Floor Statements

Mr. President, something happened last night, and I feel compelled to say on the floor of the Senate that I am very proud of the Texas Aggies women who won the NCAA national basketball championship.

It is so important, I want to say a couple of words about that, because this is the first national championship that the Lady Aggies have ever won. It was a great game last night. I certainly congratulate the Notre Dame Fighting Irish as well. But the Texas Aggies played with spirit. They came from behind at the half, and 76 to 70, they defeated Notre Dame.

I congratulate the Texas Aggie ladies, but I also want to say that Texas A&M's coach, Gary Blair, became the oldest coach to ever win a national women's championship. He has turned the Lady Aggies basketball team into this national championship team.

I mention Danielle Adams. Her All American performance last night was incredible. It is a great day. I am a Texas Longhorn, and most days I am for all of our Texas teams, and I love to say ``Gig `Em Aggies.'' There is one day that I cannot say that. That is Thanksgiving Day. But 364 days a year, I am all for the Aggies when they are playing. And when they played like they did last night in any sport, all America should recognize it.

With that, I wish to say that my colleague Senator Cornyn and I are going to ask unanimous consent to offer a resolution congratulating the Lady Aggies of Texas A&M on winning the 2011 National Collegiate Athletic Association women's basketball championship.

Mr. President, Dr. James Parkinson first identified the symptoms of this debilitating disease in 1817, and now an estimated 1.5 million Americans are currently living with Parkinson's. Despite major advances in modern technology and the establishment of the Parkinson's Disease Research Agenda more than 10 years ago, we regrettably still do not know the cause, and we are still looking for a cure.

Parkinson's disease is a degenerative brain disorder with major symptoms such as tremors, trouble walking, and speech difficulties. The number of people being diagnosed with Parkinson's continues to rise. The newest treatments are coming from cutting edge medical innovations, like deep brain stimulation. However, we can and must do more to keep pushing the boundaries to find better therapies and hopefully, very soon, a cure. This requires a continued national commitment to biomedical research.

The National Institutes of Health is the largest contributor to Parkinson's research, along with the Department of Veteran Affairs and the Department of Defense. Texas has committed to leading the way in Parkinson's disease research and has received more than $2.7 million in Federal funds. These dollars are being put to use at some of our top university and medical research facilities across the State, including: the University of Texas, Baylor College of Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Science Center, and the Audie L. Murphy VA Medical Center in San Antonio.

Today, I am proud to recognize April as Parkinson's Awareness Month, and I hope that this will not only raise awareness of this devastating disease, but will also renew focus and vigor to the fight to treat and ultimately eliminate Parkinson's disease.

Mr. President, I certainly appreciate what Dr./ Senator Barrasso, from Wyoming, does for us on a regular basis. As one of the few physicians in our body--he is one of the two--he tells us the things that are happening in this health care reform bill that are hurting our health care system, hurting the quality of health care in our country, at a time when we need to assure senior citizens that Medicare cuts will not take effect. We certainly want our small businesses to hire people rather than stop at 50 because then they are going to start getting fined for not giving the government-prescribed health care that is in the health care reform act that was passed last year.

What I am doing in my amendment, as one of those pending in the bill before us, is saying: Stop. We have now had two Federal courts--one from Virginia, one from Florida--that have said this law is unconstitutional. Yet the administration is continuing to implement the law, even though it has certainly now been called into question.

I am most affected by the number of States that are having to do the same thing. Most of our State legislatures are in session right now. Every one of them--actually, I think approximately 44 States out of 50--has a budget shortfall. Yet our States are having to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to implement a law that may be declared unconstitutional.

Some States have said we are not going to implement it. But if they say that, then they are going to be in jeopardy when they are not prepared, if the law is constitutional, and they will be paying late fees and fines for not implementing during this kind of time when we are in limbo. Some States are saying we are going to implement, but we have a budget shortfall and we would like not to be required to implement a law that may be void and we are spending millions of dollars when we need that money for education or Medicaid, frankly.

My amendment says we will stop any further implementation of this law until we know the final opinion has been rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding whether the law is valid. That is it. It is simple and clear. We will let every State know they have a level playing field, that they do not have to spend the hundreds of millions of dollars now being spent on implementation, unless we know the Supreme Court has said the law is valid.

I have 36 cosponsors of my amendment, including the Senator from Wyoming, who is one of our two physicians in the Senate. I think we will have a large support because I am getting letters from organizations.

I got a letter from a group that has been formed to say we need to start over on this health care reform bill. These are people who represent the employers of America that want to be able to give their employees the health care coverage they can afford right now. It may not be the government-prescribed health care, but many are trying to do it.

The groups that have signed this letter supporting my amendment to say stop implementation now are: The Associated Builders and Contractors, the Associated General Contractors, the Electrical Contractors, the Foodservice Distributors Association, the International Franchises Association, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, the National Retail Federation, the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Independent Women's Voice, and the 60 Plus Association.

Those are the groups that are saying let's stop the upheaval this has caused in our country and wait and see what the Supreme Court says before we have the outlays of millions of dollars.

Most certainly, small businesses are not increasing employment because they are so concerned about the implications of the health care reform bill. Let me give the Senator from Wyoming an example from my home State of Texas, in Corpus Christi. A small business there has 34 employees. The cheapest option they have for their health insurance renewal is 44 percent more than their insurance just last year. They have just days to decide whether they can continue to offer their employees health insurance. This is in anticipation of the health care reform bill going into effect and causing these employers to have to meet these new mandates.

The insurance companies are already ratcheting up their insurance premiums in anticipation of this law. This is one of the key reasons we need to stop the implementation, until we know if this law is valid, so our businesses will have the freedom to provide affordable health care coverage to their employees.

I thank the Senator from Wyoming for coming in with his second opinion because we know he has unique experience in working with our health care system. I wish to make sure we don't do what the physicians' motto is--which is do no harm--when we haven't thought it through and don't have all the ramifications. First, do no harm. That is their motto. It is simple and clear.

I think we need to stop implementing this bill until the Supreme Court has ruled on its constitutionality.

I thank Senator Mikulski and Senator Boxer.

Mr. President, I do want to talk about this remarkable woman because I think, as has been mentioned before, her loss is being felt throughout America for many different reasons. She was a trailblazer, and she was one of the great female role models of her generation.

I wrote a book in 2004 called ``American Heroines: The Spirited Women

Who Shaped Our Country.'' It was to profile the women who were the earliest trailblazers in different fields--education, sports, politics, journalism. Then I interviewed contemporary women who were still breaking barriers in those fields.

In the public service chapter, I profiled Margaret Chase Smith because she was the longest serving woman elected to the Senate in her own right at the time and she was a true trailblazer. I then interviewed Sandra Day O'Connor, our first woman Supreme Court Justice, and Geraldine Ferraro, our first woman nominee for Vice President of a major party.

I asked Gerry Ferraro in my interview with her: What was your most important trait for success?

And she said:

I think the ability to work hard and, if something doesn't

work, to learn from the mistake and move on. That's what's

happened with my own life. It goes to the personal side from

watching my mother, who moved on after becoming a widow with

two kids to support. She was thirty-nine years old. . . .

Then I watched her move on and do whatever was necessary to

get the job of educating her children done. I'm exactly the

same way. I'll do whatever is necessary to get the job done,

whatever it is. And then if I do something that doesn't work,

then I go to the next goal.

I asked her what was her biggest obstacle. She almost laughed. She said:

I'm sixty-eight. The obstacles in my life have changed with

time. An obstacle when I was a kid was being in a boarding

school away from my mother because my father had died. I had

no choice. It wasn't like the boarding schools or the prep

schools of today. I was in a semicloistered convent. It was

lonely, and I had to work hard. I wanted to go to college,

but we didn't have the money for college, so I knew I had to

get top marks in order to get scholarships. That was my

obstacle then.

Money was always an obstacle when I was a kid. I taught

when I went to law school at night, because I couldn't afford

to go during the day. When I applied [for law school], they

would say things like, ``Gerry, are you serious, because

you're taking a man's place,'' you know. . . .

And then [after getting out of law school]--

As was mentioned earlier, she was one of only two women in her class--

I was faced with the challenge of trying to find a job. I

interviewed at five law firms. I was in the top ten percent

of my class.

But she did not get a job offer. Well, I related to that because I graduated from law school, after her, in 1967, and law firms in Texas did not hire women then either. So I know how she felt as she went through obstacles and obstacles and obstacles. But she said: In the end, ``each thing was an obstacle that I had to get by'' at the time. But she didn't have too many obstacles because she just picked herself up and kept right on going. She truly was an inspiration and a trailblazer for women of our time.

Throughout her life as a public school teacher, as an assistant district attorney, as a Congresswoman, and as a candidate for Vice President, Gerry Ferraro fought for the causes that were important to her. When she learned she had multiple myeloma, a somewhat rare blood disease that is incurable, she drew upon that same fighting spirit. As she waged the battle with her own disease, Gerry stepped into the spotlight because she knew if she talked about it, with her high profile, she could bring help to others.

Her testimony before Congress was instrumental in the passage of a bill that Senator Mikulski, who is on the floor leading this effort today, and I cosponsored together in 2001 and 2002. Our legislation gave the research community the tools they need to discover what triggers these deadly blood diseases, to devise better treatments, and to work toward a cure. In our bill, Barbara and I decided to name the Geraldine Ferraro Blood Cancer Education Program for Gerry Ferraro to raise awareness and spread the lifesaving information about myeloma, leukemia, and other forms of blood cancer. Gerry Ferraro was on the floor of the House when her bill--our bill--passed the House of Representatives on April 30, 2002. Her daughter was in the gallery with my staffer, and there was so much joy in her eyes and her demeanor.

But then Gerry Ferraro went about the business of fashioning the education program. She consulted with the doctors at Harvard, at Dana- Farber, with Dr. Ken Anderson, her doctor. She consulted with him because she wanted an interactive Web site because she knew that doctors all over the country were searching for information on the treatment of this disease because they were so unaware at the time of what you could do to help patients.

Well, this is personal to me because my brother Allan also has multiple myeloma, and I got involved in this because I watched him bravely fight like Gerry Ferraro was doing. And my brother is a great patient. He is tough like Gerry. He is fighting like Gerry. And he is doing really well. But we knew how hard it was because we watched Allan fight this disease and take many of the same drugs and have the same doctor consultations as Gerry. So Gerry and Allan knew each other and traded information, and the patients with these diseases do that. They reach out, they help each other because they know it is the person with the experience who knows how you feel when you just don't feel as though you can get up in the morning. People such as Kathy Giusti, who was also a good friend of Gerry Ferraro's, and Ken Anderson, they traded information, and it helped all of them to know they had that kind of support.

So she was an inspiration. Her dignity and grace in fighting multiple myeloma will be one of the trademarks in her life, along with the other great trailblazing she has done.

Just last month, the women of the Senate pulled together to return the encouragement. We knew Gerry was having a hard time, and we took a picture of the women of the Senate, we all signed it around the edges and we sent it to her, saying: Thanks for being our champion. Thanks for all you do for the women of our country.

Gerry was not just a champion for women running for public office, she was a champion for women to succeed in every field, in every sector. She took the first powerful swing at the glass ceiling. She will not be here to see the woman President who is sworn into office, who will finish the breaking of that glass ceiling. But we will all be standing on the shoulders of Gerry Ferraro, and certainly that first woman President will as well, because she took those first steps, such as so many of the early trailblazers in all the different sectors. The first ones don't see their success, but what they do by showing the dignity and the courage and the tenacity and the grace does prepare the way for the next generation or the next woman to move to the next level, and that is what Gerry Ferraro has done for all the women of our country.

I will always remember her friendship. I appreciate her leadership. We will all miss her on a personal level, but we will always remember in the bigger picture what she did for this country.

Thank you, Mr. President. I thank Senator Mikulski. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 197.

I do, Mr. President. I would like to have my amendment called up, then speak, and then I am happy to have the unanimous consent so that they know the order following me.

For 10 minutes.

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

Mr. President, I do wish to thank the Senator from Louisiana, who is managing the bill for her side, for allowing us to go forward with amendments. I think that is very important, and I do have an amendment that I think will help our small businesses and our States throughout the country. The cosponsors to amendment No. 197 are Senators Hatch, Kyl, Barrasso, Burr, Johanns, Murkowski, Cochran, Moran, and Ensign.

We are approaching the 1-year anniversary of health care reform becoming law, and it is important to highlight the reality of what this bill has done to every American family, every patient, every doctor, health care provider, and every small business in this country.

One year later, the skyrocketing cost of health care is still the No. 1 concern among our Nation's job creators. Just today, my office heard from a small business in Corpus Christi, TX, that has 34 employees. This company has now gotten the bids for renewal of the policies they had before, and the cheapest option for their health insurance represents a 44-percent increase from last year's cost. They have until April 1 to decide whether to continue to offer their employees health insurance and to try to figure out how they are going to compensate for that increase in cost. But this isn't the first small business I have heard from that is telling me the same thing--that their premiums are coming up for renewal, they

are getting bids, they are trying to get the best bid they possibly can, and the costs are skyrocketing.

These price increases have not happened in a vacuum. They are the result of the 2,000-page, $2.6 trillion health care bill signed into law 1 year ago. One year after that bill was signed, small businesses are facing unprecedented premium increases. Their policies are being canceled as insurers close up shop because of new Federal regulations.

The reality of the small business tax credits touted by the administration are really just an empty promise that a majority of small businesses will never see. In fact, the Obama administration estimated that by 2013 as many as 80 percent of small businesses will not even be offering their current health care plan anymore due to the new Federal regulations and mandates and the increasing costs, leaving the promise our President made--if you like what you have, you can keep it--as a distant memory.

A former Director of the Congressional Budget Office has warned that health reform includes strong incentives for employers and employees to drop employer-sponsored health insurance for as many as 35 million Americans.

A recent employer survey conducted by the National Business Group on Health reports that 81 percent of employers have experienced increased administrative burdens because of health reform. This same survey also reported that because of the increased cost from health reform, 68 percent of employers are increasing the contributions required for dependent insurance coverage. The Congressional Budget Office agrees and has reported that these increased burdens and mandates on employers will result in fewer jobs, as well as a shift from full-time to part- time jobs in our country. The Congressional Research Service adds that lower wages will also become a reality because of the new employer mandates.

The only good news our small businesses have gotten recently on this health care reform bill is from the courts. Two Federal courts have found the law unconstitutional--one in Virginia and one in Florida. In January, the Florida judge voided the entire law because the Constitution doesn't allow Congress to force individuals, small businesses, or families to purchase anything just because you live in this country. That is why I am offering an amendment to S. 493, the small business innovation bill, that would delay any further implementation of health reform until the Supreme Court rules whether the law is actually a valid law.

Included within the 2,000 pages of the law are provisions that harm small businesses, their employees, and families. The health reform law contains $500 billion in new taxes, cuts nearly $500 billion from Medicare to fund the new government entitlement, and puts the Federal Government between patients and their doctors. Health reform requires individuals and businesses to buy government-approved health care or have IRS agents knocking at their door. If business owners want to grow their business and hire new employees, health reform says: If you have over 50 employees, there will be costly new Federal regulations with which you have to comply. Small businesses across the country that now have 48 or 49 employees are facing a Federal mandate that discourages them from hiring more people. And this is occurring during one of the highest unemployment rates in our country's history.

We need to get government off the backs of small businesses, our job creators, and stop putting up miles of redtape that restrict innovation. This bill is the perfect place to do it.

My amendment would pause further implementation of this law so that we don't spend millions of our taxpayer dollars and our small business dollars implementing a bill that ultimately could be struck down by the highest Court in the land in a case that has already said the law is unconstitutional. It is making its way to the Supreme Court as we speak.

In addition to the effects on the individuals and small businesses of our country, State legislators and Governors across our country are also making very tough decisions needed to close nearly $125 billion in budget shortfalls. They too are having to meet the Federal mandates of health care reform. Their Medicaid systems are being drastically impacted.

Some States are saying, because of the Florida judge's ruling, they are not going to go further in implementing the law. They do not want to spend the millions if the law is going to be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. On the other hand, we are putting them in the position of taking a chance because there are fines if they do not implement the law in a timely way, according to the law that was passed. If they do not implement it, while the court has said the law is unconstitutional, they could pay, on the other end, by having fines because they did not implement it.

My home State of Texas is going forward with implementation, but they are facing a $27 billion shortfall in their budget. Yet they are spending money that may be money down a rat hole to implement a law that may not be a valid law.

Today we could take one Federal mandate off the list. Today we can make it easier for job creators to create jobs. The least we can do for the businesses and States and families in our country is to delay the burden, the mandates, the regulations and taxes until the highest Court in the land rules on whether it is a valid law.

This amendment would not affect any of the law that has already been implemented. We are not doing something that is retroactive at all. But when this bill passes, everything going forward would be halted until the Supreme Court has ruled on whether, in fact, the health care law that was passed last year is a valid law. I ask my colleagues to join me in taking this heavy burden from our employers and our States.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to speak in favor of the McConnell amendment, which is the pending amendment, which the Senator from Louisiana is trying to get tagged for a vote. But I also wish to have the opportunity to support two of the amendments that I have offered--at least filed--and would like to have them pending as soon as the process allows.

Let me just say that I do support the McConnell amendment. Let me be pretty clear and pretty simple. In the last session of Congress, Senator Lieberman and Senator Kerry offered a climate change regulation that would have caused our fuel prices to go up exponentially. Senator Bond and I did a study on the Kerry-Lieberman multitrillion-dollar tax bill that would have happened if Congress had passed their legislation. We estimated that it would have been about $3.6 trillion in total fuel- added expense to the small businesses and the families in this country. We have documented that in this report.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the executive summary of this report.

Mr. President, the reason we did not pass this legislation is everyone realized it would have raised the cost of gasoline. Now the EPA is trying to do the same thing by fiat. By executive fiat, they are trying to regulate greenhouse gases. What they are going to do is raise the cost of fuel at a time when people are suffering at the pump. I mentioned earlier that I filled up my pickup truck last weekend. It was almost $50. I know every American is having the same experience. If they have an SUV, it is even more.

We cannot allow the EPA, through greenhouse gas regulations, to increase the cost of fuel when they put that regulation on a refinery. We have very few refineries. We have not built a new refinery in this country since 1973 because it is so regulated, so that we really have a shortage of refineries. It is one of the problems with the supply issue in providing gasoline at reasonable prices.

We need to be stepping back, not stepping forward with more regulations. The EPA is doing something Congress would not do. Oddly, the EPA is not authorized to make regulations that Congress does not pass. They are to implement the law, not make it. But that is what they are doing, and we are trying to stop it with the McConnell amendment that would repeal the EPA greenhouse gas regulations. I hope my colleagues will support it.

In addition, as a former small businessperson myself, I know it is very hard for small businesses to make ends meet. I have heard from so many of the people in Texas who are now trying to make ends meet and keep people employed in small businesses. This health care reform bill is causing them to not hire people because they do not know what the costs are going to be.

Basically, you are going to be taxed if you are an individual or a small business that does not adopt the government-prescribed health care insurance for your employees or your family. That is the bottom line. If you do not do exactly what the government says and meet their government-required standards, even if the employees are happy with their health care coverage or certainly do not want to be left to the government health care, you will still get the fine.

Most small businesses I talked to were saying: I am going to pay the fine. It is easier. I don't have liability. I don't have to hire people to work with my employees to get the best prices. That takes a lot of my time and it is not helpful to the bottom line of my company, and therefore I am just going to pay the fine and let the government do it.

Health care is not going to improve for the small businesses and for the families in this country.

My amendment, No. 197, that has been filed, which I hope to have pending, is called the SOS Act--Save Our States--meaning that while the Florida case that has said the health care

reform law is unconstitutional is still unsettled, States and small businesses should not be spending the money to implement a law that may be thrown out anyway by the courts. Let's not cause the financially strapped States and small businesses in this country to have to spend the money to implement the health care reform bill until we know it really is the law of the land. Right now, that is a question because two courts have thrown it out as unconstitutional, one in Virginia and one in Florida.

So my amendment, No. 197, will say that we will delay implementation. We will not require any costs to be incurred by a business, an individual, or a State until it is clear it has gone to the Supreme Court and the health care reform act really is the law of the land.

How much could that save? Millions for our States and millions for the businesses across our country. I hope we can get this amendment pending.

The second amendment is No. 198. It is called the Lease Act. It is simple. Today, we have a virtual moratorium. My colleague from Louisiana has designated what we have as a permitorium, because there is almost no activity--new activity--in the Gulf of Mexico in deepwater drilling activity.

We know that gasoline at the pump is going up because there is a shortage of supply. If we would get these leases out there, all of the exploration that is being done, and allow the people who have paid the bonuses for the leases to fully use their leases, then we would give them 1 more year to be able to determine if it is worth it to drill a well in the Gulf of Mexico and start pumping oil and increase our supplies through our own natural resources that God has given to our country.

Our amendment No. 198, which is the Hutchison-Landrieu bill, would extend for 1 year, which is the time these people have paid for a lease but not been able to use it, because there is a moratorium on the deepwater drilling, and the Department of Interior has now only given a maximum of up to three, possibly only two permits for the people who had been able to explore before the BP spill.

I hope to get both of those amendments up. I can think of nothing that would help small business more than to know they will not have to implement the health care reform act, they can go ahead and hire people, free them to build up their employment base, which is what we all want to do, build our economy and, secondly, to hopefully get a better price on fuel for them so they will not have to suffer with these high gasoline prices.

Most small businesses, in a poll, said their top three expenditures include the cost of fuel, electricity, and natural gas. So we need to give our small businesses help. I hope we can get our amendment Nos. 197 and 198 pending at the appropriate time.

At this point, I hope my colleagues will support Senator McConnell's amendment to stop the EPA from adding costs to the refineries and the gasoline producers of our country.

Mr. President, I rise to talk in morning business about the energy issue facing the country. Anyone who has filled up the car or truck in the last month knows we have an energy crisis that is building and needs to be addressed. Last week I filled up my pickup truck. It cost about $50. Across the Nation, parents are driving in carpools. Farmers, small business owners, and commuters are experiencing sticker shock at the rising cost to put gas in their vehicles. Today oil is over $104 a barrel. That means on average Americans are paying $3.52 a gallon. It is going in the upward direction from there. We are clearly in an economic downturn. We have high unemployment. Now is not the time to sit back and do nothing as the price of gasoline goes up at the pump.

In response, the White House is beginning to talk about tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We know that will not work. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is available for natural disasters and global disasters. But experience has shown that any gain from releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is small and temporary, and prices quickly go right back up to their high and rising levels. If we diminish our resources, our reserves in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, we are even more vulnerable to those who would do mischief to the country because they would know we have a diminished supply, or to the natural disasters for which we are supposed to be prepared.

Our problem is, we are the only Nation on Earth that has vast natural resources which we will not use. American energy is out there. It is under our land. It is under our waters. It is ready to be tapped, and it can be tapped environmentally safely. We could bring the prices down on our own accord. We know there is upheaval in the Middle East right now that could affect further the gasoline prices because of potential shortages. We are too dependent on foreign sources for our energy needs. It is a little more than 50 percent. That is not strategically sound, and it is most certainly not in our national security interest to leave us at that level.

The Gulf of Mexico is one of the biggest resources we have. The Gulf of Mexico accounts for nearly 30 percent

of total U.S. oil production and 13 percent of natural gas production. By failing to take full advantage of that resource, we are putting our energy security on the line.

Mr. President, 400,000 jobs across the gulf coast are tied to the offshore energy industry. Nearly a year after issuing its moratorium and months since the moratorium was lifted, the Department of the Interior last week approved its first, its one and only, deepwater permit--one in a year. It's one and one only. There are thousands of idled leases, people sitting in the Gulf of Mexico idle that should be able to be at least exploring to determine if it is worth drilling. Yet the gulf is facing a permitorium.

My constituents know the pain of this ``permitorium.'' One unfortunate case is the Houston-based Seahawk Drilling Company. Seahawk Drilling used to be the second largest shallow water drilling contractor in the United States. It provided high-paying jobs to men and women in Texas and across the Gulf of Mexico. I say ``used to'' because in February bureaucratic delays in shallow water permitting forced Seahawk Drilling to declare bankruptcy. They could not continue to have the costs associated with their employment levels, and with their company being there without the opportunity to drill and produce and keep their employee base. They declared bankruptcy. It destroyed 1,000 high-paying Texas jobs.

I received a letter describing the pain and distress the company felt when it had to inform the dedicated Seahawk employees they no longer had a job. According to the letter, on the day Seahawk was forced to sell its assets and lay off workers, the chief operating officer had to ``fight back the emotions of the day. He took a deep breath and he left the conference room for a room full of Seahawk employees to tell them that their company was bankrupt.''

These are real people with real families who lost real jobs--American jobs--and it could have been prevented.

Since the moratorium was enacted, at least 13 rigs--deepwater and shallow water--have departed the Gulf of Mexico, taking with them good American jobs, and, furthermore, putting us in the position of having to import now from the foreign countries where these rigs have gone, not only taking away American jobs but forcing us to be even more dependent on foreign imports for our energy needs.

Offshore energy production is expected to decrease by 13 percent in 2011, due to the slow pace of permitting. This is unacceptable, and we must do something that is productive.

Yesterday, Senator Landrieu and I introduced the LEASE Act, the Lease Extension and Secure Energy Act of 2011. All our bill does is extend the offshore leases that are impacted by the moratorium and the lack of permitting for 1 year.

The LEASE Act returns to lessees the lease time taken from them during the moratorium. This will increase domestic energy production and protect some American jobs--those that have not already left. Despite being unable to explore for energy resources, the leaseholders are continuing to pay the expenses, as time ticks away on their lease.

The LEASE Act will prevent leases from running out, and it gives the lessees the certainty they deserve that they will have the full amount of the lease for which they have paid bonus payments to secure.

In 2009, the industry accounted for $70 billion in economic value and provided $20 billion in revenue to Federal, State, and local governments through royalties, bonuses, and tax collections.

I hope our bill will be noncontroversial. It would seem to me that anyone would agree that if you paid for a 10-year lease, and you have the expenses of exploring to see if that lease has potential, before you drill to see if the lease has potential, you would have the full 10 years, and not 9 years because you have not been able to use the year we have had the moratorium and the lack of permitting.

There has been another suggestion by the administration that perhaps we should be proposing energy taxes--up to $90 billion over the next 10 years. The President suggested that in his State of the Union message. Much of the taxes that would go on the oil and gas industry for expenses--that any industry, any business can write off, but would single out the oil and gas industry not to be able to expense their exploration and drilling costs--what would happen? If the prices go up, of course, who is going to pay those high prices? The families and businesses that are having to fill their cars with gasoline.

In fact, the administration, through the EPA, is trying to bring more expenses to the refining industry by purporting to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The administration is also adding to the refiners by saying they should not get the manufacturing tax credit.

We have been trying to encourage manufacturing in America because we want manufacturing jobs in America, and so many of those have gone overseas. But the administration proposes to tax refiners who are manufacturing the gasoline from the oil and add more expense to the product, which is gasoline, and, oh, by the way, take away the capability for these refiners to have the same treatment as any other manufacturer in our country.

Raising taxes on our domestic oil and energy industry is wrong, particularly at this time. We need to assure that we are not going to drive our energy jobs overseas. Yet what the administration is doing is counterintuitive if we all agree we want to keep the jobs in America.

So here we are with gas at $3.52 a gallon, and the summer driving season is upon us. We are looking now at estimates from the experts that gasoline could be $4 a gallon. What is that going to do to the family who wants to take a vacation at a reasonable price? What is that going to do to the workers who have to get to work and who are already strapped, and, for Heaven's sake, the poor people who are unemployed who are trying to go and interview for jobs with gas at $4 a gallon?

We cannot sit here and let this happen. It is time we get together with the President of the United States and have proactive energy ideas, programs, and solutions that are going to keep jobs in America, that will allow us to use our natural resources to begin to set the stage if we have upheaval in the Middle East that causes the supply to go down at a great rate. We need to have our supply go up to meet the test we should have of lowering energy prices for our people with our own natural resources. It is not to put the SPR out and put us in an even more vulnerable position. No. It is to use our resources, with Americans to take the jobs, and increase our supply so the price of gasoline at the pump goes down for the American people, and so we can have the jobs we should have in America stay in America.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to read the letter from COL William Barret Travis from the Alamo, something I have done every year since Senator Phil Gramm retired. He read the letter on Texas Independence Day every year after Senator Tower left office. So we have a tradition every Texas Independence Day of a Texas Senator reading the very moving speech from William Barret Travis.

Today is the 175th anniversary of our independence from Mexico.

This past Sunday, I had the honor of participating in the Washington- on-the-Brazos' 175th anniversary celebration of the Texas Declaration of Independence signing. It was a special occasion that brought together almost all the 59 signers' descendants. Thousands of proud Texans came to commemorate this most pivotal event in Texas's legacy of freedom and patriotism.

My great-great-grandfather, Charles S. Taylor, was willing to sign the document that declared Texas free from Mexico. I am humbled to occupy the Senate seat from Texas that was first held by Thomas Jefferson Rusk, who was another signer of the Texas Declaration of Independence.

Those 59 brave men did not just come in and sign a paper. They took great risk. They put their lives, their treasures, and the lives of their families on the line to do this. One hundred seventy-five years later, sometimes you do not think of how hard it was for them to declare this separation from Mexico and know that there was going to be a war fought over it because the Mexican Army was in San Antonio at the Alamo, getting ready to take the Alamo from William Barret Travis and the roughly 180 men who were there who were trying to defend that fortress.

The accounts of the revolution have been some of our most dramatic stories of patriotism in both Texas and America.

We remember the sacrifice of William Barret Travis, Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie, and the others who died bravely defending the Alamo against Santa Anna and his thousands of trained Mexican troops.

They were outnumbered by more than 10 to 1. For 13 days of glory, the Alamo defenders bought critical time for GEN Sam Houston, knowing they would probably never leave the mission alive.

The late Senator John Tower started the tradition of reading a stirring account by Alamo commander William Barret Travis, and Senator Gramm and now I have continued that tradition.

From within the walls of the Alamo, under siege by Santa Anna's Mexican Army of 6,000 trained soldiers, Colonel Travis wrote this letter to the people of Texas and all Americans:

Fellow Citizens and Compatriots: I am besieged with a

thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna. I have

sustained a continual Bombardment and cannonade for 24 hours

and have not lost a man. The enemy has demanded surrender at

discretion, otherwise, the garrison is to be put to the

sword, if the fort is taken. I have answered the demand with

a cannon shot, and our flag still waves proudly over the

wall. I shall never surrender our retreat.

Then I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism,

of everything dear to the American character, to come to our

aid with all dispatch. The enemy is receiving reinforcements

daily and will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in

four or five days. If this call is neglected I am determined

to sustain myself as long as possible and die like a soldier

who never forgets what is due his honor and that of his

country--Victory or Death.

--William Barrett Travis, Lt. Col. Commander.

Steadfast to the end and independent to the core, that is the essence of Texas.

Had Colonel Travis and his men not laid down their lives in the Battle of the Alamo, Sam Houston's victory at San Jacinto just 2 months later would never have been possible. Texas's freedom might not have been won.

It is important that every generation of Texas pause to remember the patriots of the Texas revolution: each soldier who gave his life at the Alamo, Goliad, and San Jacinto; the 59 men who met at Washington-on- the-Brazos, putting their lives in danger by signing that Declaration of Independence and becoming heroes for a cause; and the bravery of the women who gave up an easier life in the East to join the struggle to make Texas the marvelous place it is today.

My great-great-grandmother was one of those brave women. She took her four children in what was called the Runaway Scrape, trying to flee eastward from Nacogdoches, where they lived, to try to escape the advancing Mexican Army and the Indian raids that were happening all over east Texas.

My great-great-grandmother lost all four of her living children during that sad and hard time for Texas. But that was not the last chapter in the revolution. She came back to Nacogdoches, met my great- great-grandfather, who was there signing the Texas Declaration of Independence, and had nine more children.

So the women also were heroes and heroines of this time.

It is my honor to memorialize the Texas legacy of freedom and patriotism in this way.

I ask unanimous consent that my speech at the Washington-on-the- Brazos celebration this past weekend be printed in the Record.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote with respect to amendment No. 7 be vitiated; further, that amendment No. 93 be further modified with the changes that are at the desk.

Madam President, we are ready for the vote on the amendment. I ask for a vote on amendment No. 93, as further modified.

Madam President, I wish to ask the Senator from Arizona to engage in a colloquy with myself and Senator Rockefeller and any others who wish to speak within this colloquy regarding an issue that was not able to be resolved because of the time constraints.

I want to say that every stakeholder representing constituents all over America gave greatly to adopt this amendment that will have, in my opinion, a responsible relaxation of the perimeter rule at Washington National Airport.

We can talk about the details certainly as we move forward, but there was one major issue left unresolved that I think deserves a colloquy so we know what we have to do to finish this process in conference before we adopt an FAA bill that is a very important bill for our country.

I ask the Senator from Arizona to state his concerns about the unfinished part of this bill, and then we will open it for discussion.

Madam President, there have been a lot of negotiations on this amendment, but I do think we now have a breakthrough and a way forward to solve the unresolved issues and pass a very good FAA bill.

In general, the amendment does relax the perimeter rule, with exemptions. There will be five new entrant capabilities--``new entrant'' meaning air carriers that do not serve National Airport now at all--and limited incumbents that have fewer flights from National Airport will get five new slots that will be able to go outside of the 1,250-mile perimeter that has been a standard restriction at National Airport. In addition, there will be seven flights that incumbent carriers can exchange from inside the perimeter to outside the perimeter.

Earlier the Senators from outside the perimeter, which is basically west of St. Louis or Denver, have wanted 75 new flights. They came down to 30, then they came down to 21, and now we are at 16. That would be total because the last four would come later, after a study has shown that there would not be disruptions or congestion at National Airport. So I think we have a very limited number of flights that will be coming in to National Airport--a total of 16 but, of those 16, 11 are already flights that go in and out of National. Thanks to the good work of the Senators from Virginia and Maryland, there will be very little increase or disruption in the National Airport area.

In addition, although the western Senators negotiated down significantly from what they originally wanted, the Senators from the northwest also wanted to have the capability for more competition and more consumer access, and I agree with them. I think they did a great job. Senator Wyden, Senator Cantwell, Senator Merkley, and Senator Murray also had great concerns, along with the Senators from Alaska, Senator Murkowski and Senator Begich. They had concerns we had to address. And the California Senators most certainly have wanted more access from California, and that is a huge population base that will now have better access to National Airport as well as Dulles.

I think that is the outline of the amendment we have just adopted, and we are going to continue to work in conference. The House bill has five new entrants only, and we have 16. We have conversions; the House does not. So there will be a lot of talk and a lot of input, but my goal is to have more competition, to have strengthened air carriers for our overall U.S. air competition, and to ensure that the people west of the Mississippi River have access to National Airport.

I think we have made a good start, and I commend all of those who have been involved in a very delicate negotiation. I especially thank my chairman, Senator Rockefeller of the Commerce Committee, for helping us to get to this point where we could pass an FAA bill.

As has been mentioned, we are on our 18th short-term extension of FAA, and if we are going to have the next-generation air traffic control system, a modernization of the air traffic control system and the safety requirements, we have to pass the underlying bill. So we have taken a major first step. It is not the end by any means, but it is the beginning of the end.

I now recognize Senator Wyden, who was very much a part of resurrecting from the dead, I would say is not too strong a term, the amendment that

would have gone by the wayside but for his persistence in ensuring that we could come to terms that would make no one happy but also no one truly unhappy.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I object.

Mr. President, until the Senator from Oklahoma is ready to start, I want to say I so appreciate the majority leader working with us, as well as Senator Rockefeller, Senator Coburn, all of the people who have had so many interests in this bill. I think we are finally on the glidepath now, if I can use an aviation metaphor. I am pleased to see that Senator Coburn is on the floor because now I believe we will be able to achieve the passage of this bill after a few votes tonight. I am very grateful to everyone for staying here to finish this important document.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Rockefeller, for the wonderful words about myself, about both of our staffs, and suffice it to say, I think the leadership that comes from the top--Senator Rockefeller, as chairman of the Commerce Committee-- has put together a staff and a mandate for all of us such that we are going to be a productive committee, we are going to work together, and we are going to shoot straight. And that is exactly what our staffs do, and it is what we do.

The reason we get along so well and have done so much is that we may not agree on every issue, but we try to help each other in a way that achieves the overall goal we both want. Then we have the room to differ on specific ways to get there. So it is a pleasure to be the ranking member of the Commerce Committee, and I do feel that I am a full partner. Even though I am not the chairman of the committee, I do feel like the vice chairman. So I thank the chairman.

I think we have accomplished so much tonight. We haven't passed, on final passage, this bill, but the authorization bill that preceded this one was passed in 2007, and we have had 18 short-term extensions. The FAA runs our aviation system in this country. It is responsible for the safety, it is responsible for consumer protection, and it is responsible for managing the air traffic in this country and managing the fund that helps airports with infrastructure. So short-term extensions don't work in infrastructure and in the areas where there has to be long-term planning. We have been trying to start the process of the long-term planning for the next generation of air traffic control systems since 2007. Tonight, we have passed a major hurdle.

The House is going along on the same track to pass an FAA reauthorization, and I believe we will pass the final bill, I hope, before the short-term extension runs out at the end of March. That will be our goal. I think because we have come together on this bill, we have a good chance of doing that.

I think having the first major bill on the floor in this session of Congress was a big test, and I want to commend our leaders, Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell, for the way it was handled. Harry Reid let the process work. We had plenty of time for amendments. Senator McConnell was very helpful in ensuring that amendments were not an overload. There was no attempt to filibuster this bill. I think this is the way we ought to proceed for the next 2 years, and I think we have made a great start with this bill. People have had their say, they have had their debate time, and that, I hope, is the way the Senate will resume.

I do want to say there were tough issues. The perimeter rule around Washington Reagan National Airport was the biggest sticking point, and it took a lot of give on all sides to assure that the relaxation of the perimeter rule, through exemptions, was done in a way that, I believe, will not hurt any of the stakeholders. I believe there is a balance. I believe we will have more western Senators and their constituents who will be able to have direct access to National Airport. I think we have done right by the airlines that are incumbent carriers at Washington National, and we have made room for new entrants into Washington National, but it was very difficult.

I just want to single out a few people who made huge contributions to this success: Senator Kyl from Arizona and Senator Ensign from Nevada. They represented the western interests so well. They know aviation and they knew what we could do and we have made great progress.

I will also commend Senator Wyden, from Oregon, and Senator Cantwell, who is going to be the new chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee in the Commerce Committee. They both represented the Northwest and Alaska very well. Senator Begich and Senator Murkowski also did so much to help us thread the needle that would be a balanced bill.

Then there was Senator Warner, who also had a different interest and that was to protect his constituents from congestion around Washington National. I think we were able to accommodate the needs of the people who live around National Airport as well, through the leadership of Senator Warner. It took a lot of negotiation to get there. That is why this bill took several weeks to do.

I am very proud and pleased that we have done this. I too want to recognize the staffs, without whom none of us could do the research and the detail work that is necessary. I will start with Senator Rockefeller's Democratic Commerce staff. Ellen Doneski runs the Senate majority on the Commerce Committee. She is a joy. She and Ann Begeman, who runs the Republican side, are truly colleagues who can shoot straight. There are never surprises. We trust each other. We don't always agree. The answer is not always ``yes.'' But the answer is straight. That is what you need when you are working together to achieve results.

James Reid, on this bill--I didn't know he was funny because, frankly, there hasn't been much fun for the last 2 weeks. But I am glad to know that we have a personality trait that I am going to get to learn. But I did know he is smart. I did know he was very helpful in the capability to work things out with the many amendments and needs of all of our colleagues when it is a big bill.

Gael Sullivan, Rich Swayze, Bruce Andrews, and Adam Duffy all helped in this effort.

I thank the floor staffs from both sides. They are the ones who are sitting in front of us right now. They have been sitting in front of us about 9 o'clock every night that we have been on this bill. I thank Tim Mitchell, Gary Myrick, Tricia Engle on the majority staff. On our side, I know we couldn't do without Dave Schiappa, Laura Dove, Jody Hernandez, and all the cloakroom staff. Honestly, I have to say the floor staff makes the trains run on time. They also work things out sometimes so we do not even have to do it. I appreciate so much all that you all do. You are the wind beneath our wings.

I thank, also, on our side Senator McConnell's staff, Scott Raab, who is the aviation Commerce Committee staff person. We appreciate his efforts to help us keep things on track for the leader.

Then my own Senate Commerce Committee staff. This is why I want to say that we have a great Commerce Committee staff, some of whom will be leaving. This may be their final achievement. I am very pleased they are going to leave on such a high.

Ann Begeman is the chief of our Commerce Committee staff. As the chairman pointed out, she has been given a great position, a promotion. She has been appointed to be a Commissioner on the Surface Transportation Board. She is going to do a great job. In fact, I think she is accusing us of holding up her hearing because we like her so much. But she is going to, in fact, have a hearing in the next couple of weeks. I know she will be confirmed because everyone who works with her knows what a great manager and a great leader she has been on our staff.

I want to thank Brian Hendricks. Brian was described by the chairman as quietly effective--and we all started laughing on the back bench because Brian is a tiger. We need his brilliance and his tenacity in all of the major things we do on the Commerce Committee. In fact, Brian is going to be the new incoming Chief of Staff of the Republican Commerce Committee when Ann Begeman takes her new position at the Surface Transportation Board. He has earned this by leading us through some of the toughest times, not only this bill, where he was a help, but also taking the lead on the NASA bill that we also passed through our committee. The NASA authorization bill, that was passed through the Commerce Committee through the leadership of Brian Hendricks of all of us on the Commerce Committee, is saving America's position in space exploration. We could not have done it without Brian Hendricks. I will never forget the contribution he has made to America. He is going to be with us for a long time to come as well.

Jarrod Thompson was the lead on this bill. As the chairman said, we

could not have done it without Jarrod. He knows aviation backward and forward. There is not a question that was ever asked about what the rules were, what the law was, who was at every airport--he knew. He has been the aviation committee clerk through the relaxation of the Wright amendment restrictions around Love Field and DFW Airport. When we started on this bill and we got to the perimeter rule at Washington National, it was as though Jarrod Thompson had been through this before. He knew what restrictions were and how you could ease them in a balanced way. It was in fact Jarrod who came up with the way forward when we were at a complete impasse at 9 o'clock last night. He is essential to our team as well.

Nick Rossi, a very important part of our staff, is also getting a promotion. Susan Collins has stolen him from our staff to make him Staff Director at Homeland Security. We never argue when people are promoted. We will miss him very much because he has been an invaluable member of the Commerce Committee staff. He will do a great job running the Homeland Security Committee, the Republican side of that committee staff.

Patrick Mullane is going to be moving over to the Budget Committee. He was a great help. He knows transportation backward and forward.

Todd Bertoson is a great member of our team who is staying with us and will continue to contribute so much with his expertise in marine and ocean, which is another part of our Commerce Committee jurisdiction.

I am very pleased we have been able to achieve a great bill that I know is taking us the next step toward the reauthorization bill that is going to put the FAA, our air traffic control system, our consumer protections, and our safety in the place where they ought to be.

I thank the chairman for his leadership and I yield the floor.

Madam President, we now have, I think, a glidepath to passing this important legislation. We worked late into the night, Senator Rockefeller and I did, to try to accommodate needs, concerns, amendments of Members. Now we have the cloture motion in play and hope we can come to a real agreement on the Reagan Airport perimeter issue so we could even do it before cloture is invoked--but hopefully, if we are not

able to come to a complete agreement, we would at least be able to get cloture and move on.

I hope our Members know we are going to continue to work to address everyone's concerns. We have concerns of western Senators and concerns of Senators within the Washington, DC metropolitan area. We have small community concerns and we have eastern seaboard community concerns. We have been working for years, actually--but months and then weeks to address concerns. We are open to do that. But it is time to wind this bill up so we can go to conference with the House with a strong Senate position and do the big picture policy issues that need to be addressed.

We must have the next generation of air traffic control started. We must have a satellite-based system that is for the whole world--for the people coming into our country and the people using our airspace. We need to have the safety and the consumer protections that are in this bill. We need to have a responsible way for people from all over our country to come into Reagan Washington National Airport while also protecting the people around the area from congestion.

We have a lot of concerns. I think this is a good bill and it is getting better every day. I do think we can come up with the right mix that will put our aviation system in the forefront of the world because half of the air traffic of the world comes into and out of the United States. We certainly need to be the best and that is what this bill will put us on the glidepath to do.

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 have a modification of my amendment at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

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, we are working very hard to have an amendment on the perimeter rule that would accommodate all the concerns of western Senators who do not have easy access to Reagan Washington National Airport and the concerns of the Virginia Senators who are concerned about congestion and other Senators from the Far West who want to try to have a better chance at a direct flight.

Senator Rockefeller and I have filed an amendment that we think is a fair approach. We did this because we did not have enough consensus, and we are trying to drive that consensus. So I would like to ask that the amendment be brought up. It is our intention then to set it aside for Senator Nelson's amendment, which is scheduled for a vote. I have informed everyone that I am going to ask the Chair to call up amendment No. 84, the Rockefeller-Hutchison amendment on the perimeter rule.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 1 minute to respond to the objection.

Mr. President, the reason for the conversions was to accommodate the needs of the Washington National Airport people and to also understand that the incumbent carriers--of which there are four-- have mostly paid the lion's share of the cost of the additions to Washington National Airport.

We do want a fair process. That is why we have separated the new entrants, which would be five, to accommodate carriers that have no presence but also have conversions of flights that are already in place, so there would be fewer new flights into Washington National and there would be a fair process with the incumbent carriers who have paid such a lion's share of the cost at the airport to keep it competitive and fair.

So, with that, we will continue to discuss. We hope we will have an amendment that can be voted on, and I think it is imperative that we vote on this issue so there is a Senate position.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 58

Mr. President, I too wish to say I support the Nelson amendment and appreciate his working with the Intelligence Committee and the Judiciary Committee to assure all the bases are covered. I will be supporting it as well.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally.

Mr. President, I will take such time as I may consume, and I am sure Senator Paul will be here shortly.

Mr. President, the Paul amendment does reduce the aggregate authorized spending level to the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2008. So basically it is going back to the 2008 levels. I am going to support the amendment because I think we have to make a start at cutting back on spending in every area of government that is discretionary and where we can make responsible cuts. However, I do want to say that the better approach, in my opinion, would be to have an overall cap on spending at the 2008 levels and then pick the priorities we must fund and take away the lesser priorities for government funding. I believe we need a more measured approach on infrastructure spending.

In the case of the FAA, I would point out that the agency is funded through a mix of aviation trust fund dollars and general fund dollars. Specifically, three of the four main accounts in the FAA budget-- airport improvement, facilities and equipment, and research--are paid for entirely by the aviation trust fund. The aviation trust fund is funded by revenue from various users of the U.S. aviation system through taxes and fees on the industry. So all capital investment in aviation infrastructure is paid for by the users of that infrastructure. The fourth account--operations--is then funded partially by the aviation trust fund and partially from the general fund.

So as we move toward conference, I think we need to make sure infrastructure projects that increase airport capacity, improve safety, increase the efficiency of our aviation system, and modernize our air traffic control system are adequately funded. This should be especially true when the revenues used to pay for these projects are paid for by the users of the aviation system.

I am certainly committed to restoring fiscal responsibility. I think we have to choose the strategic places where we must invest to ensure our infrastructure serves the needs of our people. I believe Congress would be much wiser to have an aggregate discretionary spending cap and then allow us to debate the priorities that would be funded under that cap. But that means doing business not as usual. It means we don't take each bill individually, each department and agency individually. It means we set an overall cap for Federal spending and then decide which places in which agencies should be well funded and which ones should take a pass for the present until we get our fiscal house in order.

So I am going to support the Paul amendment, but I do believe we need to have a more systematic approach going forward and fund what needs to be funded. And I do believe FAA, aviation security, aviation infrastructure and efficiency in our air traffic system should be funded. But I think we have to do it in a bigger picture than each individual bill that is going to go through here, and I ask my colleagues to think about a better approach going forward than this type of amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment to the Inhofe amendment at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. President, I send a modification to my second- degree amendment to the desk and ask that the amendment be so modified.

Mr. President, the amendment that is now pending, for which we have a cloture motion, is what we are going to try to continue to work on and hope that we can come to a consensus on the issue of the perimeter rule that has caused so much of this bill to be held up. This is a good bill. This is a bill that is going to give America the opportunity to start the next generation of air traffic control systems. It is a bill that we must begin now if we are going to go to a satellite-based system which will free airspace and make our air system work more efficiently for aircraft in the air.

It has safety provisions. It has consumer protection provisions. It is so important that we also accommodate the needs of all of our country, the constituents we have, to have an airport system that works--especially in the Washington area.

We will be able to debate this amendment as we go through the next few days. We are waiting for other amendments to also be debated on the floor. But I have stood very firm in saying we need a bipartisan solution to access to the Nation's airport in Washington, DC. It is located in Virginia, but it is the Washington, DC-near airport, and all of the airports in this area now have a robust business. It is time for us to deal with this in a rational, bipartisan, and responsible way. That is what Senator Rockefeller and I have attempted to do, and we will continue to do so.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am fully in support of what the chairman has said. We have been on this bill now for over a week of actual Senate time. It is an important bill for our country because we are trying to set in place the next generation of air traffic control. America has over 50 percent of the air traffic in the world. We need to be the leader of the next generation of

air traffic control systems. We are trying to transfer from the ground- based radar system to a satellite-based system. It will be more efficient. It will open many more opportunities for airspace. We need to be able to move forward so that more planes can use the airspace we have. Yet we are finding a reluctance to vote on amendments. There are several amendments that are pending. We need to have votes on those amendments. There are safety measures; there are consumer protection measures in this bill.

The chairman and I have worked together on making progress because we both want to pass this bill. It is a good bill. The sticking point is the slots at Reagan National Airport. Honestly, the chairman's staff and my staff have worked with all of the affected airlines and States and constituents to try to come to a fair opening of Washington National Airport to people who live west of St. Louis, MO. Basically, west of St. Louis, there are very few straight flights from Washington National. Most of them have to stop. So we are trying to gradually add to the capabilities for people who live out West to come into Washington National Airport, but we are also trying to keep the people who live around the airport from having undue noise or undue traffic or congestion at the airport. So we are trying to come up with a fair system. But, to be honest, the sides are not giving. There is a western Senator position. There is a Virginia Senator position. There is a far- Alaska, far-west position. And nobody is giving an inch. Well, it is kind of hard to negotiate when you keep putting things out there, which the chairman and I are doing, and we get no response but ``I want everything my way.'' Well, ``everything my way'' is not going to work.

We are facing a deadline now where possibly we won't be able to get a vote. I think that would be very bad for the western half of the United States because I think they are being unfairly kept out of access to the convenience of the airport to the Capitol and to downtown Washington. So I hope the sides will meet and come together with something that accommodates all of the needs and concerns, and I hope we can pass this bill this week. I think both the majority leader and the Republican leader are in support of the bill going forward. So we need to get our amendments up, get them voted on, and let's try to make progress.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.