Floor Statements

Madam President, while Senators are getting ready to speak, we have made good progress on the bill. Amendments are now coming in. Cloture is going to be filed Monday, so we need to have all the relevant amendments in by then.

I support the Nelson of Florida amendment on which we will vote at 10:30. We agreed last year, in a preconference meeting, that the amendment he has to drop language from the bill would be dropped. I support the amendment. The NASA Reauthorization Act has intervened, and that is the law of the land. It was passed unanimously by the Senate. I believe the Nelson of Florida amendment is a good one.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, we yield back.

Mr. President, I appreciate what the chairman has said. His message is the same as my message; that is, this is a very important bill. It is one--the authorization of the FAA--we have extended, since 2007, with 18 short-term extensions. Neither the chairman nor myself want a 19th short-term extension. That is, as he mentioned, not the way we ought to be doing business. We ought to be able to assure that a contract will be let for a new runway or a repair on a runway and that it will be finished. I hope we can get through some of the thornier issues, and there are several of those.

I ask my colleagues to come down and get their amendments pending because we want to close out amendments and then deal with the ones we have and move on.

Senator Wicker and Senator Collins are going to be here very shortly. They will be talking about the Wicker amendment. That is one I think they have now agreed to sponsor together. They have made some good changes. We have others that are also being worked on. It is time, if a colleague wants to offer an amendment, to come down and do it.

We are continuing to work on the perimeter slot rule from Washington National Airport, with the hope of coming to a consensus that will increase the number of opportunities for people from the Western half of the United States to come into Washington National Airport. I will say, I believe it is in everyone's interest to open Washington National on a limited basis. We do not want to add to the congestion. The proposals that are being put forward would not add to congestion. They would be mostly incumbent carriers already flying, just transferring to longer haul flights but not with bigger airplanes.

So you can't make the argument that it is going to add to ground congestion or air congestion because you are not going to add that many new flights. It certainly is not a noise issue anymore, because we have Stage III aircraft that have made a significant improvement in air traffic noise for people who live near airports. I think it is in the interest of the people who live around National to have that same convenience--to be able to go to the western part of the United States, just as people who live farther away from the airports. So I think we are working through this. We need to come up with something that everyone would say is a fair compromise, and I hope we can do that.

The underlying bill is important because it does increase the safety measures we need to have. It certainly will modernize the air traffic control system and put America in the forefront of putting our air traffic control on a satellite-based system, rather than a ground-based radar system. That is the key reason for needing to go forward on this bill so we can start that transformation. It will take time, and it is something that needs to be done, but with a longer term authorization, which we are trying to do.

It will improve rural small town access to our aviation system. There are also good consumer protections. We don't think anyone should have to sit on an airplane for more than 3 hours on the ground with the door closed, and that is provided for in this bill. If you are sitting on the ground in an enclosed aircraft for more than 3 hours, the airline must open the doors and let passengers get off.

There are a lot of things we need to put into law. We have made a good start, and I would ask my colleagues to give us their amendments, if they have them, and let us work through them to move this bill.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I rise today to speak in support of the Diana Saldana confirmation to serve as a Federal judge for the Southern District of Texas in Laredo.

Judge Saldana's career has given her a breadth of experience that I believe will serve her well on the Federal bench. She received her B.A. in history and government from the University of Texas and then went on to receive a J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law.

She was born in Carrizo Springs, TX, only a stone's throw from where she is currently serving as a U.S. magistrate judge in Laredo, TX. Prior to that, Judge Saldana served 4 years as an assistant U.S. attorney. She handled as many as 350 active Federal criminal cases a year, ranging from immigration to narcotics to health care. It was in this capacity that she was selected coordinator for Chief Judge George Kazen. Before her work in the U.S. Attorney's Office, Judge Saldana spent time as a lawyer for the U.S. Department of Justice in the Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Department of Agriculture in the General Counsel's Office. She also served as a law clerk to Judge Kazen in the Southern District of Texas.

Judge Saldana has been admitted to practice before the U.S. Southern District of Texas Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court. Judge Saldana has good professional experience, and she is well respected in the South Texas community. The American Bar Association gave her a unanimous ``well qualified'' rating, and I believe she will be an effective Federal judge in South Texas.

In September, I introduced Judge Saldana before the Judiciary Committee, and today I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support her nomination and confirm her as a Federal judge for the Southern District in Laredo, TX.

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

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

Madam President, I rise to speak also on the 100th anniversary of the birth of Ronald Reagan, and I am so pleased to follow my colleague from California who has been under the weather for a little while. We are very glad she is back.

I think all of us will have an opportunity to talk about one of the great Presidents of the last century and to mark the 30 years since Ronald Reagan's inauguration.

When Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, America faced an anemic economy, high unemployment, and a sense of malaise emanated from Washington. But President Reagan never doubted that America's potential was unlimited. During his second inaugural address, he said America ``can out-produce, out-compete and out-sell anybody, anywhere in the world.'' The Reagan Revolution was fueled by the understanding that, given the opportunity, Americans would dream, create, and build. He also knew the road to greatness was through an individual's effort, not through expanded government. So President Reagan set about reinvigorating the stagnant economy.

He cut government spending. He reduced government regulation. He ended the practice of wage and price controls. He passed tax cuts for all Americans. He famously noted that ``Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.'' The American economy responded with sustained growth, and a new era of economic prosperity had been ushered in.

Reagan's vision of the greater good also extended beyond our shores. He was a fierce advocate for freedom. With our Cold War adversary, the Soviet Union, imposing the tight grip of communism on much of the world, President Reagan launched a resurgence of American military might through the Strategic Defense Initiative. As he said:

Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because

the United States was too strong.

It was his firm resolve to negotiate from a position of strength that led to successful arms talks with the Soviets and ultimately to the downfall of the Soviet Empire. During his first inaugural address, he clearly stated where America stood:

As for the enemies of freedom, those who are potential

adversaries, they will be reminded that peace is the highest

aspiration of the American people. We will negotiate for it,

sacrifice for it; we will not surrender for it--now or ever.

President Reagan understood that all people, regardless of where they live, long for liberty and freedom. He believed that America was a beacon of hope to all of the oppressed people of the world, a ``shining city on the hill,'' as he described it. As Jeffrey Bell wrote in the Weekly Standard, Ronald Reagan ``believed that people all over the world craved self-government just as much as Americans did.'' Even today, he is still being proven right. He said:

Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty.

These words still echo in today's tumultuous times. We witnessed the poignant photographs of women in Iraq voting and joyously holding up their purple-stained thumbs. We are now seeing the marches of people in Egypt who long to be able to vote in a real election for the first time in 30 years. He also understood the importance of information in promoting freedom, calling it the ``oxygen of the modern age. It seeps through the walls topped by barbed wire; it wafts across the electrified borders.''

His words are as true today as when he uttered them. Freedom and individual liberty are America's greatest assets. They are the core of our national identity. They are the foundation of our economic prosperity, and these precious assets have been protected by the service and sacrifice of

patriots in every generation from the beginning of America's history to today. Ronald Reagan understood and appreciated the duty we all have to preserve these American ideals.

As he said:

Democracy is worth dying for, because it is the most deeply

honorable form of government devised by man.

When President Reagan died in 2004, there was a spontaneous, worldwide outpouring of grief and tribute that caught some seasoned political pundits by surprise. Throughout his political career, Ronald Reagan was underestimated by ``establishment'' political intellectuals of the day. He was dismissed sometimes by the media. But when he spoke, the American people listened, they understood, and they agreed with this down-to-Earth but very profound man. And so did the world.

We all remember him fondly, with great respect, and are honored to have known him.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the Paul amendment.

The Davis-Bacon Act was passed in 1931. We had a very different labor and diversity of wages. There were not minimum wages to the extent we have today. Today, every State has a different cost of living, different standards of what kinds of construction requirements there are, and thousands of buildings in this country are built in the private sector very safely, very efficiently. But when Davis-Bacon kicks in, for a government program, it skews the entire wage scale of that community, causing an inflation to other projects.

The studies I have seen prove that Davis-Bacon increases costs throughout a community because it sets an artificial standard, not taking into account the cost of living in that area. No one can argue that the cost of living in New York is very different from the cost of living in Texas or West Virginia or Tennessee. We should not be trying to change the norm in an area by artificially inflating the costs, and that is exactly what Davis-Bacon does.

If we are going to hear the voice of the people, who said last November: We are tired of business as usual in Washington and in Congress, we will pass the Paul amendment because this is the first step toward efficiency--to say that the projects going forward in this bill will not be subject to Davis-Bacon; they will be subject to bidding on contracts. And bidders do not necessarily win because they have the lowest bid. The person who is doing the contracting has the leeway to take into account quality and the reputation of the builder. So it is not as if the lowest bidder gets every bid. It is a process that is orderly. But Davis-Bacon does inflate the cost.

I think the Paul amendment is an excellent one. I think it will show that the people in this Senate got the message in November--that we don't have to sit with a 1931 law that is no longer necessary because the protections are in place, and we need to build our taxpayer-funded facilities in the most efficient way that saves taxpayer dollars.

I support the Paul amendment and hope it will pass.

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

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

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

Mr. President, I support the Whitehouse amendment. It will add to the security of our aircraft flying. I urge my colleagues to support it as well.

If time has been yielded back, I call for a vote.

Madam President, I commend the chairman of the Commerce Committee. He and I have been working on this bill since 2007.

As we mentioned when we began consideration of the bill yesterday, this is the 18th short-term extension we are on. I think any person in America, any person who flies in America, any person who is subject to FAA regulation, and certainly any businessperson in America knows you cannot do long-term planning and ensure that your agency is doing its work knowing what they can expect in support from Congress in short- term extensions for over 4 years. That is not good business, it is not good management, and it is certainly not the way government should run. So I am in agreement with Senator Rockefeller, our chairman, that we need to act on this bill. I hope it is going to be an effort that is bipartisan, that we will address the issues that have held up the bill in the past in a reasonable way so we can get on with, hopefully, a 3- year authorization of the FAA, and especially so we can start next year.

America is the premier user of air traffic control systems. Our system is based on the 1960s technology of ground operations and use of radar. We want to move to a satellite-based system that will increase the capacity at our clogged airports--the bigger airports that have more traffic than they can accommodate--and where the traveling public is in the most need. We need the efficiency and we need the modern technology. That is what this bill will set us on the path to do.

So I agree with the chairman in that respect, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on their amendments that pertain to this bill going forward.

I wish to take a few moments to speak to the amendment that is at hand, which is not an amendment about the FAA authorization, but it is a very important amendment. Basically, it is Senator McConnell's amendment that would repeal the health care reform that was passed over a year ago. He is trying to say: Let's stop right now. We have seen every signal that the concerns we had when we spoke against this bill in December of 2009 are coming home to roost. In fact, the concerns we raised are now being shown to be a huge problem in this country.

The health care reform bill that was passed cost $2.6 trillion. Over 6,000 pages were added to the Federal Register to implement this law. All of this

indicates the bill does a whole lot more than my colleagues are referencing right now in the floor debate because when I hear the floor debate, the people who supported this bill are saying all we did was fix a few problems with our health care system that we all agree on. But in reality, this is a bill that costs $2.6 trillion, $500 billion in new taxes on business and on individuals, and it cuts $500 billion out of Medicare, a program that isn't working to the maximum extent possible. It is certainly not considered the most efficient program. Now we are putting $500 billion out for a new government entitlement program that puts the Federal Government between patients and their doctors.

Here are a few of the provisions that are in the 2,000 pages of the health reform law. First, if you don't buy government-approved health insurance for you and your family, the health reform bill says you must pay a new tax. That is the individual tax.

If you own a business and don't buy government-approved health insurance, which is going to have a formula and a requirement for how much businesses have to pay and what has to be in it, then you must pay a new tax. If business owners want to grow their employees over the 50 mark where it kicks in for businesses, then there will be costly new Federal regulations with which they will have to comply.

So here we are in an era where unemployment is at all-time highs, and we are putting a cap on employees for businesses that are going to incur huge expenses if they go over 50. So if an employer is in the 40- to-45 range, they are looking very carefully at not going above 50. Is that really what our economy needs right now? I don't think so.

What we want is to encourage businesses to hire. That is what every one of us in this body should want, and we should be passing laws that would ensure that businesses have the freedom to hire, not a stifling effect on that kind of effort. We need to get the government off the backs of our job creators and not put up miles of redtape and more bureaucracy and more regulations and more taxes and fees that would curb the ability to hire and still make a profit.

Next, it was said during the health care reform debate that if you like your current health plan, you will be able to keep it. But everything that has happened since the bill passed says you can't keep it because even the administration is now admitting that when it issued the rules that employers now have to follow when deciding what health care plan it will offer, that because of health reform, by 2013 as many as 80 percent of small businesses will no longer offer the same health care plans they offer today.

Families who rely on their health savings accounts or flexible spending accounts, which have been a wonderful boon for families to be able to put money aside before taxes to be able to use on the health care expenses they have that are not covered by insurance, that is being used by more and more people--in the millions. But in the health care reform bill there is now a restriction, a cap, on how much you can put aside, and you have to have a prescription drug to be able to pay for it with your pretax dollars. You can no longer buy a bottle of Tylenol or aspirin off the counter and have your health savings account help you pay for that. So here we are.

The Presiding Officer and I have children. Are we going to stop and call the doctor or run and get a prescription if we have a health savings account to buy aspirin or Tylenol? That is not helpful.

Why would we put a restriction on what people can set aside for their own health care costs? Why wouldn't we make it easier for them? Instead, the health care reform bill makes it harder to use those pretax dollars. There is no reason for it. I will have an amendment that will try to take the caps off and take the restrictions off so that people can provide for their health care out-of-pocket expenses with pretax dollars. That is the kind of incentive we need, not the opposite, which is in the health care reform bill.

If you are a woman under 50, whether you have access to routine mammograms is going to depend on a task force that was granted new and unchecked powers by the health care reform bill. The same task force that is going to have that power has already given the indication that mammograms under the age of 50 are not necessary to be covered. The women of the Senate stood firm years ago when the Clinton administration was trying to pass a health care reform bill to say we are absolutely not going to stand in the way of a woman and her doctor, knowing her history and her family, from having a mammogram whenever it is needed. There is not one person in this body who doesn't have a friend or a relative who has had breast cancer before the age of 50 and probably before the age of 40. So that is in the health care reform bill, and it needs to come out.

This week, another Federal court announced that the Federal Government could not force individual Americans to purchase a private product--even health care. The judge in the most recent case in Florida said when Congress passed health reform it exceeded its constitutional power and, therefore, the court voided the entire law. This is the second court that has found the health reform bill unconstitutional.

Now, this lawsuit is going through the judicial process. Yet even though it is being appealed by the Obama administration, it will most likely go to the Supreme Court of America. We shouldn't have to wait for the Supreme Court to rule that this law is unconstitutional. We shouldn't have to wait for them to reassure the American people that Congress most certainly shouldn't be regulating anything and everything just because the Federal Government says so. We don't have to spend millions more in taxpayer dollars implementing a bill that ultimately could be struck down by the highest Court in the land.

The Senate has the opportunity, and I believe the responsibility, to say: Moratorium. Let's wait until the Supreme Court has ruled on this enormous bill and the enormous cost that is being incurred for implementation right now. Let's wait. Let's repeal this bill now and start all over so we do not have to spend taxpayer dollars that we know are being borrowed to implement a bill that may be unconstitutional, and we have now had two Federal courts that have said so. Why not repeal and support this amendment? Some of what is in the bill could be reenacted because it is good, but some of the things I have just talked about should be repealed immediately.

Most certainly we could repeal items such as the 1099 which will be another amendment we can vote on. That 1099 form is the biggest thing I hear about from my small businesses in this country, and certainly those in Texas have said: What are you all doing up there? Well, of course, I am happy to say I didn't support this bill. But these are the kinds of things we can repeal today and start all over. We can take the good parts of the Obama health care. Let's do away with the bad parts instead of spending millions of dollars to make a mom have to get a prescription from a doctor to get Tylenol with her health savings account.

The American people have made their opinion on this bill known loudly and clearly. They spoke at the ballot box: Enough is enough. That is what the voters said. Enough deficit spending; enough government intrusion into our businesses, our families, our lives, and our health care decisions. The people of America support the repeal of this bill, and they will work with us to substitute responsible health care reform that will allow them to have health savings accounts to provide for the costs not covered, that will give them affordable coverage which we all want to have, but not with the government prescription, not with a government task force that can tell a woman that she doesn't need a mammogram before the age of 50. We don't need a task force to tell us that. We need the doctor who is looking at this patient and her family history.

Those are the things that need to come out right now. Repeal and replace. That is what this Senate could do, and we can move forward on a bill that we can get a bipartisan consensus to pass that I think would show the American people we heard what they said. We know we can do better, and it is our responsibility to do so.

Thank you, Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I appreciate so much what the chairman has just said. That is a major statement because what he says is true. There is one flight from Washington National to California. That is all we have, one direct flight. That is not fair. It is not fair to the people in the West, certainly in the largest State in population in America--California.

I hope what he has said will lead us to a table to negotiate this issue so we can be fair to the entire western half of the United States, so that we are also taking into account the people who live in and around the Washington metropolitan area, which is what I think the Western Senators have tried to do. But let's talk about it, let's get something on the floor, let's negotiate this because with that, this is a bill that, with a few tweaks perhaps, ought to pass for the right reasons for our country and for the traveling public.

I thank the chairman for his leadership, and I thank Senator Murray.

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

Yes.

Mr. President, as ranking member of the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, I, too, wish to discuss the FAA reauthorization bill and agree with the chairman, Senator Rockefeller, who has just spoken, that we have worked in a bipartisan way on this bill for 4 years.

I am glad he mentioned Senator Dorgan, who was the chairman of the subcommittee, who pushed so hard last year for us to come to a conclusion and try to pass a permanent bill.

The bill that is before us is the bill that passed last year. There are many good provisions in this bill. It passed unanimously in the Senate, and we were on our way to conference with the House. But the House bill was quite different. We never got to the point of being able to work out the differences.

I do think there was one part of the bill, which I will discuss more later, where we worked on a compromise to achieve a goal of easing the perimeter rule at Washington's Reagan Airport. We were able to come to an agreement among the leaders on the committee, but we were not able to get the full agreement of the Senate. That was a gentlemen's agreement, if you will, that we would work on putting that into the conference report, but that never came to pass.

The perimeter rule around National Airport has slot restrictions and mileage restrictions on how far a plane can go directly in and out of National Airport. The perimeter rule prohibits flights traveling to or from points that are more than 1,250 miles from National Airport unless there is an exemption. Many Western States would like more of those exemptions, especially given that the airport can now handle additional capacity.

I want to be clear at the onset of this process, I cannot support a final bill that does not address this issue. We need to work out either a consensus majority or an agreement that addresses the issue rather than just leaving it out.

The FAA has operated under a series of short-term extensions since 2007; 18 short-term extensions have occurred. That is not providing the policy to keep us in the forefront of modernization of our air traffic system. We need to have a bipartisan, commonsense, multiyear FAA reauthorization to provide the stability that the FAA and its stakeholders--the airlines and passengers--need to make sound investment decisions for our future aviation system.

The current short-term extension expires March 31. If we address these issues in our Senate bill, I believe we can work with the House that has already begun to formulate the basis of its bill and have a true multiyear reauthorization bill that would be able to pass on March 31 instead of yet another short-term extension.

The House version last year was quite different from our bill. While a year now has almost elapsed, many of the bill's provisions need to be updated. The one we have before us would modernize the air traffic control system, NextGen, which was mentioned by Senator Rockefeller. It would improve aviation and it would ensure passengers are treated well, especially if they are delayed and stuck in an aircraft for more than 3 hours. I call it the captive passenger rule that we need to enact.

First, modernization. Probably the most important area we address in this bill is expediting the FAA's air traffic control air modernization program, known as NextGen. The FAA operates the largest and safest air traffic control system in the world. In fact, the FAA's air traffic control system handles almost half of the world's air traffic activity. The United States has been a leader in developing and implementing new technologies to create a safer and more efficient airspace system.

However, today's air traffic control system is not much different from that which was started in the 1960s. The system is based on radar tracking and ground-based infrastructure. NextGen will move much of the air traffic infrastructure from ground based to satellite based by replacing antiquated, costly ground infrastructure with orbiting satellites and onboard automation. By doing this, the FAA will be able to make our aviation system more safe and efficient while increasing capacity at our Nation's busiest airports.

Some of the modernization provisions in the bill include establishing clear deadlines for the adoption of existing Global Positioning System navigation technology. It mandates 100 percent coverage at the top 35 airports by 2014, with the entire national airspace system to be required to be covered by 2018.

Aviation safety. As a former vice chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, I understand well the critical and difficult mission the FAA has in overseeing our Nation's airlines and aviation system. Aviation safety and the public trust that goes along with it are the bedrock of our national aviation policy, and we simply cannot allow any degradation of safety for the flying public. This bill goes a long way to advance and promote the air travel system.

Last August, as part of one of the short-term extensions, several of the important safety provisions were enacted into law that were the direct result of weaknesses identified from the tragic crash and aftermath of Colgan flight 3407 in Buffalo, NY. While those provisions were of great importance and will have an impact on creating one level of safety through all sectors of aviation, we still have important work to do, and in this bill we do it, such as addressing inconsistent application of airworthiness directives by improving the voluntary disclosure reporting process to ensure adequate actions are taken in response to reports; limiting the ability of FAA inspectors to work with air carriers over which they had oversight.

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

Probably about 5 or 6 minutes.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased we are starting on the FAA bill and having an open amendment process so everyone can be heard. I will finish my remarks, as the ranking member of the Commerce Committee, and then I know Senator Stabenow wants to speak on the first amendment that is going to be offered. It is probably unrelated to our FAA bill but nevertheless is very important for our country.

Let me go back to where I was on the part of the FAA reauthorization bill that addresses aviation safety. We do limit the ability of FAA inspectors to work for air carriers over which they have had oversight, and we will require the conducting of independent reviews of safety issues identified by employees.

We also need to require enhanced safety oversight of foreign repair stations, including a minimum of two FAA inspections annually, with exceptions for those that have comprehensive bilateral aviation safety maintenance agreements with the United States, and requiring alcohol and drug testing at any foreign facilities that perform maintenance on U.S. commercial aircraft.

Finally, the bill also provides infrastructure investment to our Nation's airports. As we all know, you can have the best planes and the best air traffic system but they mean nothing without the proper airport infrastructure in place.

This bill contains many important provisions and deserves the support of the Senate. We have been operating under short-term extensions for far too

long. It is also one of the reasons we need to finally address the DCA perimeter rule, which has impeded the passage of this bill on too many occasions. While I have been talking about what is in the bill, this is the one issue that is currently not included in the bill and must be addressed if we are to have a successful final passage.

After months of negotiation last year, the chairman, the subcommittee chairman, western Senators, and our ranking member on the subcommittee and I reached a compromise agreement that we hoped would finally resolve the issue, but we didn't have an opportunity to bring the consensus version to the floor before we adjourned. It is a very reasonable approach. Here are the provisions of the compromise:

It would add five new round-trip flights beyond the perimeter for new entrants or limited incumbents, which means airlines that have very small bases at National Airport now. This means we would add competition with the five new round-trip flights.

It allows for conversion of 16 round-trip flights from large hub airports inside the perimeter to any airport outside the perimeter phased in over 2 years.

The conversion concept seeks to address congestion concerns by replacing existing flights rather than creating more new flights. Since 2000, there have only been 12 new flights at National Airport. That is since the year 2000. Now we are asking for five more new flights, which would increase competition. The conversion flights would have no impact on congestion at the airport because they will not be new flights.

It prohibits the use of wide-body aircraft for converted flights to address any noise concerns from local residents. But in reality, the noise issue is so different today than it was when the first aviation authorization was passed. We have Stage 3 aircraft now, which are much quieter than the planes that have gone in and out in the past. And not to allow the use of bigger aircraft protects the residents who might live around the airport. In fact, I would argue it gives them an added convenience, because those residents would also have access to the long-haul flights at an airport convenient to them.

The DOT would evaluate the proposed flights and be able to disapprove of the conversions if they determined they are not in the public interest.

The air carriers could only convert flights currently used to operate flights to large hubs within the perimeter in an effort to protect small communities. So, in other words, you would not see conversions from very small airports to be able to take long-haul flights away. It would only be conversions from a big hub airport to another big hub airport. So our small communities should not feel threatened by this.

Carriers would be prohibited from selling, trading, leasing or otherwise transferring the rights to fly beyond the perimeter.

It also eliminates financial restrictions in place between National and Dulles that would allow for revenuesharing between the two airports, which is comparable to other airport systems across the country to address any financial impact on the airport authority.

I lived through, dealt with, and negotiated the Wright amendment in Texas and the lifting of the Wright amendment that allowed an incremental easing of the Wright amendment restrictions at Dallas's Love Field. That was put in place to protect DFW Airport when it was first built. That was much of the reason for the restrictions at National Airport when Dulles Airport was built, to assure that Dulles would be financially secure. Dulles is financially secure. So it is time to deal with the issue of allowing National to have more service to the western half of America. The people out West deserve to have more access to National Airport if that is where they choose to fly.

I think Dulles has captured the international flights, and I think that has been a good way for Dulles to become one of our busiest airports and certainly one of our most successful. So I know these are difficult issues, because I dealt with them in my own State, but now I think this modest expansion of only five new flights out of Reagan National should be very doable. I think the western Senators have come up with a compromise, with the conversions, that will not affect the traffic or the congestion around National but will allow better access, which I think is a win-win for everyone.

So especially for you, Mr. President, with some humor, I find it a bit ironic that tomorrow is Groundhog Day--February 2. If ever there were a piece of legislation that fits the bill, this one is it. Since starting this legislation in 2007, 18 short-term extensions later, and this being the third consideration of the FAA bill on the floor, it does feel like Groundhog Day. And in a nod to that holiday--that esteemed important holiday in America--let us hope there are no shadows seen and winter will quickly end in a well-debated and bipartisan FAA bill.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan, the majority leader, the Republican leader, and my chairman for allowing us to start the debate on this bill and finish our remarks. I know we will have many amendments, but I hope in the end we have a good bill that satisfies everyone's needs and that we can say permanently that winter is over.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to provide permanent tax relief from the marriage penalty--the most egregious, anti-family provision in the tax code. One of my highest priorities in the United States Senate has been to relieve American taxpayers of this punitive burden.

We have made important strides to eliminate this unfair tax and provide marriage penalty relief by raising the standard deduction and enlarging the 15 percent tax bracket for married joint filers to twice that of single filers. Before these provisions were changed, 42 percent of married couples paid an average penalty of $1,400.

Enacting marriage penalty relief was a giant step for tax fairness, but it may be fleeting. Even as married couples use the money they now save to put food on the table and clothes on their children, a tax increase looms in the future. While I am pleased that relief from the marriage penalty was included in the recent agreement to extend the broader tax relief for all Americans, the marriage penalty provisions will only be in effect through 2012. In 2013, marriage will again be a taxable event and a significant number of married couples will again pay more in taxes unless we act decisively. Given the challenges many families face in making ends meet, we must make sure we do not backtrack on this important reform.

The benefits of marriage are well established, yet, without marriage penalty relief, the tax code provides a significant disincentive for people to walk down the aisle. Marriage is a fundamental institution in our society and should not be discouraged by the IRS. Children living in a married household are far less likely to live in poverty or to suffer from child abuse. Research indicates these children are also less likely to be depressed or have developmental problems. Scourges such as adolescent drug use are less common in married families, and married mothers are less likely to be victims of domestic violence.

We should celebrate marriage, not penalize it. The bill I am offering would make marriage penalty relief permanent, because marriage should not be a taxable event. I welcome and appreciate the support of Senators Ensign, Johanns, Cornyn, and Vitter, who have signed on as cosponsors, and I call on the Senate to finish the job we started and make marriage penalty relief permanent today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to permanently correct an injustice in the tax code that has harmed citizens in many States of this great Nation.

State and local governments have various alternatives for raising revenue. Some levy income taxes, some use sales taxes, and others use a combination of the two. The citizens who pay State and local income taxes have been able to offset some of their Federal income taxes by receiving a deduction for those State and local income taxes. Before 1986, taxpayers also had the ability to deduct their sales taxes.

The philosophy behind these deductions is simple: people should not have to pay taxes on their taxes. The money that people must give to one level of government should not also be taxed by another level of government.

Unfortunately, citizens of some States were treated differently after

1986 when the deduction for State and local sales taxes was eliminated. This discriminated against those living in States, such as my home State of Texas, with no income taxes. It is important to remember the lack of an income tax does not mean citizens in these States do not pay State taxes; revenues are simply collected differently.

It is unfair to give citizens from some States a deduction for the revenue they provide their State and local governments, while not doing the same for citizens from other States. Federal tax law should not treat people differently on the basis of State residence and differing tax collection methods, and it should not provide an incentive for States to establish income taxes over sales taxes.

This discrepancy has a significant impact on Texas. According to the Texas Comptroller, extending the deduction would save Texans a projected $1.2 billion a year, or an average of $520 per filer claiming the deduction. The Texas Comptroller also estimates continuing the deduction is associated with 15,700 to 25,700 Texas jobs and $1.1 billion to $1.4 billion in gross state product.

Recognizing the inequity in the tax code, Congress reinstated the sales tax deduction in 2004 and authorized it for 2 years. Congress further extended the sales tax deduction in 2006 and 2008, respectively. On January 1, 2010, however, the sales tax deduction expired, and, for much of this past year, many Americans once again faced the prospect of paying Federal income taxes on their State and local sales taxes.

Fortunately, under the recent agreement to extend the broader tax relief for all Americans, Congress staved off the return of the sales tax deduction by extending it for 2 years, retroactive to January 1, 2010. However, this deduction is only in effect through 2011, and we must act to prevent the inequity from returning.

The legislation I am offering today will fix this problem for good by making the State and local sales tax deduction permanent. This will permanently end the discrimination suffered by my fellow Texans and citizens of other States who do not have the option of an income tax deduction.

This legislation is about reestablishing equity to the tax code and defending the important principle of eliminating taxes on taxes. I hope my fellow Senators will support this effort and pass this legislation, and I appreciate the backing of Senators Barrasso, Begich, Cornyn, Alexander, Enzi and Thune who have already signed on as co-sponsors.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to provide permanent tax relief from the marriage penalty--the most egregious, anti-family provision in the tax code. One of my highest priorities in the United States Senate has been to relieve American taxpayers of this punitive burden.

We have made important strides to eliminate this unfair tax and provide marriage penalty relief by raising the standard deduction and enlarging the 15 percent tax bracket for married joint filers to twice that of single filers. Before these provisions were changed, 42 percent of married couples paid an average penalty of $1,400.

Enacting marriage penalty relief was a giant step for tax fairness, but it may be fleeting. Even as married couples use the money they now save to put food on the table and clothes on their children, a tax increase looms in the future. While I am pleased that relief from the marriage penalty was included in the recent agreement to extend the broader tax relief for all Americans, the marriage penalty provisions will only be in effect through 2012. In 2013, marriage will again be a taxable event and a significant number of married couples will again pay more in taxes unless we act decisively. Given the challenges many families face in making ends meet, we must make sure we do not backtrack on this important reform.

The benefits of marriage are well established, yet, without marriage penalty relief, the tax code provides a significant disincentive for people to walk down the aisle. Marriage is a fundamental institution in our society and should not be discouraged by the IRS. Children living in a married household are far less likely to live in poverty or to suffer from child abuse. Research indicates these children are also less likely to be depressed or have developmental problems. Scourges such as adolescent drug use are less common in married families, and married mothers are less likely to be victims of domestic violence.

We should celebrate marriage, not penalize it. The bill I am offering would make marriage penalty relief permanent, because marriage should not be a taxable event. I welcome and appreciate the support of Senators Ensign, Johanns, Cornyn, and Vitter, who have signed on as cosponsors, and I call on the Senate to finish the job we started and make marriage penalty relief permanent today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to permanently correct an injustice in the tax code that has harmed citizens in many States of this great Nation.

State and local governments have various alternatives for raising revenue. Some levy income taxes, some use sales taxes, and others use a combination of the two. The citizens who pay State and local income taxes have been able to offset some of their Federal income taxes by receiving a deduction for those State and local income taxes. Before 1986, taxpayers also had the ability to deduct their sales taxes.

The philosophy behind these deductions is simple: people should not have to pay taxes on their taxes. The money that people must give to one level of government should not also be taxed by another level of government.

Unfortunately, citizens of some States were treated differently after

1986 when the deduction for State and local sales taxes was eliminated. This discriminated against those living in States, such as my home State of Texas, with no income taxes. It is important to remember the lack of an income tax does not mean citizens in these States do not pay State taxes; revenues are simply collected differently.

It is unfair to give citizens from some States a deduction for the revenue they provide their State and local governments, while not doing the same for citizens from other States. Federal tax law should not treat people differently on the basis of State residence and differing tax collection methods, and it should not provide an incentive for States to establish income taxes over sales taxes.

This discrepancy has a significant impact on Texas. According to the Texas Comptroller, extending the deduction would save Texans a projected $1.2 billion a year, or an average of $520 per filer claiming the deduction. The Texas Comptroller also estimates continuing the deduction is associated with 15,700 to 25,700 Texas jobs and $1.1 billion to $1.4 billion in gross state product.

Recognizing the inequity in the tax code, Congress reinstated the sales tax deduction in 2004 and authorized it for 2 years. Congress further extended the sales tax deduction in 2006 and 2008, respectively. On January 1, 2010, however, the sales tax deduction expired, and, for much of this past year, many Americans once again faced the prospect of paying Federal income taxes on their State and local sales taxes.

Fortunately, under the recent agreement to extend the broader tax relief for all Americans, Congress staved off the return of the sales tax deduction by extending it for 2 years, retroactive to January 1, 2010. However, this deduction is only in effect through 2011, and we must act to prevent the inequity from returning.

The legislation I am offering today will fix this problem for good by making the State and local sales tax deduction permanent. This will permanently end the discrimination suffered by my fellow Texans and citizens of other States who do not have the option of an income tax deduction.

This legislation is about reestablishing equity to the tax code and defending the important principle of eliminating taxes on taxes. I hope my fellow Senators will support this effort and pass this legislation, and I appreciate the backing of Senators Barrasso, Begich, Cornyn, Alexander, Enzi and Thune who have already signed on as co-sponsors.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

If the Senator from Alabama wants to finish his objection--

I ask the Senator from Alabama, I thought he was objecting on Senator Murray's time, and I was next in the unanimous consent. My question is, is he finished with his objection?

Madam President, I rise to speak on the START treaty. I spoke on the floor Saturday stating my concerns about this treaty and the need to address a number of very important issues. I had hoped that amendments that had been offered would be able to clarify the position--the United States position--on this treaty.

I have listened to the debate. I have watched many amendments go down. The treaty supporters have said that these amendments are deal killers,

treaty killers. I disagree. I believe everybody has been sincere, but I am not persuaded that the Senate's role to advise and consent to treaties has successfully finetuned the understanding on our part, if we accept this treaty, nor the Russian positions--have they been clarified with our objections or disagreements with the Russian position.

I understand it would have made it hard for the administration to amend the text. But even amendments that would try to amend the preamble, or even the ratification resolution that would clarify the United States position, have caused me great pause. For instance, when we are talking about missile defense, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, said:

Russians tend to interpret every utterance as binding

commitment.

She went on to write:

The Russians need to understand that the U.S. will use the

full range of American technology and talent to improve our

ability to intercept and destroy the ballistic missiles of

hostile countries.

I am concerned that this treaty still has a lot of misunderstanding about the United States missile defense capability. I am concerned that our capability, with the understanding of Russians, would be restricted. Russia and the United States each have issued unilateral statements when they signed the New START that clarified their position on the relationship between START and missile defense. Russia stated:

The treaty can operate and be viable only if the United

States refrains from developing its missile defense

capabilities quantitatively or qualitatively.

I think we should state clearly in the resolution to ratify that it is not the position of the United States to place any limitations on missile defense. The President wrote a letter saying he disagreed with the Russian position and, yet, Senator McCain offered an amendment that would have stricken language in the preamble of the treaty that would have made it clear what the United States position was, and that amendment was not adopted by this body.

As we speak, I don't believe Russia is our enemy. This is a 10-year treaty. We don't know 10 years down the road how relationships might change. I believe our relationship with Russia is important, but there are rogue nations in the world that are hostile to the United States, which are working in earnest to get nuclear capability and possibly already have it, plus warheads to put those nuclear weapons on.

With the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran or North Korea, or Pakistan, which is our ally, which has a fragile government, or even Venezuela, which is working with Iran and is certainly within our hemisphere, it would be unthinkable to have any kind of miscommunication about the United States capability to control its own defense capabilities. That is exactly what the Russian statement said we could not do.

U.S. planning and force requirements may have to change in the next 10 years and, frankly, I think they ought to be going forward right now to ensure that we can withstand any kind of warhead, nuclear or otherwise, that would come in from rogue nations.

That in itself is enough for me to say we have not fulfilled our responsibility under the Constitution for advice to the President on treaties. That is our solemn responsibility, and I do not think we have been successfully able to do that because we have been blocked on every amendment, calling them deal killers.

I think a strong New START is in our best interest. But I believe that this treaty does not address other areas of concern I have voiced as well. I believe this treaty could further be improved by increasing the number of type one and type two inspections, as was attempted by the Inhofe amendment that was defeated yesterday.

For instance, we know there are loose nukes that have come from Russian arsenals in the past, because the Russians have not had a clear control, or list of, or don't seem to be totally firm about where all of their arsenal is, and they don't seem to have the accountability. So the loose nukes, it has been reported, have shown up in other places, such as, for instance, North Korea. So I think verification becomes more important, to get a true idea of exactly what the Russians have, so there can be an accountability going forward to assure that whatever number are in whatever place would always stay the same, unless they are part of the drawdown.

I think the verification amendment Senator Inhofe had that was defeated would have improved our capability to understand exactly what was out there that might loosely go to Iran or North Korea, with whom the Russians have relationships, though we do not.

Former Secretary of State James Baker described the treaty's verification regime as weaker than its predecessor. I agree with his comment, and I hope we can improve the situation. To be fair, Secretary Baker supports the treaty. But he did recognize its shortcomings, and I think that should have been addressed by the Senate, without fear of what the Russians might say about our capability to defend against threats, not from Russia necessarily, other than the haplessness of not knowing for sure where your nuclear weapons are--I don't think Russia is our enemy. I want a relationship with Russia.

The missile defense we were not able to even clarify in the resolution of ratification causes me great concern. The verification not being as adequate as I think we need, and then the modernization, which we also address in other amendments, I think, are also problematic. I believe we must know our nuclear warheads could be used in the worst-case circumstance, because I think that is a deterrent.

Because of these things, I am going to vote no today on the ratification of the treaty. I think the Senate could have improved the understanding of this treaty. I think we could have strengthened it with real amendments that would have strengthened even what the President said in his letter to the Senate, saying that he disagreed with the Russian interpretation. But then when we tried to put that in writing, that didn't pass. So I believe we should not pass this treaty today. I think we can fulfill our responsibility for advice and consent and have a more bipartisan passing of the resolution. I think we need a good relationship with Russia. I think we need to protect, at all costs, the United States unilateral capability for missile defense for our country against other nations. I don't think Russia is a threat, but I do think rogue nations that have nuclear capabilities are. I think the symbiotic relationship between Venezuela and Iran is a very real threat to the United States. I think we need to start preparing more carefully about that.

I know my time is up. I appreciate the time to state my reasons for voting against this and hope that when it passes--which I think it will--we will be more firm in clarifying with the Russians our view of our national security interests.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to pay tribute to the 16 Senators who will be departing this body at the end of the year.

I am grateful for the opportunity I have had to serve alongside each of these Senators as colleagues and as friends. All served their States with distinction and gave their constituents strong voices in the world's greatest deliberative body. Senators Evan Bayh, Robert Bennett, Kit Bond, Sam Brownback, Jim Bunning, Roland Burris, Chris Dodd, Byron Dorgan, Russ Feingold, Carte Goodwin, Judd Gregg, Ted Kaufman, George LeMieux, Blanche Lincoln, Arlen Specter, and George Voinovich each left an indelible mark on the Senate, and I wish them well as they take on new challenges and opportunities into the future.

I would like to speak briefly about a few of the Senators I knew best and served with in committees to recognize their contributions and accomplishments and share my fond memories of them and the legacies they will leave behind.

Bob Bennett

For nearly two decades, Senator Bob Bennett has honorably served the people of Utah.

His career in the U.S. Senate has been marked by his commonsense solutions to many of the most pressing issues facing our country.

Before serving in the Senate, Bob was a successful entrepreneur as the CEO of Franklin International Institute. Under Bennett's leadership, the business grew from 4 employees to more than 1,000 and was listed on the New York Stock Exchange.

Bob brought his past experiences running a successful company with him to the Senate. His business sense was certainly an asset that informed his decisions as a U.S. Senator and made him an effective advocate for businesses, large and small, who keep our economy strong. Being a former businessowner myself, I valued his pragmatic perspective and ability to get things done.

As a senior member of the Senate Banking Committee and a member of the distinguished Joint Economic Committee, Bob has been a leader in many national economic policy decisions.

In addition, while serving as the ranking republican on the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water, he has worked to address the critical funding needs our country faces on a wide range of energy and water related issues.

I am proud to have served with Bob for so many years, and his leadership and kind manner will be sorely missed in the Senate.

Jim Bunning

I wish Senator Jim Bunning well as he departs the Senate. Much of his legacy can be defined by his competitive spirit and strong work ethic. These attributes have been evident throughout his many successes in life, first in his career as a Hall of Fame baseball player and then later as a public servant, representing the people of Kentucky. Being an avid sports fan myself, I hold deep admiration for those who can play at the highest levels of competitive sports and later bring that drive to the Senate!

Following his highly successful professional baseball career for 17 years, Jim decided he wanted to give back to his community. In 1977, he ran for city council and then later ran for the Kentucky State Senate eventually becoming the Republican leader.

In 1986, Jim was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives for the 4th

District of Kentucky, where he served for 12 years before being elected to the U.S. Senate in 1998.

During Jim's tenure in Congress, he has established himself as an expert and defender of social security, fighting hard to protect social security for current and future generations.

His hard work and devotion will be missed by the people of Kentucky, whom I know are grateful for his many years of service.

Kit Bond

Kit Bond has a long and distinguished history of service to the people of Missouri. As one of the longest serving Members in the U.S. Senate and a former two-term Governor, his life's work has been dedicated to the State of Missouri.

In the Senate, Kit has been a respected leader on many issues, such as national security, transportation, and global economic competiveness. While serving as the vice chairman on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, he has worked hard to strengthen national security through supporting the U.S. military and reforming the Nation's intelligence community. And as the leader of the Senate National Guard Caucus, no one has done more to support the role of the National Guard in our defense.

Kit and I have worked on many issues together during our time in the Senate. In particular, last year when Democratic lawmakers tried to push cap-and-trade bills through Congress, Kit and I released the report, ``Climate Change Legislation: A $3.6 Trillion Gas Tax.''

Our joint report revealed how climate legislation would result in a massive new national gas tax on American families, farmers, workers and truckers--by increasing the price of gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel.

It has been my pleasure to serve with Senator Bond. His office has been next to mine for 12 years and it will not be the same without that familiar cigar aroma lingering in the second floor halls of Russell. Without a doubt, he will be missed by his colleagues in the Senate and his constituents in Missouri.

Sam Brownback

While Senator Sam Brownback will certainly be missed by the Senate, the people of Kansas will continue to benefit from his leadership, as he serves as their newly-elected Governor.

Prior to being elected to public office, Sam's professional experiences include working as a radio broadcaster, attorney, teacher, and administrator.

From these varied professional experiences he brought with him a unique and dynamic perspective to the U.S. Senate.

Through his leadership as the ranking member on the Joint Economic Committee, ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, and ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resource Subcommittee on Water and Power, Sam established himself as a leader on a wide range of issues.

During his tenure in the Senate, he has supported aviation research and expanded global aviation markets. Through these efforts, he has effectively spurred economic growth and strengthened the U.S. military.

Some of Sam's most distinguishing characteristics are his personal integrity and his commitment to his Catholic faith. These principles came through in much of what he did in the Senate. I will always appreciate his passion and his work to translate his beliefs into his actions as a U.S. Senator.

I am confident Senator Brownback will continue to serve the people of Kansas with the same character and dedication in his new role as governor.

Chris Dodd

Senator Chris Dodd departs the Senate after nearly three decades faithfully representing the people of Connecticut.

From his service in the Peace Corps, the U.S. Army National Guard and Reserves as well as his many years in the U.S. Senate, Senator Dodd's commitment to public service and love for his country have been evident throughout his life.

Chris was a leader in the Senate, serving as the chairman of the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, chairman of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps, and Narcotics, and chairman of its Children and Families Subcommittee.

Although we had our differences on various policy issues, I always appreciated his willingness to put partisanship aside to reach consensus when possible in order to improve legislation. For instance, earlier this year when working on the financial reform bill, despite my public opposition to the legislation, Chris worked with me to incorporate my amendments in the final version of the bill. I ultimately voted against the bill, but I am grateful for the efforts he made to include my amendments.

Today we bid him farewell after 29 years of tireless service in the U.S. Senate.

Byron Dorgan

Today we say goodbye to Senator Byron Dorgan after 18 years in the Senate, serving the State of North Dakota.

First elected to Congress in 1980, Dorgan has devoted his career to serving North Dakota and fighting for the interests of rural America.

After serving six terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, Byron was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1992.

I have had the pleasure to serve with Senator Dorgan on the Senate Commerce Committee. Last summer, we joined together with several of our colleagues in the Senate to introduce bipartisan legislation that reauthorized the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA.

The legislation accelerated the modernization of the Nation's air traffic control, ATC system, addressed critical safety concerns in the national airspace system, NAS, and improved rural community access to air service.

I appreciated Byron's willingness to champion good ideas put forward by members from either side of the aisle. By focusing on issues where consensus could be achieved, he helped to move the debate forward on important issues and solve problems.

Senator Dorgan leaves the Senate with my best wishes and respect.

Judd Gregg

As a leading voice for fiscal responsibility, Senator Judd Gregg will be deeply missed in the Senate.

Throughout his long and distinguished career, with unparalleled commitment to fiscal discipline, Senator Gregg worked to address many pressing issues.

Senator Gregg is a well known budget expert and national leader on the most critical issues facing our country in recent years, notably health care, economic issues, and financial regulation.

His efforts to address the looming entitlement crisis, the rising cost of health care, and the inefficient and complex tax system are commendable and serve as an example to all elected officials.

In the Senate, Senator Gregg has also focused his efforts on helping the U.S. maintain its position as the leading destination for capital and investment in the world.

I appreciate the job Senator Gregg has done in his position as the former chairman and current ranking member of the Budget Committee.

In 2006, Judd sponsored an amendment that strengthened border security by providing resources to integrate biometric databases as well as construction of new stations and check points and tactical infrastructure for immigration and customs enforcement.

Unlike other similar proposals at the time, his amendment was offset and did not add to the deficit.

I will miss working with him in this Chamber, and I will miss his friendship and support on the issues that matter most to America.

In conclusion, the departing Senators' contributions, their dedicated service, and the issues they championed will be remembered long after their final days in the Senate.

I believe I can speak for my fellow Senators when I say that we will all miss our departing friends.

Madam President, I know the subject we are on now is the New START Treaty. It is a very important subject. I appreciate so much all the debate we have had. I hope we will be able to go forward and allow people to have amendments within this time because it is a huge issue for our country.

I wish to speak on a different subject right now because it is so timely. Today, the Federal Communications Commission voted 3 to 2 to impose new regulations on the Internet. This is an unprecedented power grab by the unelected members of the Federal Communications Commission, spearheaded by its chairman.

The FCC is attempting to push excessive government regulation of the Internet through without congressional authority. These actions threaten the very future of this incredible technology. The FCC pursuit of Net neutrality regulations involves claiming authority under the Communications Act that they do not have. Congress did not provide the FCC authority to regulate how Internet service providers manage their network, not anywhere in the Communications Act nor any other statute administered by the Commission.

Adopting and imposing Net neutrality regulations is, in effect, legislating. It takes away the appropriate role of Congress in determining the proper regulatory framework for the fastest growing sector of our economy. The real-world impact of the FCC's action today is that it will be litigated. It will take 18 months to 2 years to sort through the briefings and the court decisions, and it will probably go to the Supreme Court of the United States. In the meantime, capital investment will slow in core communications networks, and I cannot think of a worse possible time for that, as we attempt to create jobs and fuel a recovery from the most significant recession in years.

Elected representatives should determine if regulation is necessary in this area. Hearings would bring opposing parties to the table, and the process would be open. Instead, an unelected and unaccountable group of regulators are creating new authority to intervene in an area that represents one-sixth of the Nation's economy.

I wish to go through a few of the specific provisions in this FCC order. The first one is an order to require broadband providers, such as Comcast and AT&T, to allow subscribers to send and receive any lawful Internet traffic, to go where they want, say what they want, to use any nonharmful online devices or applications they want to use.

These principles are widely supported. I don't object and neither

would probably anyone. However, these principles are already in use. We don't need a big regulatory intervention to accomplish these principles. It is the rest of the order that is diametrically opposed to this statement of openness and freedom. It installs a government arbiter to force their idea of freedom on the users of the Internet and on the companies that are trying to make the Internet the economic engine of America.

The first provision that deals with this is that networks must be transparent. It says networks must be transparent about how they manage their networks, i.e., decisions about engineering, traffic routing, and quality of service. Transparency requirements usually translate to reporting and consumer disclosure requirements that are heavily prescribed and expensive to comply with, and the possible disclosure of proprietary information could affect competition. The real-world impact of this is higher costs to consumers. The Commission will increase regulatory reporting and consumer disclosure requirements as a result of this provision, and the cost will be passed along to, of course, the consumers in the form of more expensive services.

The second provision is that you may not unreasonably discriminate. The FCC's order states that providers may not unreasonably discriminate against lawful Internet traffic. That sounds fine. But the devil is in the details. The term is vaguely defined in the order, and how the FCC interprets and enforces what is unreasonable will determine how limiting this restriction is. For instance, if a provider notices that a small number of users are sharing huge files that are leading to congestion on the network and determines that slowing down those connections would relieve the congestion for the majority of other users, the FCC would have the right, under this order, to determine that such an action is unreasonable.

The real-world impact is that this would diminish the company's flexibility in managing their own services. The unreasonable discrimination provision could undermine the providers' ability to manage their network and guarantee all the users a high quality of service. Companies that build and maintain the networks that make up the Internet need the flexibility to manage the exploding demand for services on their network.

Regrettably, the FCC's order curtails that by establishing that the FCC would be an approval portal that companies would have to pass through to manage their day-to-day operations. Surely, there is a better way.

The next provision requires that broadband providers must justify new specialized services. Under the FCC orders, providers would now have to come to the FCC in order to offer consumers a new service, something that would be creative and innovative. Instead of offering it to the marketplace and having the competitive advantage from something new, they have to now expose it to all of their competitors by going through a regulatory adjudication at the FCC.

Let me give an example of what could happen.

A hospital might want to work with a provider, such as Verizon, to offer a new telemedicine service for Verizon subscribers that allows patients at home to interact with their doctors via high-definition video and uninterruptible remote medical monitoring.

In order to do this, Verizon might have to prioritize that telemedicine traffic ahead of regular Internet traffic to ensure the appropriate quality of service, particularly if there is a life- threatening situation.

The FCC order allows the Commission to determine on a case-by-case basis whether such prioritization is actually unreasonable discrimination because presumably the hospital that is offering the service would be giving better treatment for that telemedicine traffic than the user's regular traffic.

Going through a whole regulatory process in order to offer that service is a burden we do not need and that will stifle the innovation that has been a hallmark of the Internet, which led to the explosion of opportunities there.

The Commission says it wants innovation to occur, but the language of the order clearly discourages innovation by forcing companies to pass through a government regulatory turnstile to determine whether a particular service, an innovative service, something new that might be a competitive advantage, something new for quality of life, should be allowed. This puts the FCC in the position of picking winners and losers among the new innovative services, and it certainly slows down the opportunity to have new things coming on the market in what is usually a fast-paced economic environment.

In some cases, this may be enough to discourage providers from even entering into the special arrangements necessary to offer such services. It is a cumbersome process and, furthermore, it is unnecessary.

In another provision, the FCC order will treat wireless broadband services more lightly than wireline broadband services, at least for now. The FCC reserves rights in this order, which are taken without congressional authority, in my opinion--and certainly the courts will litigate that and make its decisions--the FCC reserves the right to regulate wireless just as harshly in the future as they are now attempting to regulate wireline. For now, wireless providers will have more leeway to innovate and to manage their networks. But how much investment are they going to make for the long term if they do not know what the FCC might foresee in the future that needs fixing, even if it is not apparently broken.

The real world impact is that wireless is the fastest growing area of communications markets. The threat that the Commission might later apply the wireline prohibitions it has ordered today to this wireless marketplace is a major concern.

I commend the two members of the Commission who dissented in the vote today--Rob McDowell and Meredith Atwell Baker. They each did op-eds, one in the Wall Street Journal and one in the Washington Post. I would say the common theme is that this is a solution where there is no problem. We have an open Internet. We have an Internet that is working. It does not need the heavy hand of government. It does not need a government prism through which to determine if the Internet providers are doing an allowable service. We have a marketplace, and the marketplace is working.

This is a time for Congress to take a stand. These regulations will raise uncertainty about the methods and practices communications companies may use to manage their networks. Heavy-handed regulation threatens investment and innovation in broadband services, placing valuable American jobs at risk.

Why would this be happening in a recession where we are trying to increase jobs, where we are trying to stop the trajectory of unemployment in our country?

We need to lay off, and it is time for Congress to take a stand. Individuals and businesses alike are rightfully concerned about government attempts to seize control of the Internet. Senator Ensign, who is the ranking member of a Commerce subcommittee--I am the ranking member on the full Commerce Committee--together we are going to submit a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act in an effort to overturn this troubling regulatory overreach by the FCC. It is time for Congress to say we have not delegated this authority to the FCC. The FCC tried to do this once before using another part of the Communications Act. They were struck down by the courts. Now they have gone to a different interpretation in a different section of the act to try to gain the capability to obstruct freedom on the Internet.

It is a huge and serious issue on which I hope Congress will take the reins and say to the FCC: If we need regulation in this area, Congress will do it.

We are elected. We are accountable. People can vote what they believe is the right approach by what we do. The FCC is not accountable to the people of our country. Yes, they are accountable to the President and the votes for today's order were from Presidential appointees of this administration. It is another big government intervention where we do not need to suppress innovation.

What we need is to embrace innovation so we can create jobs in this country with the freedom that has marked the economic vitality of America for over 200 years.

We will have a resolution of disapproval at the appropriate time in the next session of Congress. I look forward to working with other Members of Congress to take the reins on this issue. It is a congressional responsibility.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the START treaty. We have been debating the START treaty off and on throughout the last few days, and there will be an amendment voted on for the resolution after the 3 o'clock vote on don't ask, don't tell.

I wish to talk about the amendment and the treaty itself. This historic treaty is seeking, of course, to limit the strategic long- range nuclear weapons that are currently in U.S. and Russian inventory for a total of 1,550 warheads for each country. While these limits require some reductions in the number of delivery vehicles and deployed warheads both countries possess, a change in the counting of warheads will allow both countries to cut hundreds of them on paper with no actual reductions. For example, under START I, each deployed delivery vehicle was counted as carrying a specified number of warheads regardless of how many warheads were actually equipped on the missile or bomber. New START abandons these rules, instead only counting the number of warheads actually equipped on deployed missiles. In addition, strategic bombers each count as one warhead regardless of how many warheads they are actually carrying.

I also have reservations because of how New START limits our ability to conduct extensive and robust verification activities to ensure compliance with the treaty. The ability to adequately and thoroughly verify the enforcement of the treaty is crucial for two reasons--not only to ensure that both parties are holding up their end of the bargain but also as it relates to possibly one party losing control of missiles they are not accounting for. It is said in many quarters that some of the deteriorating nuclear materials in Russia have somehow gotten through to rogue nations such as North Korea or Iran. So it is very important to have a verification system that keeps count.

I am concerned about the ability to conduct onsite inspections because it has been reduced in this agreement. Under START I, the United States conducted more than 600 inspections over the course of 15 years. In New START, that number has been substantially reduced to only 180 inspections over the course of 10 years.

There are only two basic types of inspections in New START. Type one inspections focus on sites with deployed and nondeployed strategic systems. Type two focuses on sites with only nondeployed strategic systems. Each side is allowed to conduct 10 type one inspections and 8 type two inspections annually. Under the previous START treaty, there were 12 types of onsite inspections as well as continuous onsite monitoring activities at a certain facility. Even though, as has been mentioned on this floor in the debate, there are fewer facilities, this is a pretty drastic reduction in the ability to actually have the onsite investigations. Because weapons inspectors will only have 10 opportunities per year to inspect just 2 to 3 percent of Russia's force, we will be more reliant than in previous agreements on the full cooperation of Russia.

I really don't know how we could have reached an agreement to substantially reduce our most effective method of enforcement. In fact, a recent State Department report issued by the Obama administration said:

Notwithstanding the overall success of START I

implementation, a significant number of long-standing

compliance issues that have been raised in the START I

treaty's Joint Compliance and Inspection Commission remain

unresolved.

Defense. I am also concerned that proposals under the New START treaty may restrict U.S. missile defense capabilities, which could threaten our national security. Of all of the concerns that have been raised, I think this is the most important. It also is part of the amendment we are going to consider this afternoon.

Russia and the United States each issued unilateral statements when they signed New START that clarified their position on the relationship between START and missile defenses.

The official Russian statement said:

The treaty can operate and be viable only if the United

States refrains from developing its missile defense

capabilities quantitatively or qualitatively.

Contrary to claims by the Obama administration that missile defense will not be negatively impacted, a review of the text of the treaty shows otherwise. The most obvious limitation on missile defense is found in article V, paragraph 3 of the treaty. It says this prevents converting existing intercontinental ballistic missiles, ICBMs, and submarine-launched ballistic missiles, SLBMs, into launchers for missile defense interceptors.

The administration says: Well, it is more expensive to actually convert than to create new ones.

Well, we need to have flexibility. Whether we convert or whether we create new ones should not be a limitation on the United States. U.S. planning and force requirements might have to change in the future to respond to evolving world threats during New START's tenure. It is important that our Nation be able to adjust our military defense systems if needed. We are not just talking about Russia now. We are talking about adjusting our missile defense capabilities against any other country in the world, including rogue nations we believe have nuclear capabilities. We are not sure how far developed they are, but we know North Korea is trying to have a ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead. We know Iran is too. We know Pakistan has them, and though Pakistan is an ally, it is a fragile government at this point.

Why would we in any way link our own missile defense capabilities with the evolving threats out there, regardless of the present good terms we have with Russia? Why would we do that? That is a unilateral capability that our country must insist we keep for our sovereign Nation.

The McCain amendment would take out of the preamble to this treaty:

Recognizing the existence of the interrelationship between

strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms, that

this interrelationship will become more important as

strategic nuclear arms are reduced, and that current

strategic defensive arms do not undermine the viability and

effectiveness of the strategic offensive arms of the Parties.

We want to take that out. It is absolutely essential that we take this out of the preamble.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor of the McCain amendment.

Mr. President, we need to ensure that our defenses are not in any way inhibited by this treaty because we must defend against countries that perhaps are not enemies of Russia, but they might be ours. And to in any way restrict our defenses is not necessary to ensure that we have mutual offensive lowering of numbers.

So I am very concerned about this particular segment. If we can adopt the McCain amendment, of which I am a cosponsor, it would take me a significant way toward believing this treaty would be worthy of ratification.

I am seriously concerned that although it is clear that a number of restrictions will be placed on the United States under this treaty, the same is not necessarily true for our partner to the treaty--Russia.

Dr. Keith Payne, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Forces Policy, has noted that New START's limitations are of little real consequence for Russia because Russia's aged Cold War strategic launchers already have been reduced below New START ceilings. Additionally, many defense analysts predict Russia will have fewer than 1,500 nuclear warheads by 2012.

Russian defense expert Mikhail Barabonov bluntly makes the same point. He says:

The truth is, Russia's nuclear arsenal is already at or

even below the new ceilings.

Already at or even below the new ceilings.

At the time of the signing of the treaty, Russia had a

total of just 640 strategic delivery vehicles--only 571 of

them deployed . . . It therefore becomes evident that Russia

needs no actual reductions to comply. If anything, it may

need to bring some of its numbers up to the new limits, not

down.

That brings me to the second major point that concerns me about the treaty; that is, the modernization capabilities for our warheads that are part of our arsenal. We can do something about this outside the treaty and still go forward with the ratification, but so far we have not had the assurances that would allow us to know our modernization could be done.

According to the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, today's nuclear weapons have aged well beyond their originally planned life, and the nuclear complex has fallen into neglect. It has been 18 years since our arsenal has been tested.

I share the concerns of my colleague, Senator Kyl, who has been a leader on this issue. We must ensure--and we can do it in a separate, signed ratification resolution--that the United States has a strong plan that provides for a nuclear modernization program that ensures that if we did need to deploy because a rogue nation that is not part of any treaties or is a part of a treaty but isn't going to comply--we need to ensure our deterrent is real. Our deterrent will be real if our warheads are assured of still being capable of being a deterrent, being deployed, being used in the very worst case circumstances.

As President Reagan said, trust, but verify when you are making treaties with other countries, especially this treaty that is going to have such consequences as one that might lower our capability to defend our country from a nuclear missile, a warhead on a missile that could be delivered to our country by a rogue nation.

This has nothing to do with Russia. We don't expect them to launch a missile against the United States, that is for sure. But we do know that there are other nations that are enemies of the United States, that are trying to get, and possibly have, nuclear warheads and the capability to deliver them.

So we need to assure, first and foremost, two things: that our nuclear capabilities are viable, which means we need a modernization program that we can be assured has an arsenal that can work; No. 2, we need to make sure our ability to maintain missile defense is not negatively impacted by this treaty. There is no reason to connect it to a treaty that is going to limit offenses. As long as our missiles are capable of being deployed, that is leverage we must have. But we certainly have no reason to lower our capability to defend our country unilaterally, which I cannot imagine that any administration--and certainly not the Senate--would sign or ratify a treaty that might take away our capability to defend our country. I would hate for it to be on our watch that we lowered the defenses of the United States, because we are being rushed into ratifying a treaty without the full capability to amend it, or that we don't make sure in every detail, as Senator Kyl has said so many times, that we have preserved our capabilities to defend our country against any enemy; and secondly, that we have the capability to go on offense so that any country that might decide to send a nuclear warhead into our territory, or into anyplace where our troops are on the ground fighting for freedom, that that country or that group of rogue nations would know we could respond because our arsenal of weapons is viable.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am voting for the Coburn motion to suspend the rules to allow the Senate to consider his amendment to offset extension of unemployment benefits because we must be able to discuss ways to start bringing down the deficit. Senator Coburn's amendment provides a fiscally responsible way to extend unemployment insurance for out-of-work Americans and to pay for other costs contained in the tax bill.

With the underlying agreement in the tax bill to extend current tax rates for 2 years, individuals and businesses will have more certainty on tax policy. This is needed to spur economic growth and job creation. Senator Coburn's amendment takes the next important step to begin reducing spending to deal with the deficit. The Senate deserves an opportunity to debate and vote on the Coburn amendment so that we can begin this process.

I spoke with Senator Coburn about an item in his amendment that would rescind NASA funding for Constellation systems. I strongly oppose this provision, which would significantly disrupt the authorization law we passed in September. NASA is expressly continuing some elements of the Constellation program such as the crew exploration vehicle in order to shorten the time for building the new launch vehicle that will propel human space exploration beyond Earth orbit. Terminating those contracts before they can be transitioned to support the new direction Congress has mandated would force NASA to start over, delaying development of the new launch vehicle, greatly increasing its costs to

the American tax payer. It could also jeopardize the full use of the space station for scientific research. Senator Coburn has agreed to revisit this provision in the future, in an effort to assure scientific integrity.

All time has expired. The question now is on agreeing to the Coburn motion to suspend with respect to amendment No. 4765. The yeas and nays have been ordered.

The clerk will call the roll.