Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I do thank the Senator from Wyoming for the great leadership he is providing for our Nation to start preparing us for the different types of flu viruses that might come our way. I know he has worked very hard on this in his chairmanship of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. I certainly was pleased to hear his comments on this very important issue. It is one that is important for all of us to assure that our country is ready if we have the kind of pandemic that could happen. It reminds me of Y2K when many were concerned that computers would crash all over America when we turned into the next century, and because we were prepared, there was no crisis. That is what I hope is the result of our addressing the potential flu strains that may be making their way across the world and could affect Americans in the future. Harriet Miers Mr. President, I particularly will talk today about my friend Harriet Miers. All of us were stunned this morning--I certainly was--when I heard she had submitted her resignation as a nominee to the Supreme Court because I have total confidence in her. I have total confidence she would have been a superb Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. I have that confidence because I know her. Many people were making judgments before they knew her. They were not giving her the benefit of the opportunity to come into an open forum and talk about her views. She wrote today to the President: As you know, Members of the Senate have indicated their intention to seek documents about my service in the White House in order to judge whether to support me. I have been informed repeatedly that in lieu of records I would be expected to testify about my service in the White House to demonstrate my experience and judicial philosophy. While I believe that my lengthy career provides sufficient evidence for consideration of my nomination, I am convinced the efforts to obtain executive branch materials and information will continue. This is a letter that was written by a woman who cares more about our country, more about our President and his role and the respect for his role under the separation of powers in the Constitution, than she cares about a wonderful cap for a wonderful career, and that is her career. I admire her even more, if that is possible, for the decision she has made. I have to say I am disappointed in that decision because I know she would have been a superb Justice. She would have been a strict constructionist. She would have been a judge who knew the place of a judge, not to make law, which is a requirement and responsibility for those elected for that purpose. She would have been a Justice who looked at and interpreted the law. I will tell my colleagues what else Harriet Miers would have done that I think is very important. She would have known what it was she could do on the Supreme Court to give guidance to legislatures, to Members of Congress, to clients who are being represented by lawyers throughout the country, about how the law should be interpreted. She would have given the guidance to legislatures about what the constitutional requirement would be. When one is giving tests for discrimination, for instance, the Supreme Court has said there are varying tests for discrimination. There are rigid tests in some circumstances, there are more moderate tests in other circumstances. I would like to have had someone on the Court with real-world experience to more clearly define those tests so that Congress, so that legislatures, would know when they pass a law more how the Court would interpret that law in light of a more clear path to the right result. I would have liked someone who has had the experience of living in a part of the country that is different from other members of the Court. I think we need diversity of geography. I think there are different issues in eminent domain, in business and commerce, in regard for private property rights, in States that have a lot of Federal lands versus States that do not have a lot of Federal lands. There are different approaches to these issues by people who live in different parts of the country and I think that kind of diversity is important. This is a woman who has been a leader in the legal field. She worked her way through SMU Law School. She was also case notes editor of the Southwestern Law Journal, which is now the SMU Law Review. She became one of the first women to be hired by a major Dallas law firm as an associate. She then rose to lead that law firm, to be the managing partner, the first woman to do so in the State of Texas. She worked in the leadership of the bar association, which is the legal organization that sets the standards of ethics, propriety, and practice for our lawyers in this country. She rose to be the first woman president of the Dallas Bar Association and later the first woman president of the State Bar Association. I graduated from law school about the same time she did. I graduated from the University of Texas. She graduated from SMU. I know how hard it was to get a job. I know the obstacles she faced. I know she did not have the door opened for her with her outstanding record at SMU that many of our male colleagues in law school had. Yet, she attacked those barriers with a positive attitude and spirit. She knew if she proved herself, she would be rewarded as anyone else. She never gave up. She caught the eye of a Governor of Texas, and she had been a Democrat. I think everyone knows she was a Democrat in the early years. Most people in Texas were. In 1989, she made a decision that she wanted to support a Republican, George W. Bush. That changed her views in many things. I think some of the things that were being brought up from before she changed her views and her support have been used to indicate she is not firm in her views. Well, I think she is firm in her views. I think she is firmly a strict constructionist, a person who has proven herself intellectually in business, in experience, and in leadership. She would have been a terrific Justice. I do not think she was given her due. I am disappointed, but I do not question her decision because I know she made the decision on the right points and for the right reasons. She wanted to protect the Presidency from invasion of the rights of the President. Can you imagine if a President had to stop and think--before asking advice from his legal counsel or his top staff as he is trying to make an important decision for our country: If I ask this question in writing, is that going to be recoverable in the public arena? Do I then have to temper what I say? A President cannot talk to each of his staff members all day. He has many other responsibilities, so he has to communicate in writing. I think he should be able to communicate with his key staff people as he is in the decision making process, and I think he should not have to worry that it is going to, all of a sudden, be misconstrued in the public arena when it was part of his decision making process. That is what Harriet Miers is also trying to protect. She is giving up probably something she never dreamed she would be, because it is the pinnacle of a legal career to be a Justice on the Supreme Court. She is giving that up because she believes that right of the President would either be invaded or it would be made a cause celebre, and that would not be healthy for our country or for the President. So she gave up what could have been a dream of hers, to do what is right for our country. I want to reaffirm my view that she would have been an excellent Supreme Court Justice, that she had the right background and experience, that she would have brought a viewpoint that is a very important viewpoint to the Court. You know, if we didn't want diversity of experience in making these important decisions, we would have one Justice of the Supreme Court; we wouldn't have to have nine. Our Founding Fathers decided to have nine. I think they were right, as they are in so many parts of the Constitution that they thought would be important for the Constitution to last over 200 years. I think diversity of experience and background is very helpful for a Court of nine Justices. I am disappointed today, but I am very supportive of her decision because it was her decision and because she made it for the right reasons. I wish her well and I am very pleased she is going to stay as White House Counsel, one of the most important jobs in the White House. She will continue serving our country. When I talked to her this morning she was upbeat, she was positive, she was strong, and I know she will be a great contributor to the United States of America and to the President she serves. I commend her today, with all that she has gone through, for the grace with which she has gone through it. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate a friend and fellow Texan, Ms. Lisette Mondello, who is being confirmed to be Assistant Secretary of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs at the Department of Veterans Affairs. She is one of the finest and most qualified individuals for this position. Ms. Mondello has been serving as the senior advisor to the Secretary of Education. This experience is invaluable and has provided exceptional training for the position of Assistant Secretary. Prior to her position with the Department of Education, Ms. Mondello was the director of communications in my office for 4 years. During that time I valued her counsel and commitment. In fact, her husband Joe Mondello, was my legislative director for several years. Prior to that, she worked for our colleague, Senator Alfonse D' Amato. Additionally, Ms. Mondello has held several positions in the private sector and with grassroots organizations. These experiences have contributed to an understanding of political and public relations from two distinctive viewpoints. She will bring an enormous wealth of knowledge and understanding to the Department of Veterans Affairs. Ms. Mondello received bachelor of arts degree from Trinity University in San Antonio, TX. She obtained a Certificate in Finance from Southern Methodist University in Dallas, TX. Given Ms. Mondello's rich and diverse background, she is ideally suited to serve as the department's lead in public and intergovernmental affairs. She has earned an impressive record of accomplishment and will bring great enthusiasm and honor to this position.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to Bill T. Teague upon his retirement as president and chief executive officer of Gulf Coast Regional Blood Center in Houston, TX. Mr. Teague is a State, national, and international leader in blood banking and transfusion medicine management. During his 31-year tenure, the nonprofit Gulf Coast Regional Blood Center has become one of the most respected blood banking facilities in the country, currently serving more than 220 healthcare institutions in the 24-county Texas gulf coast and east Texas regions. Prior to this position, he served as director of the Community Blood Bank in St. Petersburg, FL, and director of the Travis County Medical Society Blood Bank in Austin, TX. A past president of both the South Central Association of Blood Banks and the American Association of Blood Banks, and a former treasurer of the American Blood Commission, Mr. Teague is also active in a number of professional organizations. He has received numerous honors throughout his career and has been recognized, due to his involvement and service, as a leader in the Houston community. Mr. Teague has dedicated both his professional career and personal time to generating blood donations and encouraging others to give the gift of life. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring his accomplishments and wishing Mr. Teague well in all his future endeavors.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to address a serious threat facing our Nation--illegal immigration. Despite successful efforts by me and other Members to increase border patrol forces, add new detention facilities, and improve border monitoring, the problem of individuals entering our country illegally continues to impact communities across the country. Just last year, the number of immigrants entering our country illegally outnumbered those entering through legal means. While legal immigration contributes to the diversity and uniqueness of our society, illegal immigration undermines the system and weakens the legitimate process by which people can enter our country. With the Census Bureau estimating that 10 to 11 million people reside in our country illegally, clearly our strategy in confronting this issue must change. Immigration and naturalization are constitutionally defined powers granted to the Federal Government. As such, many view the issue of immigration as strictly a Federal burden, to be addressed by Federal legislation, policies, and payment. While immigration policy is certainly initiated at the Federal level, one cannot ignore the inherent truth that the impact of illegal immigration is predominantly manifested in our State and local communities, often in the form of overwhelmed emergency rooms, overburdened school systems, and overcrowded prisons. Our local communities often find themselves with little recourse or ability to address the pervasive and crippling effects of a broken immigration system. These effects, of course, are not confined to our southern border regions, but rather they reverberate across the country. The country's immigration system is long overdue for a comprehensive overhaul, and I commend the efforts being made by a number of my colleagues to generate attention to the need for comprehensive immigration reform. Ideas are being proposed to improve avenues for legal immigration, enhance enforcement capabilities, and address the growing presence of illegal immigrants with nationalities other than Mexican. While I applaud these proposals and eagerly await our opportunity to discuss them, I believe it is essential that we recognize the role our State and local communities can have in addressing illegal immigration, particularly when it comes to the area of enforcement. As such, I am introducing legislation today to solidify the right and opportunity of our State and local governments to enforce the law--immigration law. Historically, the authority for State and local law enforcement officials to enforce immigration law has been limited to the criminal provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act; these include acts such as physically crossing the border illegally. By contrast, the enforcement of the act's civil provisions, which include apprehension and removal of deportable aliens already in the country, has been strictly a Federal responsibility, with States playing an incidental supporting role. This view was recently reinforced when a community in New Hampshire attempted to prosecute illegal immigrants for criminal trespass but was thwarted when a judge ruled it was constitutionally impermissible, stating that Congress has exclusive jurisdiction on civil immigration issues. Enforcing the laws of our country should not be confined to Federal authorities when the illegal behavior specifically impacts the State and local communities. Just as State and local officials can arrest, detain, and prosecute for illicit drug violations, so they should be able to for illegal immigration violations. The legislation I propose today would enable State and local officials to arrest, detain, and prosecute illegal immigrants for all Federal immigration violations, both civil and criminal, and would authorize States to create immigration enforcement provisions in accordance with Federal immigration law. My proposal preserves the Federal Government's constitutionally delegated authority to determine immigration status, a determination to which the States would defer. Allowing communities to take enforcement actions based on their own needs, while working within limits set under Federal law, is sound, appropriate policy. Further, in order to strengthen border security and reduce the strain on local and Federal border officials, my bill allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to create a Volunteer Border Marshal Program The program will assist the Department in securing our borders by using trained, State-licensed peace officers in a volunteer capacity. These volunteers would be assigned to the Border Patrol on temporary missions to identify and control illegal immigration, as well as human and drug trafficking. In order to properly tackle the problem of illegal immigration, Federal, State, and local authorities must work as partners. Our communities must have the tools necessary to fight it effectively. My legislation will empower States and communities with a new weapon to combat illegal immigration and thereby reinforce our legal naturalization process. I encourage my colleagues to support this sensible approach to addressing this serious problem. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to address a serious threat facing our Nation--illegal immigration. Despite successful efforts by me and other Members to increase border patrol forces, add new detention facilities, and improve border monitoring, the problem of individuals entering our country illegally continues to impact communities across the country. Just last year, the number of immigrants entering our country illegally outnumbered those entering through legal means. While legal immigration contributes to the diversity and uniqueness of our society, illegal immigration undermines the system and weakens the legitimate process by which people can enter our country. With the Census Bureau estimating that 10 to 11 million people reside in our country illegally, clearly our strategy in confronting this issue must change. Immigration and naturalization are constitutionally defined powers granted to the Federal Government. As such, many view the issue of immigration as strictly a Federal burden, to be addressed by Federal legislation, policies, and payment. While immigration policy is certainly initiated at the Federal level, one cannot ignore the inherent truth that the impact of illegal immigration is predominantly manifested in our State and local communities, often in the form of overwhelmed emergency rooms, overburdened school systems, and overcrowded prisons. Our local communities often find themselves with little recourse or ability to address the pervasive and crippling effects of a broken immigration system. These effects, of course, are not confined to our southern border regions, but rather they reverberate across the country. The country's immigration system is long overdue for a comprehensive overhaul, and I commend the efforts being made by a number of my colleagues to generate attention to the need for comprehensive immigration reform. Ideas are being proposed to improve avenues for legal immigration, enhance enforcement capabilities, and address the growing presence of illegal immigrants with nationalities other than Mexican. While I applaud these proposals and eagerly await our opportunity to discuss them, I believe it is essential that we recognize the role our State and local communities can have in addressing illegal immigration, particularly when it comes to the area of enforcement. As such, I am introducing legislation today to solidify the right and opportunity of our State and local governments to enforce the law--immigration law. Historically, the authority for State and local law enforcement officials to enforce immigration law has been limited to the criminal provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act; these include acts such as physically crossing the border illegally. By contrast, the enforcement of the act's civil provisions, which include apprehension and removal of deportable aliens already in the country, has been strictly a Federal responsibility, with States playing an incidental supporting role. This view was recently reinforced when a community in New Hampshire attempted to prosecute illegal immigrants for criminal trespass but was thwarted when a judge ruled it was constitutionally impermissible, stating that Congress has exclusive jurisdiction on civil immigration issues. Enforcing the laws of our country should not be confined to Federal authorities when the illegal behavior specifically impacts the State and local communities. Just as State and local officials can arrest, detain, and prosecute for illicit drug violations, so they should be able to for illegal immigration violations. The legislation I propose today would enable State and local officials to arrest, detain, and prosecute illegal immigrants for all Federal immigration violations, both civil and criminal, and would authorize States to create immigration enforcement provisions in accordance with Federal immigration law. My proposal preserves the Federal Government's constitutionally delegated authority to determine immigration status, a determination to which the States would defer. Allowing communities to take enforcement actions based on their own needs, while working within limits set under Federal law, is sound, appropriate policy. Further, in order to strengthen border security and reduce the strain on local and Federal border officials, my bill allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to create a Volunteer Border Marshal Program The program will assist the Department in securing our borders by using trained, State-licensed peace officers in a volunteer capacity. These volunteers would be assigned to the Border Patrol on temporary missions to identify and control illegal immigration, as well as human and drug trafficking. In order to properly tackle the problem of illegal immigration, Federal, State, and local authorities must work as partners. Our communities must have the tools necessary to fight it effectively. My legislation will empower States and communities with a new weapon to combat illegal immigration and thereby reinforce our legal naturalization process. I encourage my colleagues to support this sensible approach to addressing this serious problem. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am delighted to join my friend and colleague, the distinguished Senator from Florida, in bringing before the Senate today, S. 1281, the NASA Authorization Bill of 2005. Our subcommittee and the full Commerce Committee have worked hard to prepare legislation that we believe is important and timely, because it comes at a watershed moment in this Nation's civil space program. That moment has come at no small cost. It grew out of a terrible tragedy that took place in the skies over Texas 2\1/2\ years ago, when the space shuttle Columbia and her brave crew were lost as they were returning home from an important and successful research mission. In the aftermath of that accident, we were forced, as a nation, to once again confront the question of the value of space exploration in the face of the risks involved in sending our best and brightest--and those of other nations who are our partners in space exploration--into the hostile realm of space. The overwhelming and resounding answer, from the families of those who were lost to men, women and children across the country, and our elected leadership, was ``yes.'' They gave the same answer that Lewis and Clark gave to Thomas Jefferson 200 years ago, when he charged them with the task of exploring what was then a great, largely unknown expanse. Just as that difficult but inspiring voyage of discovery opened the way for this Nation to spread its wings from sea to sea, the voyages of discovery into the far reaches of space have begun--and will continue-- to open vast opportunities for our Nation, and for the world. While the vision that drove Lewis and Clark--the discovery of a northwest passage to the Pacific Ocean--was not the result they achieved, the understanding of the raw richness of our continent, and the insights into themselves and their fellow human beings provided a wealth of discovery more diverse and more valuable than any specific goal they had in mind as they began. Among the many important findings of the investigation into the Columbia accident was the need for a renewed guiding vision for our human space exploration programs. On January 14, 2004, President George W. Bush provided the essence of that bold new vision for exploration, not only for NASA, but for the Nation. It extends far beyond his tenure in office--beyond the tenure of most of us serving in the Senate today. It reaches beyond many years and ultimately millions of miles into the solar system in which we live. It will require a long-standing commitment by this Nation, and it will not be an easy vision to accomplish. We will find unexpected obstacles and challenges along the way. If we didn't, it would not really be exploration. Our task as a nation, and in the company of international partners who will join us on this journey, will be to meet those challenges and turn them into opportunities. The essential first step in the new Vision for Exploration was to return the space shuttle to flight. As we all know, the space shuttle Discovery launched into orbit and began this Nation's return to space flight on July 26th. Commander Eileen Collins and her crew, the crew aboard the International Space Station, and the entire NASA team conducted an extremely successful first test flight to assess the progress made in the space shuttle program since the tragic Columbia accident. While the shedding of foam debris during liftoff--the direct cause of the damage to Columbia--was reduced to a level far below that previously experienced, it has not been eliminated and more work remains to understand and address that problem. Fortunately, among the major improvements in the Shuttle program is the vast increase in the ability to monitor and collect visual information on the health of the Orbiter both during launch and in orbit. That unprecedented level of information was combined with new on-orbit repair techniques to further enhance our confidence in the shuttle program's flight readiness. All of us, I'm sure, were thrilled to watch astronaut Steve Robinson deftly pluck the small gap fillers from Discovery's underside, and the amazing never before seen images of the orbiter's thermal protection system. Our subcommittee will continue to monitor the application of the findings of this first test flight to the preparations for the launch of the second test flight next year, which continues this first step in the Vision for Exploration. The legislation we bring before the Senate today supports the Vision of Exploration outlined by the President. It provides an opportunity for the Congress to fulfill its responsibility to help set the stage for the commencement of our new national journey of exploration. It has been 5 years since the Congress has enacted authorization legislation for NASA and its programs. Those 5 years have seen a great deal of change in the realm of space exploration. First and foremost, for nearly all of that time, humans have been living and working continuously on orbit 240 miles above the earth aboard the International Space Station. Despite the interruption of its assembly by the Columbia accident, the space station has already provided a great deal of important scientific information resulting from the research the expedition crews aboard the ISS have been able to accomplish. And most of its laboratory facilities are not yet on orbit. The space station represents an immensely valuable asset for this Nation and our international and scientific partners, and the legislation before the Senate today will serve to ensure it realizes the vast potential it has long promised. The past 5 years have seen other changes. As we have undergone the recovery from the Columbia accident, we have witnessed the most comprehensive review of the hardware, systems and processing for the space shuttle program since it began operational flights 24 years ago. While we may never be able to completely eliminate the risks of human spaceflight, the space shuttle system is safer today than it has ever been, and we have learned valuable lessons that can be applied to the next generation of human space flight vehicle. Last year we witnessed dramatic evidence of yet another major change in space exploration when pilot Mike Melville flew SpaceShipOne, built by the Scaled Deposits Corporation, over 100 kilometers high, to become the first person to fly a privately-built vehicle into the reaches of space on September 29, 2004. Five days later, on October 4 Brian Binnie at the controls, SpaceShipOne became the first private manned spacecraft to exceed an altitude of 328,000 feet twice within the span of a 14-day period. With that accomplishment, Scaled Deposits Corporation won the $10 million Ansari X-Prize, funded entirely by private funds. A new era in private, commercial development of manned and unmanned spacecraft has begun, which offers exciting opportunities for the future. For example, two space entrepreneurs are planning to join together in the launch early next year of the Falcon V launch vehicle, built by Elon Musk's Space-X Corporation, which will carry aloft a prototype one-third scale space module built by Robert Bigelow's Bigelow Aerospace Corporation. Other companies are developing designs and building prototype hardware that could be the precursors of commercially developed space station modules and the means of supplying and maintaining them with cargo and crews that could complement and expand the research opportunities provided by the International Space Station. S. 1281 includes language which both encourages and enables increased commercial involvement in space activities, including servicing the International Space Station, developing and conducting free-flying space research vehicles, and providing for increased use of competitive prizes and incentives to spur private investment and development. We would expect to see that private sector interest and involvement eventually extend beyond earth orbit to become an integral part of the nation's broader commitment to exploration of the Moon, Mars and destinations beyond. I would like now to discuss some of the key provisions of the NASA reauthorization bill which I believe are especially important to the new beginning we are making as a nation within the Vision for Exploration. There is an old saying that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. It is also true that we must begin from where we find ourselves today. As I said earlier, the first step of the Vision was initiated this past summer with the launch of Discovery, and will continue with the subsequent flights of the space shuttle to complete the assembly of the International Space Station and fulfill our commitments to our international partners and--I must add--our commitments to our scientific partners. Over the past 17 years, this Chamber has been the scene of vigorous discussion and debate on the International Space Station, long before the first module was launched in November of 1998. Through all that discussion, the central theme of those of us who supported the space station--and two-thirds of us consistently supported it in the votes following those debates--was that the ISS represents a unique laboratory in space, which holds the promise for scientific findings that can directly benefit us on Earth. I find it interesting to hear statements that the space station has not fulfilled that promise. Those who suggest that seem to have forgotten that it is not yet completed. In fact, only one of the three planned laboratories is on orbit now-- the US Destiny laboratory--and it is not yet fully equipped. The remaining modules are completed, and are at the Kennedy Space Center, awaiting their launch and outfitting so that the long-standing plans for ISS research can finally begin. We and our international partners have invested far too much in building and preparing those facilities, and the on-orbit structure that will provide their home and supporting power and crew accommodations, to back away from that investment now. To do so would not only represent a wasteful, irresponsible and inexcusable breach of faith with the American taxpayers, but an unconscionable betrayal of scientists and researchers in a wide range of disciplines who have invested years of effort and resources preparing to conduct research that can only be done in the microgravity of space. This bill acknowledges and reaffirms our commitment to fulfill the promise of the ISS. We recognize that NASA has limited total resources and has been given an enormous task to lead the Vision for Exploration. The demands of many valuable and important existing programs have forced NASA to make difficult choices in focusing those scarce resources in ways which support the goals of the Vision. We understand that reality, and have attempted in this 5-year reauthorization bill to provide a stable, consistent and moderately increasing level of funding to enable NASA to address those challenges. At the same time, we have encouraged, as I noted earlier, the increased participation and involvement of commercial interests and capabilities, in a way that can relieve NASA of some of the basic burdens of space operations. With respect to space station research, we believe additional steps must be taken to enable NASA to conduct the research it must to support long-duration human spaceflight, and to return to the Moon, and move onward to Mars, while not sacrificing or undermining the investment we have made in the ISS. To accomplish this, the legislation designates the U.S. segment of the International Space Station as national laboratory facility. It further directs the NASA Administrator to develop a plan, within one year after enactment of the bill, to establish a ground-based national laboratory structure that will be responsible for maintaining and operating the research capabilities in the on-orbit laboratory facilities. The ISS national laboratory will be empowered to establish scientific--and funding--relationships with other governmental and non-governmental entities and to include international participation as well. The infusion of new participants and non-NASA resources will free NASA of much of the financial burden it would require to sustain broad-based research aboard ISS, and would thus enable it to focus its ISS research, as planned, on those disciplines and experiments which directly support the needs of the Vision for Exploration. We believe this represents a creative and responsible approach to meeting our international commitments and fulfilling the long-standing research promise of the ISS, while not inhibiting NASA's pursuit of its exploration objectives. In order to continue the Nation's exploration activities, both in continuing essential activities in low-Earth orbit and moving outward, back to the Moon, Mars, and beyond, we must have a new generation of launch and flight vehicles. The Vision for Exploration calls for the development of a new crew exploration vehicle and associated launch systems, to meet that objective. As I have stated, this legislation supports the goals and objectives of Vision for Exploration. As the saying goes, however, sometimes ``the devil is in the details.'' As those details have been revealed in the planning to implement the vision, I have expressed concerns about some of the early transitional steps to redirect NASA's emphasis from low- Earth orbit to exploration of the Moon and Mars. I have already addressed the question of ensuring the maximum use of the International Space Station. My other primary concern has to do with the transition from the Space Shuttle to the new crew exploration vehicle. The initial announcement of the Vision for Exploration called for the termination of Shuttle flights in 2010, and the first flight of the crew exploration vehicle in 2014. The resulting 4-year hiatus in this Nation's ability to launch humans into space was simply unacceptable to me. It would represent a serious degradation of our national and economic security, as the community of spacefaring nations expands with the advent of Chinese human spaceflight capability and the potential of even more nations developing such capability, potentially challenging U.S. leadership in this important strategic area and major engine of technological advancement. S. 1281, as introduced, stated that uninterrupted U.S. spaceflight capability is essential to our Nation, and required, in Section 202 of the bill, that the Space Shuttle Orbiter not be retired until a replacement crew-capable space vehicle be made operational. NASA's new Administrator, Dr. Michael Griffin, stated, in his confirmation hearing before the Commerce Committee, and again in a subsequent subcommittee hearing on the space shuttle, that he shared our concern about a lengthy hiatus period in U.S. spaceflight capability. Since assuming leadership of NASA, he has undertaken an effort to approach the development of the replacement vehicle in such a way as to close that gap as much as possible. In anticipation of the success of those efforts, Senator Nelson and I agreed to a modification of the language in the bill--included in the manager's amendment to the bill--which provides some flexibility in meeting the goal of uninterrupted U.S. spaceflight capability, but continues to state it as a policy objective. The Exploration Systems Architecture Study was recently completed and I am very pleased to say that the results track very closely to the provisions of S. 1281. The CEV development would be accelerated to 2012, with the possibility of moving its operational date to 2011. The key to CEV acceleration is largely a question of resources, and sufficient funding could enable an even earlier operational date, possibly closing the potential gap in spaceflight capability altogether. In Dr. Griffin's appearance before the Science and Space Subcommittee during our hearing on the space shuttle program, he pointed out that the plan for space shuttle retirement involves the retirement of the Orbiters, not necessarily the additional components that make up what we call the space shuttle. Those additional components are the solid rocket boosters and the external fuel tank. I remind my colleagues that the Orbiter is a vehicle that has two major spaceflight functions combined in a single vehicle: the delivery of crew to and from orbit, and the delivery of cargo, or payloads, to and from orbit. The future developments of U.S. human spaceflight capability are intended to separate those functions. That will enable the development of much more simplified--and arguably much safer, more efficient, and less costly--vehicles to serve each separate function. The provisions of S. 1281--coupled with the revised plans for vehicle development recently announced, will fulfill those objectives using major elements of our existing systems and adapting them to meet the requirements of both manned and unmanned launch systems. Launch vehicles and spaceflight vehicles do not prepare and launch themselves into orbit or maintain themselves entirely independently while in space. They require ground-based support facilities, institutions and skilled personnel. The maintenance of those capabilities are, in fact, the most labor and resource-intensive elements of a spaceflight program, over time. They must be maintained even when the vehicles themselves are not flying, and must be kept in a high state of readiness. For human spaceflight systems, especially, that expertise and readiness are fundamental elements of flight safety. The non-orbiter elements of the space shuttle program, both in flight hardware and ground support, represent an enormous national asset and, with modifications and reengineering, can potentially be adapted to meet--in separate configurations--the requirements for human spaceflight and for the launch of large, heavy payloads. Those large payloads are beyond the reach of either evolved expendable launch vehicles or privately-developed launch vehicles--or the current or planned launch vehicles of any other nation, for that matter. For these reasons, and others, this legislation directs and encourages NASA to make the maximum possible utilization of the personnel, assets and capabilities of the space shuttle program in developing the next generation of crew and cargo vehicles. Again, the new NASA plans will do just that, as envisioned by this legislation. Another important and historical NASA research activity is aeronautical research, a fundamental part of NASA's activities since its inception. Indeed, not only is ``aeronautics'' the first ``a'' in NASA, but NASA came into being as an expansion of the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics, which was established in 1915. That heritage is an important NASA legacy and the continued health of the Nation's aerospace industry in a very competitive global market-place makes it essential that our Nation have solid aeronautical research capabilities. Equally important, in an environment of limited resources, is that decisions about priorities for funding and programs be guided by a clear statement of policy, based on a thorough understanding of both available assets and essential requirements. This legislation directs the development of a national policy to guide the Nation's aeronautical research--including that conducted by NASA. The policy is to be developed within one year after enactment of the legislation, in order to provide time for a thorough and complete assessment of every aspect of aeronautics research, and yet provide the earliest possible guidance for both the administration and the Congress in determining the appropriate funding levels for U.S. aeronautics research. We have chosen not to establish a specific level of funding for that research in the legislation, in order to provide the flexibility for the NASA Administrator to establish those levels using the national policy guidance we have required to be developed. Finally, let me say something about the broad range of science activities for which NASA has always been known. The remarkable feat of the Deep Impact asteroid interception mission and the extraordinary success of the Spirit and Opportunity Mars Rovers are, of course, only the most recent and dramatic examples of NASA Space Science expertise. Less spectacular, but equally significant, are the earth observation and earth sciences programs which help us understand--and better care for-- the spaceship of which all of as are crew members--spaceship Earth. As with aeronautics research, we have not spelled out specific funding authorization levels for the full 5 years authorized among the various science disciplines, providing flexibility for the NASA Administrator to make the best judgments about resource allocations. However, we express clearly in this bill the need for maintaining a balanced science portfolio throughout all NASA programs. In addition, we require accountability and will maintain careful oversight over the plans and decisions made to implement that balance. This legislation provides a comprehensive, forward-looking and responsible approach to the transition of our Nation's space exploration programs into a new era of discovery. I believe that, together with our colleagues in the other body, we will be able to craft a congressional consensus that will help ensure this Nation's leadership in space exploration and provide benefits beyond measure and beyond imagination to this Nation and the world. I want to thank my friend and colleague from Florida, Senator Nelson, for the spirit of cooperation he and his staff have brought to the development and refinement of this legislation. It represents a truly bi-partisan--really a non-partisan--result, as is appropriate for the Nation's space exploration programs. I also want to express my appreciation to the staff of my Subcommittee staff and the full Commerce Committee staff who have worked to bring this measure before the Senate. And, of course, I want to acknowledge the leadership of Senators Stevens and Inouye, who have supported our efforts to provide authorization and a strong policy foundation to our Nation's space exploration efforts. I urge my colleagues to support S. 1281.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, we do have a couple of other amendments. Senator DeWine has put an amendment in. But I am going to say that if we do not hear from anyone by 12:30, we are going to prepare to go to third reading and set a timetable for the vote. So I am just giving our colleagues fair warning that at 12:30, we will lock in the third reading and the vote on the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and related agencies appropriations bill. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, we have a series of amendments that have been cleared on both sides, and I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be temporarily set aside so that I could send these amendments individually to the desk for their consideration.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. On behalf of Senator Coburn, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Carper and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I urge its adoption.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Boxer and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I urge its adoption.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Isakson and Senator Chambliss and ask for its immediate consideration.

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