Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent that on Monday, February 28, at a time to be determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 6, S. 23, the Patent Reform Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Monday, February 28, 2011, at 4:30 p.m., the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar No. 2 and Calendar No. 9; that there be 1 hour for debate equally divided in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of time, Calendar No. 2 be confirmed and the Senate proceed to vote, without intervening action or debate, on Calendar No. 9, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the upcoming recess or adjournment of the Senate, the President of the Senate, the President pro tempore, and the majority and minority leaders be authorized to make appointments to commissions, committees, boards, conferences, or interparliamentary conferences authorized by law, by concurrent action of the two Houses, or by order of the Senate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the adjournment of the Senate, the majority leader, Senator Rockefeller, and Senator Webb be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn under the provisions of H. Con. Res. 17 until 2 p.m. on Monday, February 28; that following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and Senator Isakson then deliver Washington's Farewell Address to the Senate; that following the address, there be a period of morning business until 3:30 p.m. with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; further, at 3:30, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 6, S. 23, the Patent Reform Act of 2011; and, finally, I ask that at 4:30 p.m., the Senate proceed to executive session to debate the nominations of Amy Totenberg and Steve Jones, as provided for under the previous order.

Mr. President, Senators should expect rollcall votes at approximately 5:30 on Monday, February 28 on confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 9, the nomination of Steve Jones, of Georgia, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia; the nomination of Amy Totenberg of Georgia, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia, which will be confirmed by a voice vote.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I wish to catch up the membership on the floor and off the floor a little bit about where we are. We are at midweek for a third week of consideration of the FAA reauthorization bill. Last night, Senator Reid filed cloture on this bill. In a perfect world we would have finished this bill already without filing cloture, but we need to finish and that is what cloture motions are for. I will support cloture, needless to say.

Senator Hutchison also filed cloture on an amendment that will bring conclusion to a debate on slots at National Airport. I will talk about that issue in more detail later. But I am saying right now slots are very important but they do not need to consume all of the arguments and all of the discussion on the floor about this bill. They are a very small part of the bill--an important part of the bill, recognizing the West has to be served much better than it is being--but it is not the entire bill. It is a very small part of the bill.

Last night we disposed of two pending amendments by voice vote. I believe we have made progress to resolve some of the pending amendments, but votes will be required on several of them and I expect we will have those votes today. Senator Hutchison and I are trying to clear a number of other filed amendments. There were at one point 100 of them. I hope we can accept a number of them. I have heard from any number of my colleagues on their amendments and I am trying to be helpful in getting them adopted where they contribute to the bill.

I know Senator Hutchison is committed to supporting the bill. We need to resolve the issue of slots. She has been working--we have all been working diligently and almost exclusively on that matter, and we will do this with a vote. We will resolve that issue.

After that vote we will vote on cloture, which I believe will pass and I am extremely hopeful we will reach agreement to get this bill done this week. The farthest possible day and most unhappy thought would be if we had to go through the recess and do it on the day we came back. I think it is far better that we get it done this week. There is no excuse for not doing it.

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

I appreciate my colleague's concerns about how supplemental carriers have been treated in the FAA's rulemaking process dealing with pilot flight and duty time. As you are aware, modernizing the pilot flight and duty regulations has been one of the highest priorities of the FAA as well as many in Congress. In fact, when H.R. 5900 was signed into law last year by the President, Congress mandated the FAA complete the final rule overhauling these regulations by August 1 of this year.

I agree that all the regulated parties affected by this and other rulemakings should be treated fairly. I am willing to work with Senator Inhofe, Senator Murkowski, and other interested parties to ensure supplemental carriers receive fair and thorough consideration, and that their industry data be considered, before any new rules for those carriers are promulgated.

Let me catch up a bit on where we are. The Senate has been working on this national slots issue for close to 1 year or it may be 10 years. I don't know. It has been an awfully long time. But we have been unable to achieve a resolution so far on the matter. That is a problem.

When we began consideration of the FAA reauthorization bill, Senator Hutchison and I decided we should focus on helping consumers. Everybody was talking about helping airliners. We were talking about people. Airliners fly around. People have to be able to do it. So we decided to focus on them.

So we both believed the growth of Western States must be recognized. I come from an Eastern State, sort of. The Presiding Officer comes from an Eastern State, totally. But the growth is in the West. They are underserved. That cannot be debated. It is embarrassing how few flights there are back and forth between National and them. The National Capital is a fairly important place. People need to go there, either for tourism or for business or whatever, and we need more access to the National Capital to be provided to the citizens from there on a ``both- way'' basis.

So time is running short for the consideration of the FAA package. This bill is too important to the country to let it languish over this issue. It is virtually all we have talked about, and I regret that because it does not reflect the nature and the priorities of the bill.

Unlike the national slot issue, the FAA bill has direct impacts on the whole Nation all the time. It will help our economy now. It will help our economy in the future with immediate job support and long-term impact on our role in the global marketplace.

To move forward on the bill, Senator Hutchison offered a slots amendment, a national slots amendment, that I feel offers a fair and reasonable solution on this issue. Over the past 2\1/2\ weeks, she and I have worked closely with other Members and their staffs in an effort to achieve a compromise on this issue.

Many of their needs and ideas have been incorporated into her amendment. It still may not be perfect, but it represents an attempt to fairly balance the competing needs of Members and their constituents inside and outside the perimeter. It is fascinating when people have it in their minds that something has to happen. They have to have so many flights or flights have to go to this city or that city or whatever. Then people sort of get attached to airlines. They feel they have to represent an airline.

I sort of thought we were here to represent the people of the States from which we come but, more importantly, in some sense, the entire country, particularly on an issue such as this.

Her amendment will permit some additional beyond-perimeter flights shortly after enactment of the bill. Then this very interesting part about the Department of Transportation, we have introduced that into the bill. It is a very good part of the bill. The Department of Transportation, which is neutral, which is professional, which is fully engaged in all of this, is required to study the effect of those flights over the next year.

Some people will say that is kind of a dodge. It is not kind of a dodge. Because slots are so controversial, it takes the Department of Transportation and their analysis to guide us about whether there is an overload at National, whether there is an underload. My own view is there is an underload at National, lots of slots available. But that is not the prevailing view on the part of some. They

feel we cannot have a single additional flight.

So DOT can study that. If they find there is no negative impact, a limited number can be added at the appropriate time or not, depending on what we want to do.

Specifically, the amendment provides network carriers an opportunity to swap existing flights they conduct within the perimeter and use them for flights to Western States beyond the perimeter. Seven round-trip flights could be converted under this provision.

Under this construct a carrier could use flights to large hub airports within the perimeter where significant service already is provided. This protects States and small communities within the perimeter and limits the number of new flights at the airport as requested by local officials.

The amendment also provides five new flight exemptions that would only be distributed to new entrant or limited incumbent carriers. To provide maximum flexibility for the carriers, these could be used for new flights within or beyond the perimeter. All of this is kind of opaque, like a puzzle, but it does happen to work.

We have had approximately 100 amendments filed to the FAA reauthorization bill. Much of the talk is focused on slots at National Airport. There are lots of airports, but National Airport has received the bulk of the amendments. I don't resent that or regret it. I just wish we could get to the rest of the bill, which I think is probably going to be entirely acceptable to people because it is a very reasonable approach.

Only three other amendments have been filed that directly address the issue of west coast access to National. The Ensign amendment would allow carriers to have unlimited conversions or swaps beyond the perimeter. I believe this proposal goes too far and could have a significant negative impact locally and for small communities serviced within the perimeter. I do think Senators Ensign and Kyl, with whom I have worked on this issue over the past year, can appreciate this position and will receive opportunities for their constituents through passage of our amendment.

The Merkley and Wyden and Cantwell-Murray-Merkley-Begich amendments are the only other two amendments that have been filed with a focus on the issue of beyond-perimeter flights at National. They would both allow for new flight exemptions at the airport that would favor distribution to limited incumbents or new entrants. The Merkley amendment would provide eight new round-trips for beyond-perimeter service. The Wyden amendment would add 12 new round-trips beyond the perimeter and 4 new round-trips within the perimeter for a total of 16 new flights. While the Hutchison amendment may not provide the same level of opportunity for services to their States that they desire, her amendment does provide ample room for their constituencies to obtain new service with 5 exemptions rather than 12 beyond perimeter.

I believe we must strike an appropriate balance. We have no choice. We can't make everybody happy. Senator Hutchison's and my approach has been to go down the middle. People who don't want anything more and people who want a lot more, kind of edge them together and go right down the middle. That is all we can do in a bill of this sort where emotions run very high.

I do believe we must strike an appropriate balance between new service from incumbent carriers and service from limited or new-entrant carriers if we are going to give consumers the greatest options on choice and competition. Consumers are really what this is about. Airlines are obviously important. They are going to fly where the business is. That makes all of us--the Presiding Officer, for part of her State which is not in the New York area--very sensitive to rural situations. West Virginia is entirely rural. It has no city larger than slightly over 50,000 people, that being the State capital. Flights in and out of that State are very important to me. Most of them are done by propeller. Most of them are not particularly comfortable. But they do get one to where one wants to go. Now we have switched to Dulles so we can feed out from Dulles to anywhere in the world. Taking care of rural areas is incredibly important to us.

Again, the DOT study included in the amendment will also provide valuable insight into the impact of additional flights at National Airport on this or any other aspect of it. Under the amendment, if DOT finds that more access is appropriate, it can permit up to four additional flights at National. These would be provided to incumbent carriers to swap service from large hubs within the perimeter, resulting in no new air traffic at the airport. Senator Hutchison and I would like to emphasize those words, ``no new flights.'' They have room for flights. A GAO study showed that, really quite a lot of flights. But the prevailing wish is not to have noise and disruption.

The fact is, the planes are getting quieter, and they will get much more quieter as they are entered into all markets.

In total, as few as 12 or as many as 16 additional beyond-perimeter flights could result from the amendment over a 2-year period. If the DOT determines the initial 12 flights have had a direct negative impact on the DC market--I emphasize, we are putting DOT right on the case so they can watch it closely; whatever people might think, they are neutral and professional and they do this for a living--it will limit the likelihood of adding additional flights in future FAA reauthorizations. That makes sense. Let them be the arbiters of that rather than us battling it out here.

This type of review is long overdue and will provide far greater understanding of local needs by any carrier seeking access at National. If DOT finds there is enough room for up to 16 flights, the amendment would seek to balance them among various stakeholders. Eleven of these flights would be swaps or conversions of service to incumbent carriers already providing this, resulting, again, in no new traffic at that particular airport--there are other airports in the country; I have to keep telling myself that, but it is hard to recognize that looking at the debate so far--and minimizing the impacts of flights on a local basis generally.

Five of the flights would be dedicated to new entrants or limited incumbents to receive new exemptions. These could be used for service within or beyond the perimeter so all communities in the country would have an opportunity to obtain a flight.

In closing, I recognize every amendment addressing slots at National will be considered flawed in some corners. That is in the nature of our world. However, I do think it is important that we have votes on these amendments to determine a Senate position on this issue.

I believe the Hutchison amendment is a very reasonable offer. I hope it will obtain the support of the majority of the Senate.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume consideration of the Baucus amendment No. 75, as further modified--this is the amendment for the finance title of the bill we are on which was reported out by the Finance Committee last week-- further, that the amendment, as further modified, be agreed to; and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

I will be objecting to your amendments because you objected to the pending amendments, and there will be no reason to add more unless you lift your objection.

I am very happy to listen to what you have to say.

I think the order has to be reversed.

I cannot assure that at this point. We have not arrived----

If you have amendments you wish to offer--I think five--I am constrained to object to them.

There is objection.

I would say to the Senator from Oklahoma, most of the pending amendments which are now pending have been objected to from his side of the aisle. I don't have any objection to looking at some of his amendments and seeing if we can vote on them. But I can't do that right now. I obviously can't give him any kind of consent right now.

It is a difficult situation. It is a sort of rolling veto type of situation. If objection is made, we can't have votes on amendments which are pending. I am willing to look at what he has suggested. As he talked through some of them, they sort of stung pretty hard in my State of West Virginia, but I am willing to look at them. But I can't do that without consent from folks on my side. So for the time being, I object.

I object.

I object.

I object.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, Senators Shaheen, Leahy, Inouye, Stabenow, and Schumer, to reintroduce an important piece of legislation, the Fair Prescription Drug Competition Act. Our legislation eliminates one of the most prominent loopholes that brand name drug companies use to limit consumer access to lower-cost generic drugs; it ends the marketing of so-called ``authorized generic'' drugs during the 180-day exclusivity period that Congress designed to provide specific incentives to true generics to enter the market.

An authorized generic drug is a brand name prescription drug produced by the same brand manufacturer on the same manufacturing lines, yet repackaged as a generic. Some argue that authorized generic drugs are cheaper than brand name drugs and, therefore, benefit consumers. However, authorized generics only serve to reduce generic competition, extend brand monopolies, and lead to higher health care costs for consumers over the long-term.

After up to 20 years of holding a patent for a brand name drug--the brand-name manufacturer--which has already been handsomely rewarded for its investment--doesn't want to let go of its profits. So, it repackages the drug and refers to it as a generic in order to extend its market share, while cutting in half the financial incentive for an independent generic to enter the marketplace. This is a huge problem and one that is becoming even more prevalent as patents on some of the best-selling brand name pharmaceuticals expire.

In 1984, Congress passed the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act, known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, to provide consumers greater access to lower-cost generic drugs. The intent of this law was to improve generic competition, while preserving the ability of brand name manufacturers to discover and market new and innovative products. Specifically, the Hatch-Waxman Act provided for a 180-day marketing exclusivity period for the first generic firm that successfully challenges a brand-name patent under the Abbreviated New Drug Application, ANDA, process--thereby providing a crucial incentive for generic drug companies to enter the market and make prescription drugs more affordable for consumers.

Filing a patent challenge is expensive and requires enormous up-front costs for the generic company. Yet, the 180-day exclusivity incentive to launch a patent challenge is being widely undermined by authorized generics. According to one account, since 2004, ``authorized generic versions have appeared for nearly all drugs with expiring U.S. patents.'' And, because authorized generics are still allowed, an independent generic can get all the way to the end of a patent challenge--even winning in court--but still lose the anticipated reward of 180-day market exclusivity because the brand-name company can, and does, launch an authorized generic. The fact that the brand-name company can launch an authorized generic even if it loses a patent challenge to a generic company gives it an incentive to pursue multiple additional patents on dubious grounds, just for the sake of extending its market share. The fact remains that brand-name firms regularly introduce authorized generics on the eve of generic competition, further extending their hold on the market and chilling competition from independent generic drugs.

Every American agrees on the need to reduce health care costs. Today, generic medications comprise 69 percent of all prescriptions in this country, yet only 16 percent of all dollars spent on prescriptions. Furthermore, in 2007, the average retail price of a generic prescription drug was $34.34, compared to the $119.51 average retail price of a brand name prescription drug. In fact, generic drugs save consumers an estimated $8 billion to $10 billion a year at retail pharmacies. For working families, these savings can make a huge difference, particularly during difficult economic times.

Passage of the Fair Prescription Drug Competition Act would revitalize and protect the true intent of the 180-day marketing exclusivity period created in the Hatch-Waxman Act. This bill does just that by eliminating the authorized generics loophole, protecting the integrity of the 180-day exclusivity period, and improving consumer access to lower-cost generic drugs.

I urge my colleagues to support this timely and important piece of legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, Senators Shaheen, Leahy, Inouye, Stabenow, and Schumer, to reintroduce an important piece of legislation, the Fair Prescription Drug Competition Act. Our legislation eliminates one of the most prominent loopholes that brand name drug companies use to limit consumer access to lower-cost generic drugs; it ends the marketing of so-called ``authorized generic'' drugs during the 180-day exclusivity period that Congress designed to provide specific incentives to true generics to enter the market.

An authorized generic drug is a brand name prescription drug produced by the same brand manufacturer on the same manufacturing lines, yet repackaged as a generic. Some argue that authorized generic drugs are cheaper than brand name drugs and, therefore, benefit consumers. However, authorized generics only serve to reduce generic competition, extend brand monopolies, and lead to higher health care costs for consumers over the long-term.

After up to 20 years of holding a patent for a brand name drug--the brand-name manufacturer--which has already been handsomely rewarded for its investment--doesn't want to let go of its profits. So, it repackages the drug and refers to it as a generic in order to extend its market share, while cutting in half the financial incentive for an independent generic to enter the marketplace. This is a huge problem and one that is becoming even more prevalent as patents on some of the best-selling brand name pharmaceuticals expire.

In 1984, Congress passed the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act, known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, to provide consumers greater access to lower-cost generic drugs. The intent of this law was to improve generic competition, while preserving the ability of brand name manufacturers to discover and market new and innovative products. Specifically, the Hatch-Waxman Act provided for a 180-day marketing exclusivity period for the first generic firm that successfully challenges a brand-name patent under the Abbreviated New Drug Application, ANDA, process--thereby providing a crucial incentive for generic drug companies to enter the market and make prescription drugs more affordable for consumers.

Filing a patent challenge is expensive and requires enormous up-front costs for the generic company. Yet, the 180-day exclusivity incentive to launch a patent challenge is being widely undermined by authorized generics. According to one account, since 2004, ``authorized generic versions have appeared for nearly all drugs with expiring U.S. patents.'' And, because authorized generics are still allowed, an independent generic can get all the way to the end of a patent challenge--even winning in court--but still lose the anticipated reward of 180-day market exclusivity because the brand-name company can, and does, launch an authorized generic. The fact that the brand-name company can launch an authorized generic even if it loses a patent challenge to a generic company gives it an incentive to pursue multiple additional patents on dubious grounds, just for the sake of extending its market share. The fact remains that brand-name firms regularly introduce authorized generics on the eve of generic competition, further extending their hold on the market and chilling competition from independent generic drugs.

Every American agrees on the need to reduce health care costs. Today, generic medications comprise 69 percent of all prescriptions in this country, yet only 16 percent of all dollars spent on prescriptions. Furthermore, in 2007, the average retail price of a generic prescription drug was $34.34, compared to the $119.51 average retail price of a brand name prescription drug. In fact, generic drugs save consumers an estimated $8 billion to $10 billion a year at retail pharmacies. For working families, these savings can make a huge difference, particularly during difficult economic times.

Passage of the Fair Prescription Drug Competition Act would revitalize and protect the true intent of the 180-day marketing exclusivity period created in the Hatch-Waxman Act. This bill does just that by eliminating the authorized generics loophole, protecting the integrity of the 180-day exclusivity period, and improving consumer access to lower-cost generic drugs.

I urge my colleagues to support this timely and important piece of legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 16, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The Committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``Safeguarding Our Future: Building a Nationwide Network for First Responders.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 16, 2011, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 16, 2011, at 10 a.m., in Dirksen 406 to hold a hearing entitled, ``National Leaders' Call to Action on Transportation.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 16, 2011, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled, ``The President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2012.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 16, 2011, at 10:30 a.m., in SD-430.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 16, 2011, at 9:15 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Value of Education Choices: Saving the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 16, 2011, at 11:30 a.m. in Room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 16, 2011, at 10 a.m. in Room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Targeting Websites Dedicated To Stealing American Intellectual Property.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized

to meet during the session of the Senate on February 16, 2011, at 3 p.m. in Room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 16, 2011.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 16, 2011, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 16, 2011, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Improving Federal Employment of People with Disabilities.''

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

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. President, I wish to say, very briefly, that I strongly support the Nelson amendment for a whole variety of reasons, all of which are very logical, extremely well ordered, and which I do not have time to give.

The yeas and nays have been ordered. Perhaps we can proceed with the vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:15 p.m. on this day there be 20 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form on the Wicker amendment prior to the vote in relation to the Wicker amendment, and that the remaining provisions of the previous order remain in effect.

Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

Let me just say that the TSA Administrator has the right to allow collective bargaining for TSA employees through the authority he was provided in the original Aviation and Transportation Security Act passed in 2001.

When Congress passed that, we came to an agreement that left the determination of allowing collective bargaining rights for Transportation Security Officers to the TSA Administrator. I firmly believe this authority should remain with the TSA Administrator.

The current agreement was approved under the Bush administration and approved by a Republican-controlled House of Representatives. I see no reason to alter this compromise at this time. There are valid reasons to keep the authority with the TSA Administrator. He works firsthand with the employees every day. The nature of his work is very hands on. He is better qualified to determine the agency's mission, how it can be improved, with or without collective bargaining--he more than anybody.

On Friday, Administrator Pistole announced his intention to allow collective bargaining over workforce issues, but security and pay will not be subject to negotiation. Most other Federal law enforcement agencies, including others housed within the Department of Homeland Security, such as Customs and Border Patrol, have collective bargaining rights.

I do not believe the sponsors of this amendment would question the dedication of these law enforcement officers, despite their right to collectively bargain. TSA employees must still follow civil service rules that prohibit the right to strike and allow managers to move workers to different areas and roles in the event of an emergency and security as needed.

I cannot support this amendment. I feel it could negatively impact security if TSA permits collective bargaining rights to improve employee retention. Finally, this amendment is a security issue, and one that is better addressed when a TSA reauthorization comes to the floor. This is our problem. We are not talking about security here, we are talking about other matters.

Accordingly, I urge my fellow Senators to oppose the Wicker amendment.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, the pending Paul amendment will cut the FAA's authorization levels for fiscal year 2011 to 2008 levels, $14.7 billion for the entire agency, representing a near $3 billion cut from the administration's introduced level of approximately $17.5 billion. That does not sound like a lot of money--of course it does-- but let me explain.

Managing FAA at the 2008 levels would result in the immediate retrenchment of core functions to reduce operating costs; to wit, FAA would eliminate services and furlough all air traffic organization employees for at least 20 days. The primary services of the ATO is to move air traffic safely and efficiently, and that for a period of 40 days would cease. FAA would implement a hiring freeze for the ATO--air traffic organization--which would force the ATO to focus on major airports with scheduled service resulting in service reductions at particularly the smaller and rural airports, which affects some of us.

The Aviation Safety Office would eliminate 680 employees through attrition. It would also furlough all 1,015 operational support employees an average of 2 days each week. It is pretty hard to carry on 3 days and then 3 days the next week. That particular agency, Aviation Safety, is responsible for the certification, production approval, and continued airworthiness of aircraft and certification of pilots and certification of mechanics and others in safety-related positions. That is what this amendment would do.

The FAA would have to defer major Next Generation Air Traffic Control System initiatives. That is extraordinarily painful. After all, we go back to our old story that we are behind Mongolia in this modernization effort. Just a thought.

In all of this we would be including next generation network-enabled weather, data communications, systemwide information management, safety security and environmental security, information tool set. This means accurate weather forecasting would go down and pilots would have less relevant information, resulting in increased delays and congestion as aircraft would have a lot more difficulty navigating storms. Weather is the associated cause of 7 percent of delays, much less accidents. It cuts Data Comm. It would impact pilot situational awareness and lead to degraded air safety control, having an effect on safety.

It would cut FAA's research, engineering, and development, and require FAA to cancel or delay the NextGen and environmental research-- I repeat, to cancel or delay NextGen.

Specifically, FAA will terminate all related programs that were started since 2008, including the Continuous Low-Energy Emission and Noise Program, which develops cleaner and quieter aircraft technologies and alternative aviation fuels. Safety research would also be impacted, including a 1-year delay for research on continued airworthiness for small aircraft, as well as research on emerging technologies for larger aircraft.

Specific office impacts: Office of Human Resources. FAA would furlough all employees for at least 46 days. Furloughing AHR employees would impose a significant hardship on AHR's ability to provide human resources to FAA. Aviation safety and security hazard materials would be reduced. This means fewer inspectors for airlines, fewer parts certified as safe, and delays in producing new U.S.-manufactured aircraft.

The Office of the Associate Administrator for Airports would also be cut. This would be an increased risk of runway incursions and delays to technology that would minimize such risks which have been widely reported in the press and often not reported in the press but nevertheless happen.

The FAA would implement a hiring freeze which amongst many things would lead to a loss of support staff in air traffic control towers and, consequently, controllers would pick up administrative duties and would have less time on the boards in front of them, the lights going off and on. This could lead to an increased number of severity of operational errors. You cannot make operational errors in the control tower. You cannot hand that off to other people. That is called essential air safety. This means fewer air traffic controllers and ones that are less focused on directing airplanes. On the safety side and on the maneuverability side, both would subside.

Elimination of all Federal contract tower funding will effectively shift the cost of operating these towers to the affected airports or to State and local government. I do not know what good comes of that since State and local governments do not do that stuff.

I could go through State by State what the effects would be, but what it does is a ham-handed approach to make a cut.

There is a very interesting thing about air traffic safety: It is highly sophisticated. It is compartmentalized. You can't just shift people from this to that as quickly as you can in other lines of work. Lives are at stake, homes on the ground are at stake, crashes are at stake, collisions are at stake. So it is all well and good to do something which appears to be cutting the budget, but when you are putting the lives of Americans on the ground and in the air directly at risk, that strikes me as something we should not do.

So I am extraordinarily unenthusiastic about this amendment,

and I hope there are many eloquent speeches that follow me in this manner.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Alaska.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Blunt amendment No. 5 be modified with the changes that are at the desk; further, that the Blunt amendment No. 5, as modified, and the Reid amendment No. 55 be considered and agreed to en bloc and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.