Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will highlight a number of quotes from these documents. Let me start with a letter by three of our Nation's renowned astronauts, true American heroes: Neil Armstrong, the first man to set foot on the Moon, commander of Apollo 11; James Lovell, commander of Apollo 13; and Eugene Cernan, commander of Apollo 17. In an open letter to the President, these space pioneers state that although some of the President's proposals have merit, ``the decision to cancel the Constellation program, its Ares 1 and Ares V rockets and the Orion spacecraft, is devastating.'' They say: America's only path to low Earth orbit and the International Space Station will now be subject to an agreement with Russia to purchase space on their Soyuz (at a price of over 50 million dollars per seat with significant increases expected in the near future) until we have the capacity to provide transportation for ourselves. The availability of a commercial transport to orbit as envisioned in the President's proposal cannot be predicted with any certainty, but is likely to take substantially longer and be more expensive than we would hope. It appears that we will have wasted our current $10-plus billion investment in Constellation and, equally importantly, we will have lost the many years required to recreate the equivalent of what we will have discarded. For The United States, the leading space faring nation for nearly half a century, to be without carriage to low Earth orbit and with no human exploration capability to go beyond Earth orbit for an indeterminate time into the future, destines our nation to become one of second or even third rate stature. While the President's plan envisages humans traveling away from Earth and perhaps toward Mars at some time in the future, the lack of developed rockets and spacecraft will assure that ability will not be available for many years. Without the skill and experience that actual spacecraft operation provides, the USA is far too likely to be on a long downhill slide to mediocrity. America must decide if it wishes to remain a leader in space. If it does, we should institute a program which will give us the very best chance of achieving that goal. That is all from the letter signed by Neil Armstrong, James Lovell, and Eugene Cernan. In another letter to President Obama, 27 space experts, including astronauts, former NASA Administrators, and program managers make the following points: America is faced with the near-simultaneous ending of the Shuttle program and your recent budget proposal to cancel the Constellation program. This is wrong for our country for many reasons. We are very concerned about America ceding its hard earned global leadership in space technology to other nations. We are stunned that, in a time of economic crisis, this move will force as many as 30,000 irreplaceable engineers and managers out of the space industry. We see our human exploration program, one of the most inspirational tools to promote science, technology, engineering and math to our young people, being reduced to mediocrity. NASA's human space program has inspired awe and wonder in all ages by pursuing the American tradition of exploring the unknown. We strongly urge you to drop this misguided proposal that forces NASA out of human space operations for the foreseeable future. For those of us who have accepted the risk and dedicated a portion of our lives to the exploration of outer space, this is a terrible decision. . . . America's greatness lies in her people: she will always have men and women willing to ride rockets into the heavens. America's challenge is to match their bravery and acceptance of risk with specific plans and goals worthy of their commitment. NASA must continue at the frontiers of human space exploration in order to develop the technology and set the standards of excellence that will enable commercial space ventures to eventually succeed. Canceling NASA's human space operations, after 50 years of unparalleled achievement, makes that objective impossible. One of the greatest fears of any generation is not leaving things better for the young people of the next. In the area of human space flight, we are about to realize that fear; your NASA budget proposal raises more questions about our future in space than it answers. That is all from the letter that was signed by 27 people who have dedicated their lives to America's space exploration. In an open letter by astronaut Lee Archambault, who was a pilot of Atlantis in 2007 and Discovery in 2009, he says: As the Space Shuttle program marches closer to its apparent end, NASA's future is now in jeopardy more than perhaps at any time in history. . . . The Shuttle retirement . . . would yield sole access to the International Space Station to Russia for the currently projected seven year [U.S. human spaceflight] gap. . . . Others argue that commercial alternatives exist to ferry our astronauts to and from the International Space Station. Not quite yet. Our commercial industry is indeed getting closer to attaining the ability to send unmanned spacecraft to the International Space Station as resupply ships. Ultimately, these companies may produce spacecraft safe enough for human travel to low Earth orbit. However, I would not bet the future of the International Space Station on commercial access for crewmembers happening much sooner, if at all, than Orion is capable of flying to the International Space Station in 2017. Thus, this option cannot be considered a viable ``gap filler'' at this point. . . . Not until Orion or a commercial alternative is indeed ready and capable of transporting our astronauts to and from the International Space Station, should we consider retiring the Space Shuttle. . . . The future of NASA and our manned exploration of space must include flying the Shuttle through the gap, whatever that gap may be. Finally, this week, in an editorial from the Washington Times entitled ``Losing It in Space,'' the editorial from the Washington Times says: Pity poor NASA. Rather than reaching toward the stars, America's premier scientific organization has settled its sights on studying shrimp schools beneath the Antarctic ice cap and sticky accelerators on Toyotas. Such is the scope of hope and change in President Obama's universe. The editorial goes on to say: In his 2011 budget, the president zeroed out NASA's Constellation project, the package of launch and landing vehicles that were to replace the aging space shuttle fleet to carry Americans into space. . . . This is not a cost-cutting move. The agency is budgeted to receive $19 billion next year, and Mr. Obama wants to throw an additional $6 billion at it over [the next] five years. The hitch is he wants to shift its mission toward climate research and airplane design. Anxious to stay relevant, NASA agreed to research the cause of Toyota's sudden-acceleration problem. NASA administrator Charles Bolden said Thursday that federal money is budgeted for fostering the growth of the commercial space industry, including the development of space taxis. But if the results of the president's stimulus are any indication, command economic policy is an inefficient generator of jobs. It goes on to say: As NASA's wings are clipped, our competitors soar. The U.S. space agency even had to sign a $340 million deal with Russia on April 6 to transport astronauts to the International Space Station through 2014. By then, China intends to conduct an ambitious schedule of flights with its Shenzhou spacecraft. It doesn't take much imagination to envision the day when NASA must pay its Asian competitor large sums for American astronauts to ride into orbit as passengers. Thanks to Mr. Obama, the United States will be dependent on Russia and China for space travel. The editorial goes on: The space program is a great symbol of the American spirit of achievement. The day this nation cedes the conquest of space to others is the day we admit that we have forfeited our competitive exceptionalism. Earth-centric activities like the study of the Antarctic shrimp ecosystem and automobile anomalies should be left to others. A less-costly NASA should be relieved of extraneous responsibilities and allowed to retain its core mission--one that no other agency can accomplish--the exploration of space. On behalf of all Americans, Floridians should make certain the president gets the message loud and clear when he hosts a conference about the agency's future on Thursday-- Today-- in the Sunshine State. Let NASA be NASA. That is the editorial from the Washington Times earlier this week. Let me remind my colleagues that the Augustine Committee, which the Obama administration asked to review the Nation's human space flight activities, used a subtitle for its report which proposed a set of options for a space program ``worthy of a great nation.'' The items I have submitted for the Record reflect the thoughts and feelings of many of those who gave us a space program that was worthy of greatness. I believe their words represent a challenge that Congress and the President must meet. In a few hours, President Obama will share the details of his latest vision for our Nation's future space program. I still remain hopeful the President will come away from this visit today with a deeper understanding of what is at stake in our Nation's history of space exploration. I renew my offer to work with the President and my congressional colleagues to come up with a plan that makes sense for America. The principles necessary to bridge the gap between the President and Congress have been set forward by the bipartisan legislation I have introduced and has also been introduced on the House side. All that is needed to align these principles with the President's goals and existing budget realities is a willingness to take the same risks that have been hallmarks of our Nation's commitment to space exploration. Some people would say we have to cut the budget somewhere. Why not here? The answer is, this does not cut the budget. The President's proposal does not cut the budget. It increases the budget. It turns the money over to private companies that are as yet unproven to try to do something we have already made a $10 billion investment in and cut it off. When it is cut off, we will lose all that has been gained. The engineering, the science, the research that has gone into the space station will be lost. Those people will go into other areas. We will not be able to recreate it. But yet we have not cut the budget a penny. What we have done is squander the capability for America to continue to be the leader of the world in innovation, in creativity, and most certainly in taking the risk to explore the heavens, which has produced so many results in our country. It has produced results for national defense capabilities. We are using satellites to put bombs into windows from miles out so we will not have collateral damage and hurt innocent people. We learned that by exploring the heavens. We now have Velcro. We have MRIs. We have health benefits that we could never have had without the research we did to go into space. Now we have a $100 billion investment in a space station that will specialize with NIH and other agencies in doing research that cannot be done on the ground because of the microgravity conditions. Yet we are stopping the capability, at the end of this year, for Americans to go into space under our own auspices. This is not sound policy for our country. I am urging the President to listen to people such as Neil Armstrong and Eugene Cernan and Jim Lovell and former administrators who have knowledge that is beyond mine or his about what we can do for the future. We need to rethink the position that is being announced today and remember that America's greatness is dependent on our creativity and our entrepreneurial spirit. Stopping midtrack and turning everything over to private companies that are in their fledgling stage is not the answer. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, President Obama is going to travel to Florida where many expect him to discuss the adverse reaction to his proposed budget for NASA and possible alternative options for the future of America's manned space exploration capability. I know members of the NASA family and everyone living in communities that directly support the space program--from Maryland to Utah to Florida to Alabama to Louisiana and Texas--are, at the very least, uncertain about the President's budget proposal and how it would affect America's leadership role in space exploration. I share those concerns. Every American should share those concerns, because it will determine our role in science, space, research, exploration, and so much that will determine our future economically and in security. I hope the President has heard the concerns that have been raised since the budget was proposed and that he will take the opportunity to meet with the individuals who have worked hard to keep America in the forefront of space exploration for the last four decades. I also hope the President will recognize that he has an opportunity to reach out on a truly bipartisan basis for a new plan for NASA's future that prioritizes scientific research, protects our $100 billion investment in the International Space Station, and ensures that America retains independent human space flight capability. Last month, I introduced legislation that would provide such a framework. Identical companion legislation has been introduced in the House of Representations by Suzanne Kosmas, a Democrat from Florida, Bill Posey, a Republican from Florida, and others. This can be a starting point for bridging the differences between the President's proposal and the views of many in Congress. We may miss this opportunity to work together to build on America's legacy of space leadership unless the administration looks at its current approach and makes some alterations. The budget proposal put forward by the administration has created an unnecessary choice between the President's plans for increased research and development and the necessary transition to the next generation of technology on the one hand and maintaining a viable space station and an American human space flight capability over the next few years on the other. We can do both. Let me be clear why I believe the President should make his visit to Florida the beginning of a renewed discussion on the country's civil space program. I believe the President's advisers, in reaching for a bold new direction for NASA, failed to take into account some very important realities of our space program. The decision made in 2004 to discontinue the shuttle program at the end of 2010 was based on an International Space Station service end date of 2015. Two years ago this Congress, in an overwhelming bipartisan vote, enacted the NASA authorization bill of 2008, which stated that the space station should be kept in service until at least the year 2020. In the bill, we also required NASA to ensure that the capability to continue shuttle flights in support of the space station should be preserved for a period of time to give the new administration a chance to consider its plan for NASA. The Obama administration ordered a full review of U.S. human space flight plans as part of its 2010 budget request and eventually deferred a final proposal until the 2011 budget request. One of the important points made by the review committee, chaired by the eminently qualified Norman Augustine, was that the space station should be extended until 2020, which is what Congress has already said is the policy of our country. The President's proposal accepts the recommendation which is consistent with the 2008 bill and which I believe is vital to making full use of the scientific research capacity that is only just now being made available with the completion of the space station assembly. However, I remind my colleagues that the space station was designed and built with the idea that the shuttle would be available to keep it supplied and maintained, and to be able to bring large replacement or spare parts up should they be needed in order to keep the space station functioning. The parts and equipment being flown on the last three remaining shuttle flights were selected from over 1,400 total items based on what would be needed for the station to be extended until 2015. So while I commend the decision to extend the life of the station until 2020, flying the remaining shuttles scheduled for this year before completing an analysis of the station's needs based on a 2020 service date would surely be a mistake. We need to determine the parts and equipment needed to extend the station's life and ensure we have the capability to deliver them to the station. If we were to end the shuttle program as scheduled this year, we would be dependent on the Russian Soyuz vehicle and other possible cargo vehicles which lack the capability that the shuttle provides. Now let me remind all of those who are interested in the cost that using the Soyuz costs over $50 million per person. Probably a minimum of six per year--well, six over a 2-year period, so at least three per year--would be about $150 million a year. This is $150 million that we could be using to extend America's capabilities for its crewed vehicle that we have on the drawing boards--the Constellation program. We could be putting that money to our use rather than paying the Russians for the Soyuz, for using their vehicle. The President's proposal fails to recognize this, thereby endangering our ability to sustain the station until 2020. My legislation would address this deficiency by keeping the shuttles as an option at a reduced rate of two flights per year, but only until it can be determined that the station has parts and equipment on hand to keep functioning until 2020 in the absence of the shuttle's capability. The President's proposal also relies on a still emerging commercial space industry to develop the launch and crew-carrying capability to replace the shuttle. I support the development of a commercial capability, but as a supplement to a NASA capability, and with the development--and proving out--of a cargo capability. We should take this first step in commercial development before committing our entire national human space flight effort to launch systems that would be another generation beyond the cargo capabilities currently being developed. I remind my colleagues that much of the ``business case'' for a commercial system is based on the assumption of a viable space station. If the risk to station survivability presented by the President's proposal is not addressed, the case for investment in a commercial sector may weaken and the development of these capabilities may not even materialize. If this happens, America would have no long-term space flight capability and would need to rely completely on other nations for access to space. If an accident or technical issue results in the Russian Soyuz being unavailable for any extended period of time, the space station would very likely have to be abandoned and deorbited within a matter of months. Taking that level of risk is entirely unacceptable for a nation with our history of space leadership. A nation with our heritage of stretching beyond the possible and reaching for the heavens deserves more. We need an approach that ensures the sustainability of the station, facilitates the transition to a replacement for the shuttle, and reduces the gap in our Nation's ability to reach space. My legislation would address these issues by allowing for the extension of shuttle if needed for station sustainability and authorizing the accelerated development of a NASA- owned replacement to the shuttle such as a shuttle-derived design using existing systems and capabilities and the current contractor workforce, which might be available in time to shorten our reliance on other nations for access to space after the shuttle is retired. All of this can be done while allowing for the change in NASA's long-term mission and the increase in scientific research and technology funding envisioned in the President's proposal. Simply moving--and this is how we can do it within a budget that does not increase spending--we can move the remaining shuttle flights scheduled for this year into 2011 and 2012, and adding the backup flight already prepared as a contingency would provide enough flexibility to complete the analysis of station needs and guarantee a cargo capability for an additional 2 years. It is possible to accomplish even this modest but critical goal while holding the line on spending at the level in the President's budget. That is key, that we can do this within the President's own budget, yet extend our capabilities to have our control over the shuttles that would provide the space station what it needs to continue as we assess the needs to go on until 2020. The principles necessary to bridge the gap between the President and Members of Congress have been set forward by my legislation that has also been introduced in the House. All that is needed to align these principles with the President's goals and existing budget realities is a willingness to make the effort and take the same risks that have been hallmarks of our Nation's commitment to space exploration. The bipartisan foundation is there to make a cooperative effort. I stand ready to work with the President to bridge the differences between his budget proposal and the views of many in our Nation and many in Congress that the proposal places too much faith in unproven private sector alternatives to a NASA-managed replacement for the space shuttle and does not address the critical need to ensure the full and complete utilization and return on the investment in the International Space Station. For the sake of our Nation's space program and future generations of space pioneers, I hope when the President returns from his trip to Florida, he will accept my invitation to work together on a comprehensive space flight proposal that is worthy of our Nation and one that I think all of us who have worked on this issue for years--I am the ranking member of the Commerce Committee and I have been the chairman of the Space Subcommittee. I know we can do this. Senator Nelson of Florida, Senator LeMieux of Florida know this issue so well. We can do this if the President will work with us to come forward with a plan that is budget responsible and has the capability to extend our shuttles and make sure we utilize the investment we have already made in the space station. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 3634.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, our small businesses are struggling. We all know that. We are trying to encourage small businesses to hire and help our economy. Yet when this bill passes, our small businesses are going to have a tax credit if they offer health care to their employees, but what we are not telling the American people is that tax credit is limited to 2 years once the bill becomes fully effective. When the exchange opens, then the tax credit will last for 2 years. My amendment assures this is not going to be a bait-and-switch to our small businesspeople; that they will be able to have the tax credit permanently if they offer health care to their employees and they are a business of 25 employees and under. I hope our colleagues will support this amendment to help these small businesses. That is what will encourage them to offer health care to their employees.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the pending motions and amendments so that I may offer an amendment which is at the desk.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the amendment I offer today is to allow States to opt out of this health care bill. If ever there was an encroachment on the tenth amendment, this bill is it. We are hearing from State leaders all across the country asking Congress to abandon this bill. It is an unconstitutional preemption of State innovation, State prerogative, and States rights they are guaranteed in the Constitution by the tenth amendment. Thirteen States have now filed suit against this legislation because the leaders in those States know the detrimental impact this broad, one-size-fits-all solution will have on their unique situations. States are the most well equipped to design and approve governmental programs to address the needs of their citizens. My amendment would restore the tenth amendment rights reserved for the States by allowing State legislatures to pass legislation that would allow them to opt out of this bill and the Federal takeover of their health care system with its mandates, many of which are unfunded. Let's walk through the harmful provisions in this bill from which the States could opt out. Taxes, the job-killing taxes. The bill imposes 10 years of taxes, about $\1/2\ trillion, on individuals and businesses as well as pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, and medical device manufacturers. Some of these taxes will start almost immediately. More than $100 billion in taxes on prescription drug companies, medical device manufacturers, and insurance companies will begin to take effect before the actual supposed benefits of this bill would come into play. Studies show these taxes will be passed on to consumers. There is no doubt about it. Of course they are going to be passed on to consumers. They are going to be collected for years before there are any supposed benefits. Then there are the taxes on those who can't afford insurance: the higher of $695 per individual or 2.5 percent of household income. Employers will be hit with new taxes. The penalty could be as high as $2,000 or $3,000 per employee. What is this going to do to the small businesses of our country, which create 70 percent of the jobs? At a time when families are struggling, at a time when our businesses are struggling, at a time when our economy is at an all-time low--not all-time low, but almost all-time low; certainly bad--businesses aren't hiring. Why aren't they hiring? They aren't because they have a fear of the future. They don't know what to expect going forward. They are not going to start hiring people until there is a comfort level that the economy has stabilized and that we are in a real recovery mode. Yet, when people feel that way and when small businesses feel that way, what is the biggest deterrent to them being able to say, OK, things are getting better and I can hire new people? More taxes and more mandates and more burdens. That is what is going to keep them from taking that leap to hire more people. So it is like a revolving situation we are not going to get out of as long as we are continuing to put on more taxes, more expenses, and more mandates. We know premiums are going to go up. Premiums are already going up. Our purpose in this bill should be to bring premiums down by lowering the cost of health care, not by increasing the cost. That is so counterintuitive. It could only be thought of in Washington, DC. Cuts to Medicare. The Senate bill includes over $\1/2\ trillion in cuts to Medicare. About $135 billion of those are in cuts to hospitals. Mr. President, in conclusion, the Medicare Program is unsustainable. The Chief Actuary of Medicare has said that as much as 20 percent of Medicare's providers will either go out of business or will 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 pay for reform on the backs of our seniors. Cuts to hospitals will threaten access to care for seniors in our States. Third, this bill imposes on States an unfunded mandate to expand the Medicaid Program. Putting millions of individuals in to Medicaid is a fast way to quickly reduce the number of uninsured. Yet by doing so, the Federal Government is sending a very large check to the States, $20 billion to be exact, with a note that says ``We decide--you pay.'' At a time when so many States are struggling to balance their budgets, pay their teachers, improve transportation, maintain services, this bill imposes more costs. How much more are we going to ask of our States? States are in the best position to determine what is right for their citizens. Yet this bill will take away their right to innovate and determine fiscally responsible and effective ways to offer affordable health insurance coverage. In big government style, this bill manipulates that idea into a one- size-fits all solution for every single State. Plus, states should have the option of implementing tort reform as we have done in Texas. Yet under this bill States are actually punished for implementing tort reform. Tort reform is essential to bring down the cost of health care. This bill stiffles the ability to achieve this commonsense option. Why not level the playing field for taxpayers by offering tax incentives to encourage the purchase of health insurance at the State level. Let citizens in each State decide which health insurance plan best fits their needs--a decision that should be free from interference by the Federal Government. Senator DeMint and I have a bill which would offer a voucher of $2,000 to individuals and $5,000 to families so they can purchase health insurance that is portable and not tied to their employer. These are the right steps to achieving reform and these steps empower the States rather than violate their rights and impose a heavy handed Federal approach to reform. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment which is cosponsored by Senators Enzi, Coburn, Burr and Brown of Massachusetts. The bottom line is I hope my colleagues will vote to support the States rights so that we will be able to address high unemployment as well as high uninsured rates in a way that will lower the costs and give more options. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, we are hearing from State leaders all over our country begging Congress to abandon this bill that is an unconstitutional preemption of States rights, State innovation, and State prerogatives. Thirteen States have already filed suit against this bill. My amendment would restore the 10th amendment rights reserved to the States by allowing State legislatures to pass legislation to allow them to opt out of this bill, opt out of the job-killing taxes, opt out of the cuts to Medicare, opt out of the unfunded Medicaid mandates, when our States are hurting already. They are not balancing their budgets right now. This is going to make it worse. This is an easy ``yes'' vote, and I hope our colleagues will help our States to opt out of this bill if they choose.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3635 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment. It would just make relief from the marriage penalty and the sales tax deduction permanent. If we don't act, people across our country are going to start getting the marriage penalty tax once again. This was corrected under previous tax law, but that is going out of existence at the end of this year. Sales tax deduction is something that affects eight States that do not have a State income tax. It just gives people everywhere in America, if they have either an income tax or a sales tax, the ability to choose what they deduct from their Federal income taxes. We need to make this law permanent, and I hope everyone will support this amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and section 4(G)(3) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, I move to waive all applicable sections of those acts and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of my amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 3528 be withdrawn.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, let me say that I know Senator Rockefeller and I will have a little time toward the vote to do a summation of the bill. But while we are at this stage, I do wish to say that I think we have taken a major step forward in FAA reauthorization. As many who have worked on this project know, we have had 11 extensions of FAA reauthorization since 2007--short-term extensions because we have not been able to get the agreements that are necessary to propel this bill from the floor. There are some very important provisions of this bill that I hope we will eventually have final passage and that we can all support. However, we are not there yet. We are at the stage of getting it from the Senate floor, but there are still some issues that will have to be resolved even before we go to conference. I think before we appoint conferees there will have to be some agreements that have not yet been clearly reached. One of those is the perimeter rule. I am going to talk a little bit more about that when my colleague, Senator Ensign, comes because his amendment is the pending amendment on that on the bill. But besides the perimeter rule, there are issues that are addressed in this bill that are so important, that will take us a major step forward for the traveling public in our country. There are safety provisions in this bill addressing issues throughout all sectors of the aviation community. I think they are major improvements in our airline safety, although we know we have the safest system we have ever had. There are very few accidents. But I do think the accidents we have had are still teaching us what can be done in the area of fatigue of pilots and human factors, which has always been the hardest part of the aviation system to address. We do have some standards and a way forward that I think will improve aviation safety because none of us wants to have anything less than 100 percent aviation safety. That is what we are striving for. The bill will also modernize our air traffic control system. Our air traffic control system is using technology that is probably based back in the 1960s. It is time for us to have a satellite-based system. This is going to be expensive. Having the startup of this NextGen system is essential for our country to stay in the forefront of efficient use of our air traffic control system, and also eventually, hopefully, when it is all in place, we will also be able to open more airspace so we can better utilize our air traffic control system. The bill will provide infrastructure funds for our airports. That is one of the reasons we need to get this bill from the floor and assure our airports that the airport trust fund money is available, it is stable, and they can count on the funds flowing from the airport trust fund in an orderly way so that the improvements to our airports can be done. The bill will improve rural access to aviation through the Essential Air Service Program. This is a very important part of our whole system. Not only do we have a great general aviation community, which does so much for capabilities for volunteers and recreational pilots to use our airspace, but also the business aviation--the smaller aviation facilities that are private but also very important. And then, of course, our regional airlines are a very important part of our overall air service, and we will have improvements in those sectors. The bill will improve passenger and consumer protections. There is no doubt that the Passenger Bill of Rights is long overdue, and I think we have come to a good place to protect passengers from sitting on the tarmac for 5 hours without the ability to get off an airplane. Issues such as that that have cropped up are being addressed in our new Passenger Bill of Rights. It will strengthen aeronautics and aviation research as well. There is a lot that is good in this bill, and we still have a long way to go to finish it, but I do look forward to working through tonight, getting the bill passed from the Senate, and then working on these issues that are not yet completely agreed to before we go to conference. Then, from there, I hope we can take the next step, which is not going to be an easy one, and that is resolving the differences between the House and Senate bills. The differences are pretty big, so I think we are going to have our jobs cut out for us. It means we are not anywhere close to being finished yet, but we are certainly in a better place than we have ever been since 2007 when FAA reauthorization, the previous bill, lapsed, and we have been doing short-term extensions since then. I look forward to more after wrap-up and more of a discussion of the perimeter rule as soon as Senator Ensign arrives. I yield the floor. Boise Terminal Radar Approach Control

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I concur with the Senator from West Virginia. No realignments will be allowed to continue before the completion of the board's recommendations, unless the affected employees and the FAA agree in writing to do so.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, could I ask the Senator to yield for a parliamentary inquiry?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I wanted to ask my colleague from Virginia, because he has been on the floor, I think seeking recognition, and I wanted to make sure that we ask him--that we protect his place following Senator Vitter--how much time does the Senator from Virginia want to use?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks by the Senator from Louisiana, the Senator from Virginia be recognized for up to 10 minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would be happy to call up the Ensign amendment, after which Senator Vitter had had the floor, and did give me the right to protect you. So, if possible, I wish to call up the amendment, ask that Senator Vitter be allowed to speak up to 10 minutes, and then, following that, I wish to protect the Senator from Virginia's time.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Let me ask the Senator from Louisiana, would he be able to allow the Senator from Virginia to go forward?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, if the Senator does come back, I will do everything I can to give him a chance to speak, because I know this is very important to his State, and I wish for him to have his views known. Senator Ensign is on his way, and I will do everything possible to give him some time.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, let me say how much I appreciate the remarks of the chairman. It has been truly delightful working with the chairman on this bill. He and I used to be the chairman and ranking member of the Aviation Subcommittee. Now we are the chairman and ranking member of the full committee. So I think our views on aviation--its importance, the importance of the NextGen air traffic control system, the importance of safety, the Passenger Bill of Rights--are one and the same, and I appreciate working with him. I do have some closing remarks, but I wish to let Senator Ensign talk about his amendment. It is the pending business. So I think I am going to put my remarks to the side for now and let Senator Ensign speak on his amendment. I do have comments, following his comments, on his perimeter amendment. Then, if we have time, I would like to make my closing statement. But if not, in order for us to stay on time, I will stay and do it after the vote. With that, I yield to the Senator from Utah--I am sorry, the Senator from Nevada.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleagues for their work on the Reagan National perimeter rule issue. Last week, I sat down with several interested colleagues in an effort to try to find a path forward on this issue, and the result is the modified Ensign amendment before us. I wish to say a few words about the intent of the amendment. I sympathize with the concerns of my friend from Virginia, Senator Warner, who is also a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, and our colleague, Senator Webb. While in a somewhat different position in the past, I have had similar issues raised concerning my home State of Texas with Love Field and DFW Airport, and I recognize the impact of dealing with the decision to change the status quo. It is difficult. I also recognize the views of western State Senators concerned about the few opportunities for their constituents to have direct access to Reagan National Airport. There are now only 12 flights a day. That really should be expanded, but it needs to be expanded in a way that does not have the harmful effects on National and the Virginia residents who live in and around the airport. With that in mind, I think we have come up with a compromise proposal that meets the concerns of the western State colleagues and others, as well as addressing the concerns of the Virginia Senators. The modified Ensign amendment is a simple solution that allows air carriers with existing inside-the-perimeter large hub airport slots into Reagan National the ability to convert those slots to any community outside the perimeter, with each air carrier being kept at 15 roundtrip operations eligible for conversion. By utilizing the conversions, we don't add any new flights at all to the airport, but we do give the air carriers the opportunity to better utilize their networks. I am hopeful we can take that concept and message to the House in the next round of the legislative process on this bill. I thank Senators Ensign and Kyl, Senators DeMint, Boxer, McCain, Rockefeller, Dorgan, and Warner for their work on this very important issue. I remain hopeful that the final version of this FAA reauthorization bill will include a consensus agreement on this issue that allows the opportunity for direct service to our Nation's Capital for a number of our communities that are eager for that service. It is time for some expansion, but I think we can do it in a way that will not impact the quality of life in and around Washington National Airport. I also wish to take a moment to commend my colleagues who have worked so hard on this bill. We are coming to the point when we will pass this bill out of the Senate. We have been able to accommodate the amendments that have been offered, both relevant to the bill as well as those that are outside the purview of the bill. It has been an open process. It has been a whole week, but we have been able to make slow progress and accommodate the amendments that have been offered, and I think we are at a very good place now with everyone's cooperation. I mentioned that it has really been a very good experience working this bill because we have been able to work out some of the problems that are on both sides of the aisle, and I think in a constructive way. With the passage of this bill, we will now go to work with the House. We are very different from the House in many respects, but in FAA reauthorization we are in many more respects very different from the House in that they have passed a bill and we are getting ready to pass a bill that is very different. So we still have a long way to go on this legislation. But I think we can do it. With the same cooperation we have seen in the Senate, I hope we can get a bill agreed to that the Senate will approve as well as the House. I thank Senator Rockefeller and his staff. They have been very diligent in this process. As I said, we have worked since 2007 to get this bill done. I think we are in a very good position now. Ellen Doneski has been great, his chief of staff of the committee; James Reid, Gael Sullivan, Rich Swayze, Jim Conneely, and Adam Duffey on Senator Rockefeller's staff are to be commended. Senator Dorgan, the chairman of the aviation subcommittee, has been great. I appreciate all he has done on this bill to keep it moving, to work with both Senator Rockefeller and myself and Senator DeMint. I appreciate Senator Dorgan's work and his commitment to this. When he leaves the Senate at the end of the year, I hope he will have this significant FAA reauthorization as one of his achievements he can claim. His staffer, Margaret McCarthy, has been also very helpful. Senator DeMint is the ranking member of the aviation subcommittee, and he, too, has been very constructive in this effort, moving the bill forward along with his staff and Tom Jones, who has really helped move the ball forward on this bill that is right out of their subcommittee. On my staff, Jarrod Thompson has been wonderful. He knows this issue backward and forward and has worked on many of these aviation reauthorizations through the years on the Commerce Committee. I look to him for the knowledge he has gained over the years in all facets of FAA, including safety, NextGen, and all of the relevant issues that come under this subcommittee and this bill. My chief of staff for the committee, Ann Begeman, has been solid as a rock, helping to move the ball forward, going through the different issues and settling many of them. She has been great, as well as Dan Neumann; Patrick Mullane, also in my office, who does all of my transportation work; Brian Hendricks, the general counsel of the Commerce Committee on our side, the ranking general counsel; and Matt Acock, my legislative director, who also is going to be leaving in a few weeks. This is something he has worked on and he knows about as much as any of us, and he has done a great job as well. Having said all of that, I thank the distinguished chairman and look forward to having a vote in just a few minutes, as soon as we dispose of the Ensign amendment and move forward to final passage.