport convenient to them. The DOT would evaluate the proposed flights and be able to disapprove of the conversions if they determined they are not in the public interest. The air carriers could only convert flights currently used to operate flights to large hubs within the perimeter in an effort to protect small communities. So, in other words, you would not see conversions from very small airports to be able to take long-haul flights away. It would only be conversions from a big hub airport to another big hub airport. So our small communities should not feel threatened by this. Carriers would be prohibited from selling, trading, leasing or otherwise transferring the rights to fly beyond the perimeter. It also eliminates financial restrictions in place between National and Dulles that would allow for revenuesharing between the two airports, which is comparable to other airport systems across the country to address any financial impact on the airport authority. I lived through, dealt with, and negotiated the Wright amendment in Texas and the lifting of the Wright amendment that allowed an incremental easing of the Wright amendment restrictions at Dallas's Love Field. That was put in place to protect DFW Airport when it was first built. That was much of the reason for the restrictions at National Airport when Dulles Airport was built, to assure that Dulles would be financially secure. Dulles is financially secure. So it is time to deal with the issue of allowing National to have more service to the western half of America. The people out West deserve to have more access to National Airport if that is where they choose to fly. I think Dulles has captured the international flights, and I think that has been a good way for Dulles to become one of our busiest airports and certainly one of our most successful. So I know these are difficult issues, because I dealt with them in my own State, but now I think this modest expansion of only five new flights out of Reagan National should be very doable. I think the western Senators have come up with a compromise, with the conversions, that will not affect the traffic or the congestion around National but will allow better access, which I think is a win-win for everyone. So especially for you, Mr. President, with some humor, I find it a bit ironic that tomorrow is Groundhog Day--February 2. If ever there were a piece of legislation that fits the bill, this one is it. Since starting this legislation in 2007, 18 short-term extensions later, and this being the third consideration of the FAA bill on the floor, it does feel like Groundhog Day. And in a nod to that holiday--that esteemed important holiday in America--let us hope there are no shadows seen and winter will quickly end in a well-debated and bipartisan FAA bill. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan, the majority leader, the Republican leader, and my chairman for allowing us to start the debate on this bill and finish our remarks. I know we will have many amendments, but I hope in the end we have a good bill that satisfies everyone's needs and that we can say permanently that winter is over. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to provide permanent tax relief from the marriage penalty--the most egregious, anti-family provision in the tax code. One of my highest priorities in the United States Senate has been to relieve American taxpayers of this punitive burden. We have made important strides to eliminate this unfair tax and provide marriage penalty relief by raising the standard deduction and enlarging the 15 percent tax bracket for married joint filers to twice that of single filers. Before these provisions were changed, 42 percent of married couples paid an average penalty of $1,400. Enacting marriage penalty relief was a giant step for tax fairness, but it may be fleeting. Even as married couples use the money they now save to put food on the table and clothes on their children, a tax increase looms in the future. While I am pleased that relief from the marriage penalty was included in the recent agreement to extend the broader tax relief for all Americans, the marriage penalty provisions will only be in effect through 2012. In 2013, marriage will again be a taxable event and a significant number of married couples will again pay more in taxes unless we act decisively. Given the challenges many families face in making ends meet, we must make sure we do not backtrack on this important reform. The benefits of marriage are well established, yet, without marriage penalty relief, the tax code provides a significant disincentive for people to walk down the aisle. Marriage is a fundamental institution in our society and should not be discouraged by the IRS. Children living in a married household are far less likely to live in poverty or to suffer from child abuse. Research indicates these children are also less likely to be depressed or have developmental problems. Scourges such as adolescent drug use are less common in married families, and married mothers are less likely to be victims of domestic violence. We should celebrate marriage, not penalize it. The bill I am offering would make marriage penalty relief permanent, because marriage should not be a taxable event. I welcome and appreciate the support of Senators Ensign, Johanns, Cornyn, and Vitter, who have signed on as cosponsors, and I call on the Senate to finish the job we started and make marriage penalty relief permanent today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.