Floor Statements

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

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

Mr. President, the amendment I offer today is to allow States to opt out of this health care bill. If ever there was an encroachment on the tenth amendment, this bill is it.

We are hearing from State leaders all across the country asking Congress to abandon this bill. It is an unconstitutional preemption of State innovation, State prerogative, and States rights they are guaranteed in the Constitution by the tenth amendment. Thirteen States have now filed suit against this legislation because the leaders in those States know the detrimental impact this broad, one-size-fits-all solution will have on their unique situations. States are the most well equipped to design and approve governmental programs to address the needs of their citizens. My amendment would restore the tenth amendment rights reserved for the States by allowing State legislatures to pass legislation that would allow them to opt out of this bill and the Federal takeover of their health care system with its mandates, many of which are unfunded.

Let's walk through the harmful provisions in this bill from which the States could opt out.

Taxes, the job-killing taxes. The bill imposes 10 years of taxes, about $\1/2\ trillion, on individuals and businesses as well as pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, and medical device manufacturers. Some of these taxes will start almost immediately. More than $100 billion in taxes on prescription drug companies, medical device manufacturers, and insurance companies will begin to take effect before the actual supposed benefits of this bill would come into play. Studies show these taxes will be passed on to consumers. There is no doubt about it. Of course they are going to be passed on to consumers. They are going to be collected for years before there are any supposed benefits. Then there are the taxes on those who can't afford insurance: the higher of $695 per individual or 2.5 percent of household income. Employers will be hit with new taxes. The penalty could be as high as $2,000 or $3,000 per employee.

What is this going to do to the small businesses of our country, which create 70 percent of the jobs? At a time when families are struggling, at a time when our businesses are struggling, at a time when our economy is at an all-time low--not all-time low, but almost all-time low; certainly bad--businesses aren't hiring. Why aren't they hiring? They aren't because they have a fear of the future. They don't know what to expect going forward. They are not going to start hiring people until there is a comfort level that the economy has stabilized and that we are in a real recovery mode. Yet, when people feel that way and when small businesses feel that way, what is the biggest deterrent to them being able to say, OK, things are getting better and I can hire new people? More taxes and more mandates and more burdens. That is what is going to keep them from taking that leap to hire more people. So it is like a revolving situation we are not going to get out of as long as we are continuing to put on more taxes, more expenses, and more mandates.

We know premiums are going to go up. Premiums are already going up. Our purpose in this bill should be to bring premiums down by lowering the cost of health care, not by increasing the cost. That is so counterintuitive. It could only be thought of in Washington, DC.

Cuts to Medicare. The Senate bill includes over $\1/2\ trillion in cuts to Medicare. About $135 billion of those are in cuts to hospitals.

Mr. President, in conclusion, the Medicare Program is unsustainable. The Chief Actuary of Medicare has said that as much as 20 percent of Medicare's providers will either go out of business or will stop seeing Medicare beneficiaries.

Millions of seniors, including those who have chosen Medicare Advantage, will lose the coverage they now enjoy. Medicare is being used as a piggy bank and it needs every penny that has been deposited.

We cannot pay for reform on the backs of our seniors. Cuts to hospitals will threaten access to care for seniors in our States.

Third, this bill imposes on States an unfunded mandate to expand the Medicaid Program. Putting millions of individuals in to Medicaid is a fast way to quickly reduce the number of uninsured.

Yet by doing so, the Federal Government is sending a very large check to the States, $20 billion to be exact, with a note that says ``We decide--you pay.''

At a time when so many States are struggling to balance their budgets, pay their teachers, improve transportation, maintain services, this bill imposes more costs.

How much more are we going to ask of our States?

States are in the best position to determine what is right for their citizens. Yet this bill will take away their right to innovate and determine fiscally responsible and effective ways to offer affordable health insurance coverage.

In big government style, this bill manipulates that idea into a one- size-fits all solution for every single State.

Plus, states should have the option of implementing tort reform as we have done in Texas. Yet under this bill States are actually punished for implementing tort reform. Tort reform is essential to bring down the cost of health care. This bill stiffles the ability to achieve this commonsense option.

Why not level the playing field for taxpayers by offering tax incentives to encourage the purchase of health insurance at the State level. Let citizens in each State decide which health insurance plan best fits their needs--a decision that should be free from interference by the Federal Government.

Senator DeMint and I have a bill which would offer a voucher of $2,000 to individuals and $5,000 to families so they can purchase health insurance that is portable and not tied to their employer.

These are the right steps to achieving reform and these steps empower the States rather than violate their rights and impose a heavy handed Federal approach to reform.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment which is cosponsored by Senators Enzi, Coburn, Burr and Brown of Massachusetts.

The bottom line is I hope my colleagues will vote to support the States rights so that we will be able to address high unemployment as well as high uninsured rates in a way that will lower the costs and give more options.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we are hearing from State leaders all over our country begging Congress to abandon this bill that is an unconstitutional preemption of States rights, State innovation, and State prerogatives. Thirteen States have already filed suit against this bill.

My amendment would restore the 10th amendment rights reserved to the States by allowing State legislatures to pass legislation to allow them to opt out of this bill, opt out of the job-killing taxes, opt out of the cuts to Medicare, opt out of the unfunded Medicaid mandates, when our States are hurting already. They are not balancing their budgets right now. This is going to make it worse.

This is an easy ``yes'' vote, and I hope our colleagues will help our States to opt out of this bill if they choose.

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

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

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

We need to make this law permanent, and I hope everyone will support this amendment.

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

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

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

Mr. President, let me say that I know Senator Rockefeller and I will have a little time toward the vote to do a summation of the bill. But while we are at this stage, I do wish to say that I think we have taken a major step forward in FAA reauthorization. As many who have worked on this project know, we have had 11 extensions of FAA reauthorization since 2007--short-term extensions because we have not been able to get the agreements that are necessary to propel this bill from the floor.

There are some very important provisions of this bill that I hope we will eventually have final passage and that we can all support. However, we are not there yet. We are at the stage of getting it from the Senate floor, but there are still some issues that will have to be resolved even before we go to conference.

I think before we appoint conferees there will have to be some agreements that have not yet been clearly reached. One of those is the perimeter rule. I am going to talk a little bit more about that when my colleague, Senator Ensign, comes because his amendment is the pending amendment on that on the bill. But besides the perimeter rule, there are issues that are addressed in this bill that are so important, that

will take us a major step forward for the traveling public in our country.

There are safety provisions in this bill addressing issues throughout all sectors of the aviation community. I think they are major improvements in our airline safety, although we know we have the safest system we have ever had. There are very few accidents. But I do think the accidents we have had are still teaching us what can be done in the area of fatigue of pilots and human factors, which has always been the hardest part of the aviation system to address. We do have some standards and a way forward that I think will improve aviation safety because none of us wants to have anything less than 100 percent aviation safety. That is what we are striving for.

The bill will also modernize our air traffic control system. Our air traffic control system is using technology that is probably based back in the 1960s. It is time for us to have a satellite-based system. This is going to be expensive. Having the startup of this NextGen system is essential for our country to stay in the forefront of efficient use of our air traffic control system, and also eventually, hopefully, when it is all in place, we will also be able to open more airspace so we can better utilize our air traffic control system.

The bill will provide infrastructure funds for our airports. That is one of the reasons we need to get this bill from the floor and assure our airports that the airport trust fund money is available, it is stable, and they can count on the funds flowing from the airport trust fund in an orderly way so that the improvements to our airports can be done.

The bill will improve rural access to aviation through the Essential Air Service Program. This is a very important part of our whole system. Not only do we have a great general aviation community, which does so much for capabilities for volunteers and recreational pilots to use our airspace, but also the business aviation--the smaller aviation facilities that are private but also very important. And then, of course, our regional airlines are a very important part of our overall air service, and we will have improvements in those sectors.

The bill will improve passenger and consumer protections. There is no doubt that the Passenger Bill of Rights is long overdue, and I think we have come to a good place to protect passengers from sitting on the tarmac for 5 hours without the ability to get off an airplane. Issues such as that that have cropped up are being addressed in our new Passenger Bill of Rights. It will strengthen aeronautics and aviation research as well.

There is a lot that is good in this bill, and we still have a long way to go to finish it, but I do look forward to working through tonight, getting the bill passed from the Senate, and then working on these issues that are not yet completely agreed to before we go to conference. Then, from there, I hope we can take the next step, which is not going to be an easy one, and that is resolving the differences between the House and Senate bills. The differences are pretty big, so I think we are going to have our jobs cut out for us. It means we are not anywhere close to being finished yet, but we are certainly in a better place than we have ever been since 2007 when FAA reauthorization, the previous bill, lapsed, and we have been doing short-term extensions since then.

I look forward to more after wrap-up and more of a discussion of the perimeter rule as soon as Senator Ensign arrives.

I yield the floor.

Boise Terminal Radar Approach Control

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator Ensign is on his way, and I will do everything possible to give him some time.

Mr. President, let me say how much I appreciate the remarks of the chairman. It has been truly delightful working with the chairman on this bill. He and I used to be the chairman and ranking member of the Aviation Subcommittee. Now we are the chairman and ranking member of the full committee. So I think our views on aviation--its importance, the importance of the NextGen air traffic control system, the importance of safety, the Passenger Bill of Rights--are one and the same, and I appreciate working with him.

I do have some closing remarks, but I wish to let Senator Ensign talk about his amendment. It is the pending business. So I think I am going to put my remarks to the side for now and let Senator Ensign speak on his amendment. I do have comments, following his comments, on his perimeter amendment. Then, if we have time, I would like to make my closing statement. But if not, in order for us to stay on time, I will stay and do it after the vote.

With that, I yield to the Senator from Utah--I am sorry, the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleagues for their work on the Reagan National perimeter rule issue.

Last week, I sat down with several interested colleagues in an effort to try to find a path forward on this issue, and the result is the modified Ensign amendment before us. I wish to say a few words about the intent of the amendment.

I sympathize with the concerns of my friend from Virginia, Senator Warner, who is also a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, and our colleague, Senator Webb. While in a somewhat different position in the past, I have had similar issues raised concerning my home State of Texas with Love Field and DFW Airport, and I recognize the impact of dealing with the decision to change the status quo. It is difficult.

I also recognize the views of western State Senators concerned about the few opportunities for their constituents to have direct access to Reagan National Airport. There are now only 12 flights a day. That really should be expanded, but it needs to be expanded in a way that does not have the harmful effects on National and the Virginia residents who live in and around the airport.

With that in mind, I think we have come up with a compromise proposal that meets the concerns of the western State colleagues and others, as well as addressing the concerns of the Virginia Senators. The modified Ensign amendment is a simple solution that allows air carriers with existing inside-the-perimeter large hub airport slots into Reagan National the ability to convert those slots to any community outside the perimeter, with each air carrier being kept at 15 roundtrip operations eligible for conversion. By utilizing the conversions, we don't add any new flights at all to the airport, but we do give the air carriers the opportunity to better utilize their networks. I am hopeful we can take that concept and message to the House in the next round of the legislative process on this bill.

I thank Senators Ensign and Kyl, Senators DeMint, Boxer, McCain, Rockefeller, Dorgan, and Warner for their work on this very important issue. I remain hopeful that the final version of this FAA reauthorization bill will include a consensus agreement on this issue that allows the opportunity for direct service to our Nation's Capital for a number of our communities that are eager for that service. It is time for some expansion, but I think we can do it in a way that will not impact the quality of life in and around Washington National Airport.

I also wish to take a moment to commend my colleagues who have worked so hard on this bill. We are coming to the point when we will pass this bill out of the Senate. We have been able to accommodate the amendments that have been offered, both relevant to the bill as well as those that are outside the purview of the bill. It has been an open process. It has been a whole week, but we have been able to make slow progress and accommodate the amendments that have been offered, and I think we are at a very good place now with everyone's cooperation.

I mentioned that it has really been a very good experience working this bill because we have been able to work out some of the problems that are on both sides of the aisle, and I think in a constructive way.

With the passage of this bill, we will now go to work with the House. We are very different from the House in many respects, but in FAA reauthorization we are in many more respects very different from the House in that they have passed a bill and we are getting ready to pass a bill that is very different. So we still have a long way to go on this legislation. But I think we can do it. With the same cooperation we have seen in the Senate, I hope we can get a bill agreed to that the Senate will approve as well as the House.

I thank Senator Rockefeller and his staff. They have been very diligent in this process. As I said, we have worked since 2007 to get this bill done. I think we are in a very good position now. Ellen Doneski has been great, his chief of staff of the committee; James Reid, Gael Sullivan, Rich Swayze, Jim Conneely, and Adam Duffey on Senator Rockefeller's staff are to be commended.

Senator Dorgan, the chairman of the aviation subcommittee, has been great. I appreciate all he has done on this bill to keep it moving, to work with both Senator Rockefeller and myself and Senator DeMint. I appreciate Senator Dorgan's work and his commitment to this. When he leaves the Senate at the end of the year, I hope he will have this significant FAA reauthorization as one of his achievements he can claim. His staffer, Margaret McCarthy, has been also very helpful.

Senator DeMint is the ranking member of the aviation subcommittee, and he, too, has been very constructive in this effort, moving the bill forward along with his staff and Tom Jones, who has really helped move the ball forward on this bill that is right out of their subcommittee.

On my staff, Jarrod Thompson has been wonderful. He knows this issue backward and forward and has worked on many of these aviation reauthorizations through the years on the Commerce Committee. I look to him for the knowledge he has gained over the years in all facets of FAA, including safety, NextGen, and all of the relevant issues that come under this subcommittee and this bill. My chief of staff for the committee, Ann Begeman, has been solid as a rock, helping to move the ball forward, going through the different issues and settling many of them. She has been great, as well as Dan Neumann; Patrick Mullane, also in my office, who does all of my transportation work; Brian Hendricks, the general counsel of the Commerce Committee on our side, the ranking general counsel; and Matt Acock, my legislative director, who also is going to be leaving in a few weeks. This is something he has worked on and he knows about as much as any of us, and he has done a great job as well.

Having said all of that, I thank the distinguished chairman and look forward to having a vote in just a few minutes, as soon as we dispose of the Ensign amendment and move forward to final passage.

Mr. President, I appreciate what the Senator from North Dakota has stated. I am also working in this group to try to finish this FAA reauthorization bill. There is so much in this bill that will let airports throughout our country have the stability and the airport trust funds to go forward. There are many safety issues that have resulted from the Colgan accident that we are trying to correct, and other information. This is a very good, very bipartisan bill.

There are approximately 17 amendments we will be able to clear with the consent of everyone who has been interested in these, after we dispose of the perimeter issue. We are going to have the reformed amendment filed on the perimeter issue, and it will be available for a vote on Monday, where we hope we will either be able to vote or get some sort of colloquy that is an understanding. After everyone is satisfied with that, we will then clear the other amendments and hope to go to final passage on Monday. I believe that is the goal, and I think it is very reachable.

The perimeter rule at National Airport is a rule that was put in place for many reasons. For one thing, there are noise issues, there are traffic issues, and there are air traffic issues because National is a very close-in airport.

Then, of course, there is also the Dulles Airport issue. The way it has evolved is that Dulles Airport is the long-haul airport into our Nation's Capital and National is used by people who come into our Capital because it is convenient. We don't want to jeopardize the Dulles Airport service in any way, but the people who live farther out west in our country have been discriminated against, clearly, in not having access to National Airport because there is a perimeter rule, with only 12 flights that go beyond that perimeter.

So we have tried for a long time to settle this in an equitable way that does extend the perimeter but not to the detriment of either National or Dulles Airport. Senator Warner of Virginia has been a very strong advocate of the protection of National Airport as well as Dulles Airport, as he should be, and I will let him speak for himself. But he has been a very strong advocate, which we all appreciate, and I think the western Senators have also been very strong in their efforts for a long time--for many years.

I have been on the aviation subcommittee and am now ranking member of the Commerce Committee, and I will tell you that we have tried to deal with this perimeter issue to accommodate the needs of western constituents, western citizens who want to be able to come into National Airport and have the choice to come into National Airport. So I believe we are working very constructively in this, and I support the agreements that have been made for us to go forward as described.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, my distinguished colleague and chairman of the committee and I are working very hard to clear further amendments as well as get a vote on the Sessions amendment, with a Pryor amendment connected to that, and a McCain amendment, so that we can try to finish this bill by tomorrow. So that is what we are working on. We are of the same mind on that. I hope very much that we will be able to get the amendments cleared that are very important. I would ask all of our colleagues to work with us to expedite matters so that we can finish this bill early tomorrow.

Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the chairman as well for working with us on this issue.

Mr. President, am I correct that, procedurally, I am speaking in morning business?

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on this health care reform bill that is purportedly going through the House right now. I just have to speak on it because it is so obvious that the American people do not want this bill, and yet now the Democrats seem to be pushing it through the House with these elaborate procedures. So I want to talk about it, as I know many others on this floor are doing and have done, because really the only way we can bring to the attention of the American people what is going on here is to talk about it--both process as well as substance.

The health care bill that passed this Senate last December, on Christmas Eve, was passed really under a cloud,

and the American people immediately saw that big cloud on the horizon, for sure. The bill has been bandied around so much that the American people have finally come to the conclusion that what was passed was not in the best interest of America. So we are still debating this legislation, and the reason is the American people don't want this bill. Why do they not want it? They know it will do great harm to our economy--one-sixth of the whole economy of our country--and it is not going to significantly change the course of our Nation's spending on health care, nor is it going to add to its quality. The Senate bill is a failure in terms of resolving the concerns Americans have with our current health care system.

Most of us in this Chamber agree that the health care system today is not what it needs to be and that it is not sustainable. And we can probably agree on the causes--No. 1, health care costs are going up, and No. 2, a lot of people can't afford and don't have access to health care insurance. So limited access to affordable options and rising costs. But this bill makes it worse, not better.

The bill is so bad that the President and the leadership in Congress are going to use the unique budget procedure known as reconciliation to force additional health care measures through Congress. In fact, they are even talking about not actually passing the bill that passed the Senate--without any minority votes--in December, and they are talking about ``passing it'' by deeming it in the House, which means Members of the House won't actually vote on it, because it is so bad. Well, how much sense does that make?

The media is continuing to speculate about whether the Speaker of the House can secure the votes needed to pass the Senate bill as well as a new unseen, unknown additional bill that would change the bill that passed the Senate and take out some of its flaws. We haven't seen this new bill, either, and we are talking about getting it over on the Senate side next week.

Amid this media storm of speculation on whether a bill can be passed using reconciliation, we need to talk about why this bill represents the wrong approach to health care reform.

No. 1 is the cost of the bill. The bill costs more than $2 trillion. Some may try to say it is actually less than that, but the truth is, there are 10 years of tax increases and 10 years of Medicare cuts to pay for 6 years of spending. Yes, that is right. The taxes start immediately, the Medicare cuts start immediately, and 4 years from now there will be presumed options for people to be able to have affordable health care. The true 10-year cost of this bill is $2 trillion.

More taxes. The bill imposes 10 years of taxes--$\1/2\ trillion of tax increases--most of which will start immediately or very shortly. More than $100 billion in taxes on prescription drug companies, medical device manufacturers, and insurance companies is going to be levied. What do those taxes mean? Well, clearly, every study shows and every economist says those taxes will be passed on to individuals. They will be passed on to individuals in the form of higher cost for prescription drugs and higher cost of insurance premiums and medical devices. That all starts before we ever see any kind of affordable health care options.

I offered an amendment in the December debate that would say no taxes start until services are provided. I thought that was a pretty clear tax policy, one that maybe the American people would at least say: OK, at least it is fair; the taxes don't start until the services start.

Of course, my amendment was rejected. Now we have the bill that was passed which is 10 years of taxes for 6 years of services. There are taxes on those who cannot afford insurance, the higher of $750 per individual or 2 percent of household income. That is the tax on people who do not purchase insurance. Employers are also hit with new taxes. The penalty could be as high as $3,000 per employee under the Senate bill.

What will this do to small businesses, which create 70 percent of the new jobs in our country? In a letter sent to the majority leader, the Small Business Coalition for Affordable Health Care stated ``with the new taxes, mandates, growth in government programs and overall price tag, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,'' the health care reform bill, ``costs too much and delivers too little.''

That is pretty succinct, the Small Business Coalition speaking out and saying this bill costs too much and delivers too little. Small businesses are reeling. We are in a time when families are struggling to pay their mortgages, struggling to find a job, struggling to pay bills, and businesses are having a hard time, too, and they are not hiring. What are we doing? Providing more burdens on small businesses and expecting them to hire more people. This is so counterintuitive that the American people certainly see what is happening.

Those are all the taxes. The other side is the cuts to Medicare. The Senate bill includes $\1/2\ trillion in cuts to Medicare over 10 years, including $135 billion in cuts to hospitals. The Medicare Program is unsustainable. The Chief Actuary of Medicare has said as much as 20 percent of Medicare's providers will either go out of business or will have to stop seeing Medicare beneficiaries. Millions of seniors, including those who have chosen Medicare Advantage, will lose the coverage they now enjoy. Medicare is being used as a piggy bank, and it needs every penny that has been deposited. We cannot reform all of the health care system on the backs of our seniors. Cuts to hospitals will threaten access for seniors.

We have been asking the leadership of Congress to scrap this bill and work with Republicans to achieve the reform that Americans want, reform that will reduce costs, increase competition, and improve access. This bill achieves none of that. I cannot understand why the President chose to base his proposal for reform on the Senate bill that was passed by the Senate, but the American people have consistently opposed it. Every poll shows the American people do not want the Senate bill. They saw it for what it was, a failure.

I hope the Members of Congress who are being cajoled into voting for this bill will listen to the American people. They do not want the government to take over their health care. They want affordable access, and that means we have to bring the costs down and give more options.

Let's talk about the right kind of reform, what Republicans are putting on the table: more choices. How about allowing small businesses to pull together so their risk pool is increased and costs are lowered; and create an online marketplace where the public can easily compare and select insurance plans. But it would be a marketplace that is free from mandates and government interference. The one that is in the Senate bill had so many mandates and so many requirements that the costs are going to be out of sight.

So what happens? In comes the government plan to supplant the new higher cost options because of all the taxes that have been put on the companies that are trying to provide health care.

No. 2, how can we reduce costs and lower expenses? For one thing, we could reform our litigious system of tort law that punishes doctors and hospitals. It drives physicians away from the practice of medicine. Tort reform alone could save at least $54 billion. That is the low end of the projections of what tort reform could save.

No. 3, we could lower the cost to taxpayers by giving tax incentives to encourage the purchase of health insurance. We do not have to have a government takeover, and we don't have to have new taxes. Let's give incentives, tax breaks for individuals and families who will buy health insurance. We will help them have affordable access. Senator DeMint and I have a bill that would offer a voucher to families: $5,000 for a family to purchase their own health insurance, to go on the exchange, to determine what they can afford, to determine what their needs are, and it is not tied to their employer so it is portable, so it is theirs and they own it. No preexisting conditions would ever keep them from having that policy again, and they could take it to whatever employer they decided to work for. They would not be tied to employment for health care coverage.

These are options the Republicans have given to the majority to ask them to consider in a bill that would reform health care in the right way.

I urge my colleagues to listen to their constituents. Their constituents are speaking in volumes at a time

when we are seeing political games being played on the House side to strong-arm people to vote for a bill that their constituents do not want, and then they are going to send it over to the Senate with a new bill that is going to, supposedly, correct the problems in the Senate bill--except that we will still have the taxes, we will still have the increased costs, we will still have the cuts to Medicare. All of that will remain. It is a flawed bill.

Please, Members of Congress, listen to your constituents and let's start again and do this right. That is what the American people are asking for. It is the least that we owe them: not to pass a bill that is going to destroy one-sixth of the American economy and take away the choices that Medicare patients have, cut the services of Medicare, and tax every employer and every family whether they have not enough health insurance, no health insurance, or too much health insurance. They are going to be taxed no matter which way they go. That is not health reform. That is a government takeover of a system that needs improvement, but not killing.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I will not object, but I would like to add that Senator Cochran be protected, with Senator Inouye, to have some of the divided time but that it not affect the 6 o'clock beginning.

Madam President, I just wanted to say to my colleagues that they need to prepare now for a 6 o'clock vote. Anyone wanting to debate will be able to do so within the constraints of the resolution that we just passed.

Senator Inouye is on the Senate floor. We are expecting Senator Cochran and Senator DeMint. So I hope if anyone else wants to have time within those timeframes that they would come to the floor now because I will object to any delay beyond 6 o'clock to start these four votes.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield my 1 minute to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 16, 2010, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 16, 2010, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 16, 2010, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 16, 2010, at 2 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Assessing Foster Care and Family Services in the District of Columbia: Challenges and Solutions.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Water and Power be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 16, 2010, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Madam President, yesterday we made good progress on the bill that is the underlying bill, which is FAA reauthorization. It is in the interest of the traveling public that we start on the glidepath to passing this bill. We need to make progress on amendments. But I have to ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle if they would be very careful about offering amendments that are not germane to this bill. The FAA reauthorization is not a legislative vehicle that can carry a lot of highly controversial provisions.

The previous FAA reauthorization expired in 2007. Since then, we have passed 11 short-term extensions and we will be drafting the 12th in the next 2 weeks because the current extension expires at the end of this month. While another extension is likely inevitable, we have to go to the final bill and see if we have the opportunity to pass a final bill in the next 2 weeks.

The repeated use of short-term FAA extensions does not provide the long-term stability and funding predictability we should be giving to our airports, the traveling public, and the airlines that are looking at what we are going to be doing with airports. We have to have a predictable roadmap if we are going to have a sound fiscal investment in our aviation infrastructure and, in turn, aviation safety.

Senator Dorgan mentioned earlier today the many safety provisions that are in this bill in response to the Colgan Buffalo, NY, accident that happened last year, and they are very good provisions.

There are some common themes we can all support throughout our country in this bill. It would improve safety--

safety of airlines, safety of pilots, safety of our traveling public, and especially in the area of human factors that have long been a challenge for this industry. The bill would modernize our antiquated air traffic control system and move us one step closer to an efficient and effective use of our national airspace. We are not up with many of the other countries around the world in the modernization of our air traffic control system. We are back in the 1960s in our technology. This bill would move us toward the satellite-based system that is much more reliable, much more efficient, and we need to move forward on it. But, again, since 2007 we have not been able to have a stabilized approach because we have been doing these short-term extensions. The bill would provide infrastructure funds for our vast national airport system, along with streamlining the approval process for airport projects. The bill would improve rural access to aviation and the economic opportunities that go along with air service. The bill would provide the foundation for robust consumer protections and the disclosure of industry practices.

I support most of the amendments I have heard being offered; I just do not support them on this bill. I hope we will take those up and have the ability to truly argue about those amendments and pass them, if possible. I just hope we will not jeopardize, once again, a permanent FAA reauthorization that is in the interest of every American who travels on airlines and who thinks it is important that we have airports for not only people moving but product moving. Our commerce depends on a good aviation system.

I am going to urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to let us go to cloture on this bill, let us assure that the traveling public is going to be able to at least have a bill that will move us one step toward this.

This bill is not an easy bill. My colleague, the distinguished chairman of the committee, knows we have hammered out a lot of differences already. But we have differences with the House on this bill as well. The Senate is in pretty much agreement on the fundamentals of what is in this bill on both sides of the aisle. And my colleague, Senator DeMint, who just offered an amendment, is actually the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Aviation, so he knows this bill is a good bill that has been hammered out, and it will be the Senate position.

But extraneous amendments, regardless of our view on the amendment's substance, will kill this bill. I think it is in our best interests, and certainly our responsibility, to put this bill forward for the interests of the traveling public.

I urge my colleagues to work with us to have the ability for their amendments to come up and be debated and voted on. I am going to support everything I have heard so far. But I hope we will keep this bill on aviation--on aviation security, on airport infrastructure, on modernization of our air traffic control system--because that is what our job is and that is what this bill is about.

I hope our colleagues will come forward with their aviation-related amendments, of which there are several that are certainly worthy of our discussion, and let's move through those. But I hope we will limit the extraneous amendments and try to move this bill in an expeditious and commonsense way.

Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Madam President, we just had a beautiful, really incredible Congressional Gold Medal ceremony honoring the Women Airforce Service Pilots known as the WASP. It was the largest audience to have ever attended a Congressional Gold Medal ceremony or any ceremony in the Capitol because we have now the wonderful new Capitol Visitors Center that allows us to accommodate very large ceremonies.

This one had over 2,000 family members of the Women Airforce Service Pilots who were honored by Congress. I thought it was worth also including comments in the Congressional Record to be sure the American people know that today was, in fact, a wonderful day in which we honored women who did so much in World War II. They did not get the recognition they deserved at the time but they received those accolades today when they were recognized with the highest honor that Congress can give.

I would like to read the speech I gave at the ceremony, and also just embellish a little bit about the WASP.

I wrote a book called ``American Heroines: The Spirited Women Who Shaped Our Country.'' In that book each chapter focused on specific areas in which women trailblazers had done so much to open doors for the future women leaders in our country. One of those chapters focused on those who blazed new trails in aviation.

The pioneers I profiled were Amelia Earhart and also Jackie Cochran. Jacqueline Cochran was a true pioneer, as was Amelia Earhart. They were

contemporaries--actually, Amelia achieved her fame just a little bit before Jacqueline Cochran. But Jacqueline Cochran went on to become the first woman to break the sound barrier in an aircraft. She was a protege of Chuck Yeager who, of course, we know was the first to break the sound barrier in a jet aircraft. He was a test pilot and a fabulous aviator who I saw recently in Dallas and understand he still enjoys flying.

For everyone who knows anything about aviation, Chuck Yeager is an

icon. He took Jacqueline Cochran under his wing and helped her, and she went on to become the first woman to break the sound barrier. She also was the woman who conceived of the Women Airforce Service Pilots and was the leader during World War II of this incredible group of women.

I wish to read the remarks I made because they tell much of the story of the WASP and Jacqueline Cochran's leadership.

As we celebrate Women's History Month, this is the perfect

time for us to gather to honor the Women Air Force Service

Pilots. They were not in the Air Force at the time, but they

were called the WASP. We are presenting them the

Congressional Gold Medal during Women's History Month because

these women truly made history. America's first women to fly

military aircraft, they blazed a trail in the sky that opened

the door for today's women military pilots. By the time the

war ended, 1,074 women had earned their wings at Avenger

Field in Sweetwater, Texas. Thirty-eight of those women were

killed in the line of duty. Throughout the war, these

courageous women flew over 60 million miles around the world,

in every type of aircraft flown by male pilots. They were

never commissioned, were never afforded Active-Duty military

status, and were not granted veterans status until 1977, 30

years after they had served.

All these women volunteered to serve their country in

wartime. The reason the organization was formed was the every

available male pilot was needed to fly combat missions. So,

for the first time, women were recruited to fly non-combat

missions. They ferried new aircraft from the factory to the

coast and delivered the aircraft for shipment overseas. Some

flew airplanes that towed targets so that male gunners could

practice shooting with live ammunition and others even

trained male pilots. They did all the things someone in the

Air Force would do today except fly combat missions. That is

why Jacqueline Cochran convinced the Army Air Corps of that

their recruitment was a necessity. Women were eager to serve

the war effort. That was why the Women's Army Corps, the WAC,

was created. They too contributed to the war effort. The WAC

was headed by Oveta Culp Hobby, a wonderful woman who later

became a member of President Eisenhower's Cabinet.

Women volunteered by the thousands during World War II. The

WASP volunteers paid their own way to Texas for training.

Just before the war ended, the program ended, and the WASP

paid their own way back home. The 38 courageous women who

died as a result of their service in the WASP received no

military honors and the expense of their burials was borne by

their families or through contributions from their fellow

WASP. Their families even had to pay to have their bodies

transported home for burial. They were not even accorded the

honor of having a flag on their caskets because they were not

considered to be in the military.

I wrote about the WASP in my book, ``American Heroines: The

Spirited Women who Shaped our Country.'' These women surely

did. Despite their patriotic and historic impact, the WASP

were never formally recognized by Congress for their wartime

military service--until today. Both Houses of Congress, the

Senate and the House of Representatives, passed a resolution

to present the Congressional Gold Medal. It was unanimous on

both sides of the aisle. It is the highest award given by

Congress. We honor their service, the history they made, and

the history they made possible for other women to make as a

result of their courageous service.

Today, we right a wrong and acknowledge our debt to these

great patriots, women who are so worthy of this award and

this recognition.

I recognized Tom Brokaw during the ceremony. Tom was on the stage with us at the ceremony. Of course, Tom wrote the book ``The Greatest Generation'' that raised the awareness in America about the incredible contribution of the veterans who served in World War II--primarily of course, the combat veterans who served in World War II. He chronicled those because they served so valiantly in horrendous circumstances. They came home, never talked about it, didn't talk about their experiences to their wives or their friends or their children. Most went back to life as normal and considered that they had done their duty and now it was time to go back to work. Tom Brokaw did a wonderful service for all of us. He raised the awareness of the ``greatest generation'' and made us appreciate so much what they had done.

I said at the ceremony that Tom Brokaw, who came to the ceremony today because he had gotten to know about the WASP through his own research, was really here helping us close the circle for so many of those who served in World War II and were never recognized. We recognized the combat veterans. We recognized their incredible service in combat and in battle. But there were some who contributed that we have only recently received the Congressional Gold Medal. The WASP was the third of the three. The first was the Tuskegee Airmen. They were an incredible group African American pilots who flew combat missions but whose service was never fully recognized until later, when they were presented the Congressional Gold Medal.

Then there were the Navajo code talkers who did an incredible service for our country but operated in secret. They promised they would not ever tell what they did, and they didn't until years later when they were given leave to do so after a movie was made that chronicled their critical wartime role. They too were recognized with the Congressional Gold Medal. And now today we honor the WASP, the women who were the first women to fly military missions but never made a part of the military

This effort to recognize the WASP started in the Senate where I was proud to introduce the legislation with my colleague from Maryland, Barbara Mikulski, that culminated in the celebration today. Senator Mikulski and I shepherded that bill through the Senate, and in the meantime legislation was introduced in the House of Representatives by Representatives Susan Davis and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who passed it on the House side. It passed in record time for a Gold Medal resolution. For this, I thank my colleagues in the Senate and House. It took less than a year from the day we introduced this legislation in the Senate to arrive at this day in which we award this medal to the WASP. There have not been too many Gold Medal resolutions signed into law, usually one per year, two at the most. But these resolutions usually take much longer. But because these women are older and have waited so long, we wanted to pass this quickly so as many of them as possible could come to Washington to celebrate. In fact, over 2,000 WASP veterans and their family members did come. Of the 1,074 women who earned their wings, over 200 were here today. I thank them.

I ended my remarks today by saying:

I thank the WASP and their families who have waited so long

and traveled so far to be here today to finally hear these

words: on behalf of a grateful nation, thank you for your

service.

Speaker Pelosi was eloquent. The distinguished Minority Leader in the House, our leaders, Senator Harry Reid and Senator Mitch McConnell, all participated with the Secretary of the Air Force in this special day. And of course, the four of us from the Senate and House who sponsored the resolution spoke as well. It was a beautiful ceremony. I wished to put that in the Congressional Record as a record of this day and as an additional record of the recognition the WASP so richly deserve and for which they have waited far too long.

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

I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee, and I wanted to say, as the ranking member of the Commerce Committee, I believe this FAA reauthorization bill is a very good, solid bill. It is very bipartisan, and we have worked through many of the sticky issues that have held up the long-term extension of FAA reauthorization.

I think this is a bill that most everyone on this floor will support if the bill stays as it has come out of the committee. I want to say also that I believe the Aviation Subcommittee chair and ranking members, Senators Dorgan and DeMint, deserve a lot of credit for this bipartisan bill as well because it does provide a solid roadmap for the direction and future of our aviation system, and its enactment is long overdue.

So I very much appreciate--as a matter of fact, Senator Rockefeller and I had been the chairman and ranking member of the Aviation Subcommittee when this bill was written. Then we both went to the full committee, chairman and ranking member slots, and so we have now two new Aviation Subcommittee chair and ranking members who have also done an excellent job.

So I feel strongly about this bill and how much it is going to do for the stability of our system. When you are looking at the reason for an FAA reauthorization bill, you have to have stability. We need to improve aviation safety. We need to modernize our air traffic control system, which is known as NextGen. We have to do that.

We are behind the rest of the Nations in the world that have major air traffic control systems in this modern age. If we are going to keep up with the added traffic in our airspace, we are going to have to have NextGen. This bill does provide the way forward on that.

We need to make the investments in infrastructure where there is a knowledge that this infrastructure support will be ongoing.

I am the former Chairman, Vice Chairman--actually Acting Chairman as well--of the National Transportation Safety Board. So I know the crucial mission the FAA has in overseeing our Nation's airlines and the aviation system.

Aviation safety and the public trust that go along with it is the bedrock of our national aviation policy. We cannot allow for any degradation of safety to the flying public. I believe this bill goes a long way toward achieving that goal. While I continue to have great confidence in the safety of our aviation system, it was made obvious that there is still room for improvement after the tragic crash of Colgan flight 3407 in Buffalo, NY, last year.

Despite the remarkable safety record of the U.S. aviation industry, that accident reminds us that we must remain vigilant and always look for ways to improve our safety system.

While tremendous strides have been made in aircraft technology and maintenance practices in recent decades, little has been done to address the human factors side of the safety equation in areas such as pilot fatigue, quality of pilot training, quality of pilot experience, commuting and pilot professional responsibility.

Over the course of a year, and through six Commerce Committee hearings regarding the aftermath of

the Colgan accident, we worked in a bipartisan manner to craft proposals to address these human factors issues.

During these hearings, the family members of those lost in flight 3407 were there every step of the way. I applaud their continued activism for improving aviation safety.

A few of the safety improvements that we call for in this legislation include mandating the FAA complete a rulemaking on flight time limits and rest requirements for pilots; improving safety for helicopter emergency medical service operations; addressing inconsistent application of FAA air worthiness directives by improving the voluntary disclosure reporting processes to ensure adequate actions are taken in response to reports; and limiting the ability of FAA inspectors to work for air carriers over which they have oversight; also conducting independent reviews of safety issues identified by employees; requiring enhanced safety oversight of foreign repair stations; taking steps to ensure ``one level of safety'' exists in commercial aircraft operations, including a mandate that all carriers adopt the Aviation Safety Action Programs and Flight Operational Quality Assurance Programs.

This legislation would also require air carriers to examine a pilot's history for the past 10 years when considering hiring an individual, and annual reporting on the implementation of NTSB recommendations and reevaluating flight crew training, testing, and certification requirements.

Another priority and centerpiece of this bill is focusing on and expediting the FAA's air traffic control modernization program, known as NextGen. The FAA operates the largest and safest air traffic control system in the world. In fact, the FAA air traffic control system handles almost half the world's air traffic activity. The United States is a leader in developing and implementing new technologies to create a safer, more efficient airspace system.

However, today's air traffic control system is not much different from that used in the 1960s. This system is still fundamentally based on radar tracking and ground-based infrastructure. NextGen will move much of the air traffic control infrastructure from ground-based to satellite-based by replacing antiquated, costly ground infrastructure with orbiting satellites and onboard automation. By doing so, the FAA will be able to make our aviation system more safe and efficient while also increasing capacity.

Some of the modernization provisions in the bill include establishing clear deadlines for the adoption of existing global positioning system navigation technology.

Airports: Finally, the bill would also increase our Nation's investment in 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. Our Senate legislation is different from the House-passed bill in several areas.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on the bill this week. If we are able, and I hope we are, to pass a bipartisan, commonsense FAA reauthorization bill, we will still have a long way to go. But it will be an important step toward improving our aviation system and improving aviation safety for the millions of air passengers who should expect no less from this Congress.

I do hope we are able to keep the bill pretty much intact. I know there are amendments that some Members will have. I urge Members who do have amendments to come to the floor and begin to let us see their amendments so they can offer them and we can begin to address the amendments and try to expedite the bill as much as possible.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today that is intended to chart what I believe to be the proper course for the future of the nation's human space flight programs. This bill would provide an alternative to the Administration's proposed course of ending the government role in Human Space Flight and avoid the complete reliance on other nations or an as-yet-unproven commercial capability to launch American astronauts and scientists into space. It would also reaffirm the goals of moving beyond low-earth orbit and restore the kind of exciting vision that will help inspire young people to excel in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. The bill echoes the decision of the Obama administration to support the International Space Station, ISS, through at least the year 2020, as we endorsed in our NASA Authorization Act, passed in 2008. But the administration's proposal does nothing to ensure that we can fully maintain and utilize the space station, especially during the next 5 years. This bill would correct that, and ensure that full use of the space station is not an empty promise.

Since the release of the fiscal year 2010 Budget last year, the future of human space flight programs has been in question. As part of that Budget Request, the administration announced it would establish an independent review panel, chaired by my good friend Mr. Norman Augustine, to review U.S. Human Space Flight Plans and provide options for how those programs should proceed in the future.

The Augustine Panel completed its review in late August of last year, and provided its Summary Report to NASA, the White House, and the Congress on September 8, 2009. Shortly thereafter, the Subcommittee on Science and Space of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held a hearing on the report with Mr. Augustine appearing as our witness. The Augustine Panel released its full report at the end of September, and we have all been awaiting the response of the Obama administration to the report.

When the fiscal year 2010 Budget was submitted in 2009, the budget request for Exploration Systems included a notation that the amount requested was a ``placeholder'' number, and that, once the Human Space Flight Plans Review Committee completed its work, the Administration would submit an amended budget request to support the programmatic decisions made as a result of that report. That never happened. Instead, the response to the Augustine Panel Report was left to the fiscal year 2011 Budget request, which we received on February 1st. Because of the administration's failure to offer a budgetary blueprint until the fiscal year 2011 budget, we will now experience yet another year's delay in undertaking the steps necessary to advance beyond the uncertainty about the future of human space flight programs that prompted the review.

The Augustine Panel provided five basic options for consideration, with an additional two options that were modifications of these five basic options. The Augustine Panel thus provided a total of seven approaches that could be taken to ensure America's continued leadership in space--to establish a space program ``worthy of a great nation,'' as suggested by the title of their final report. None of those options leapt out as the obvious, consensus answer to the mix of vehicle development options and strategies necessary to meet the challenges of the next generation of human space flight. There was, however, a clear consensus on two important points.

First, the Panel found that, without a significant increase in the total amount of funding made available to NASA, none of the options presented could be expected to succeed--including the current plans and programs for developing the Ares 1 and Ares V launch vehicles and the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle. The Panel's conclusion underscored what we in the authorizing committees have been saying for the past five years, and which formed the basis for the funding levels that we authorized in both our 2005 and 2008 NASA Authorization Acts, which would have led to a more timely and successful level of development for the vehicles to replace the space shuttle systems. The Bush administration, however, simply never requested that level of funding. In fact, the prior Administration even reduced the level of funding for those programs that had been projected in the run-out estimates included in the fiscal year 2005 Budget Request, which initiated the ``Vision for Exploration'' announced by President Bush on January 14, 2004.

Second, the Panel recommended that a decision be made to formally extend U.S. plans to operate and utilize the ISS through at least the year 2020. This was also consistent with guidance the authorizing committees provided in the 2008 NASA Authorization Act, where we directed NASA to take no steps to preclude operations of ISS through at least 2020, and directed the Agency to provide a plan which would outline how they would prepare to support and utilize the space station for that extended period of time. Up to that point, NASA's internal planning--and budget guidance from the Office of Management and Budget--was to cease operations aboard the space station in 2015, just five years after its assembly and outfitting would finally be completed by the remaining space shuttle flights.

Some of the good news in the fiscal year 2011 Budget Request is that the Obama administration agrees with the need to continue supporting the space station to at least 2020, and to expand and increase its utilization for research. That is welcome news. The problem is that the request does not provide the means to ensure that the extension and full utilization of the space station can be realized.

It is worth noting that after the budget reductions were made for Exploration in the 2006 Budget Request, the number of flights planned to complete space station assembly were reduced--at the direction of OMB for purely budgetary reasons--from 28 remaining flights to 17 flights, plus an optional added flight to conduct a final mission to service the Hubble Space Telescope. The effect of those reductions was to force NASA to change the planned payloads for those remaining 17 flights to try to accommodate the most important spare parts and replacement parts from the 10 ``cancelled'' flights, for ensuring the safe and effective operation and utilization of the station. Ten flights' worth of flight-ready payloads--averaging between 40,000 to 50,000 pounds per flight--were essentially relegated to storage warehouses where most of them remain today, ready to fly, ready to use, but with no guaranteed ``ticket to ride'' to be of any use to the station. Over 1,400 parts and pieces of equipment, Mr. President! What is most important to remember, is that the decisions about which instruments and equipment to swap into the remaining flights were based on the internal assumption of the need to support the ISS through 2015--not through 2020.

The result of this is that we do not know how many, or which, of those ``grounded payload'' items might actually be needed in order to ensure the station can be supported and maintained until 2020. Not only that, we do not know which, or how many, of them are simply too large or too heavy to be carried to orbit by any existing vehicle other than the space shuttle. And finally, we do not know what additional items might need to be ordered, manufactured and delivered in the future, or what launch vehicle capacity will be needed to deliver them to the station.

This is not the way a great nation should conduct its civil space program. This is not the way to ensure that a decision and pronouncement to continue operations through 2020 will not become an empty gesture due to the deterioration, damage, or failure of equipment and systems vital to providing the oxygen, water, power to make the ISS habitable and to support scientific research in the period following 2015.

This is just one example of the type of considerations that preparations that the Obama administration appears to have ignored while preparing its response to the Augustine panel Report. It is an issue I propose to address, among many, in the legislation being introduced today.

Since last May, when the President announced the appointment of a Committee to review U.S. Human Space Flight Plans, we have all been waiting for clear policy direction based on the report of that Committee, which was released in late September. Throughout that time, at my direction, my committee staff carefully followed the public meetings and briefings of the Augustine panel, and considered the implications of the various options discussed and eventually included in the panel's final report.

In the course of that ongoing review, as well as our Committee hearing last September, I began forming my own conclusions about the correct path for the future of U.S. human space flight programs, as is my responsibility as the Ranking Republican on the policy and oversight committee for NASA. The key factors driving my position regarding that path forward have been: the need to maintain U.S. leadership in space exploration, which I believe is essential to our economic and national security; the need to ensure we do not lose the skills, expertise and industrial capacity that are necessary to conduct space exploration; the need to ensure, as our Committee has in the previous two NASA Authorization bills we have developed and seen enacted into law, that NASA has both a balanced range of activities across its full mission responsibilities, and was authorized the funds needed to carry out that range of activities; and the need to protect--and capitalize on--our massive investment in the ISS, which, along with our international partners, is close to $100 billion. Now that it is almost completed and has a six-person permanent crew, we can begin to conduct the research that we have anticipated all these years during its construction. Research that has the potential to fundamentally change and enhance our understanding of physical processes, vaccine development, and a whole host of other research.

In order to meet those needs, we must first take steps to ensure we do not have an extended period of time during which there is no capability within the United States to launch humans into space, whether to the space station or any other destination. The easiest, most logical and obvious answer in the short term is to continue to use the one launch vehicle that already exists, has a proven history of 98.7 percent probability of success for each mission, and upon which the space station was designed, assuming the shuttle's availability throughout the station's on-orbit lifetime to provide support and maintenance.

Prematurely and voluntarily ending the space shuttle program without a near-term U.S.-built alternative on the horizon simply seems irresponsible, and that is an issue that I believe the Congress must address. While the Space Shuttle will never be completely safe, just as with any vehicle that must carry humans into the harsh environment of space, it is currently flying as safely, if not more safely, than it ever has.

The legislation I am introducing today would ensure that a final decision on the timing of the space shuttle retirement, or even the number of missions it might still be required to fly, would not be made until the issues involved are fully considered and resolved and we are fully convinced that the shuttle's capability is no longer needed. In particular, we must answer the question of how we support, maintain, and fully utilize the ISS, not just in 5 or more years, when any new commercially-developed vehicle might be available, but right now, as we are about to cut the ribbon on it as a finally completed research facility.

I have already mentioned the lack of complete information regarding the ability to adequately ensure the availability and deliverability of spare and replacements parts needed between now and 2020 to keep the space station fully and safely functional. All this is to underscore that the issue of whether to continue flying the shuttle, and the number of additional shuttle flights that are needed, is not simply a matter of shortening the gap between shuttle retirement and the availability of its replacement, or protecting a vitally important workforce. This issue also requires policy makers to understand what the space shuttle can do--and possibly do exclusively in the case of large, heavy replacement systems and structures--to ensure that the promise to extend the ISS to 2020 can actually be fulfilled. We must be certain the ISS can be kept alive and fully functioning over the next 10 years. Again, the administration's Budget Request offers no answers to how we will be able to deliver all the equipment necessary to extend the life of the ISS if the shuttle is not available.

I am also very concerned about the proposal to simply cancel the Constellation programs of Ares 1, the low-earth orbit crew launch vehicle, the Ares V Heavy Lift vehicle for enabling flights beyond low- Earth orbit, and the

Orion Crew Exploration capsule to carry the crews for both of those missions. It is very clear that many of my colleagues are also deeply concerned about this part of the President's budget. I simply believe any decision to terminate those projects needs much more consideration than I believe it has gotten during the preparation of the Obama administration's proposal for NASA.

The approach of the administration--their so-called ``bold new initiative''--is to turn to an entirely new approach based exclusively on the development of commercially-developed crew launch systems. There appears to have been little thought given to how we might leverage the $9 billion already spent on the Constellation vehicles in the identification of potential providers for those commercial systems. I believe that is wasteful and irresponsible and all but guarantees that commercial developments will start from scratch--and therefore take much longer to develop and be much more costly, in the long run, to the American taxpayers.

Another concern with this new approach is that we do not yet have any details about how the $6 billion proposed in the Budget Request for commercial space flight over the next 5 years will be allocated and what it will be expected to support. We don't know whether this will be a collaborative program, creating incentives for matching funding from the private sector, or whether it will represent more of a government subsidy to develop systems for which there may not be a sustainable market for those services beyond what NASA would purchase. I am philosophically and fundamentally opposed to such government subsidies, particularly when it is not clear that taxpayer funding for an approach like this won't have to be followed by even more taxpayer dollars to keep the systems available to meet the needs of the space station, or other government space projects.

The legislation I am proposing will address that issue by directing NASA to consider ``commercial'' options that include the possibility of agreements not only with the ``entrepreneurial'' start-up companies like SpaceX, which represent an exciting but still unproven set of vehicles designed to service a still non-existent commercial market, but also with other, longer-standing and experienced commercial companies. The key aerospace companies with whom NASA currently has development contracts might well be able to jointly develop a new launch system as a modification of their existing contracts under the Constellation program. They could combine their expertise and capability to transition their efforts toward developing a new launch capability based on existing shuttle main engines, external tank manufacturing capability, solid rocket motors, and the Orion crew vehicle. Something like that has been, I am told, a subject of informal conversations among those companies for some time. I believe we need to ensure through legislation that such an alternative will be fully evaluated and considered as one possible approach to the new ``commercial'' space systems development. We have not been given details of this possible approach, because those discussions are apparently still ongoing. But I believe we need to make sure there is a legislative underpinning that would at least allow the full consideration of that approach.

I would not view such an approach as precluding the continued pursuit of the current COTS, Commercial Orbital Transportation Systems, activities being pursued with SpaceX and Orbital Sciences Corporation for cargo delivery services for the Space Station. I have consistently supported that development and believe we should continue to do so. My concern, one I know that of a number of my colleagues share, is to ensure we have redundant and alternative means of providing U.S. human spaceflight capability. If one of those can be more fully commercial in nature, and something that can stand on its own without the taxpayers being responsible for their success, so much the better.

I will be working with my colleagues in the Senate, and reaching out to our counterparts in the House of Representatives, to ensure all of these issues are put on the table for discussion, using the vehicle of this legislation to provide an alternative view to that proposed by the Obama Administration.

This legislation actually tracks closely with the President's request, in terms of the amounts authorized for NASA. It authorizes programs largely at funding levels already enacted for fiscal year 2010, with some very minor exceptions, and at the same base account levels requested by the administration for fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012.

What my legislation adds is the authorization levels necessary to implement the potential continuation of space shuttle flights, at a greatly reduced annual level of flights and associated costs, as well as modest increases in the short-term for the establishment and support of an enterprise to be developed to manage and operate the U.S. National Laboratory.

The greatest difference, as I have indicated, is that this legislation points the way to what I believe is a more measured and reasoned approach that ensures the best use of investments we have already made, provides the Congress and the administration with necessary information to inform our judgments on alternative launch vehicle developments, and provides a means of avoiding severe economic dislocations in the aerospace industry and the highly skilled and dedicated workforce that has provided the capability for this nation to be the world leader in space exploration.

I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today that is intended to chart what I believe to be the proper course for the future of the nation's human space flight programs. This bill would provide an alternative to the Administration's proposed course of ending the government role in Human Space Flight and avoid the complete reliance on other nations or an as-yet-unproven commercial capability to launch American astronauts and scientists into space. It would also reaffirm the goals of moving beyond low-earth orbit and restore the kind of exciting vision that will help inspire young people to excel in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. The bill echoes the decision of the Obama administration to support the International Space Station, ISS, through at least the year 2020, as we endorsed in our NASA Authorization Act, passed in 2008. But the administration's proposal does nothing to ensure that we can fully maintain and utilize the space station, especially during the next 5 years. This bill would correct that, and ensure that full use of the space station is not an empty promise.

Since the release of the fiscal year 2010 Budget last year, the future of human space flight programs has been in question. As part of that Budget Request, the administration announced it would establish an independent review panel, chaired by my good friend Mr. Norman Augustine, to review U.S. Human Space Flight Plans and provide options for how those programs should proceed in the future.

The Augustine Panel completed its review in late August of last year, and provided its Summary Report to NASA, the White House, and the Congress on September 8, 2009. Shortly thereafter, the Subcommittee on Science and Space of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held a hearing on the report with Mr. Augustine appearing as our witness. The Augustine Panel released its full report at the end of September, and we have all been awaiting the response of the Obama administration to the report.

When the fiscal year 2010 Budget was submitted in 2009, the budget request for Exploration Systems included a notation that the amount requested was a ``placeholder'' number, and that, once the Human Space Flight Plans Review Committee completed its work, the Administration would submit an amended budget request to support the programmatic decisions made as a result of that report. That never happened. Instead, the response to the Augustine Panel Report was left to the fiscal year 2011 Budget request, which we received on February 1st. Because of the administration's failure to offer a budgetary blueprint until the fiscal year 2011 budget, we will now experience yet another year's delay in undertaking the steps necessary to advance beyond the uncertainty about the future of human space flight programs that prompted the review.

The Augustine Panel provided five basic options for consideration, with an additional two options that were modifications of these five basic options. The Augustine Panel thus provided a total of seven approaches that could be taken to ensure America's continued leadership in space--to establish a space program ``worthy of a great nation,'' as suggested by the title of their final report. None of those options leapt out as the obvious, consensus answer to the mix of vehicle development options and strategies necessary to meet the challenges of the next generation of human space flight. There was, however, a clear consensus on two important points.

First, the Panel found that, without a significant increase in the total amount of funding made available to NASA, none of the options presented could be expected to succeed--including the current plans and programs for developing the Ares 1 and Ares V launch vehicles and the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle. The Panel's conclusion underscored what we in the authorizing committees have been saying for the past five years, and which formed the basis for the funding levels that we authorized in both our 2005 and 2008 NASA Authorization Acts, which would have led to a more timely and successful level of development for the vehicles to replace the space shuttle systems. The Bush administration, however, simply never requested that level of funding. In fact, the prior Administration even reduced the level of funding for those programs that had been projected in the run-out estimates included in the fiscal year 2005 Budget Request, which initiated the ``Vision for Exploration'' announced by President Bush on January 14, 2004.

Second, the Panel recommended that a decision be made to formally extend U.S. plans to operate and utilize the ISS through at least the year 2020. This was also consistent with guidance the authorizing committees provided in the 2008 NASA Authorization Act, where we directed NASA to take no steps to preclude operations of ISS through at least 2020, and directed the Agency to provide a plan which would outline how they would prepare to support and utilize the space station for that extended period of time. Up to that point, NASA's internal planning--and budget guidance from the Office of Management and Budget--was to cease operations aboard the space station in 2015, just five years after its assembly and outfitting would finally be completed by the remaining space shuttle flights.

Some of the good news in the fiscal year 2011 Budget Request is that the Obama administration agrees with the need to continue supporting the space station to at least 2020, and to expand and increase its utilization for research. That is welcome news. The problem is that the request does not provide the means to ensure that the extension and full utilization of the space station can be realized.

It is worth noting that after the budget reductions were made for Exploration in the 2006 Budget Request, the number of flights planned to complete space station assembly were reduced--at the direction of OMB for purely budgetary reasons--from 28 remaining flights to 17 flights, plus an optional added flight to conduct a final mission to service the Hubble Space Telescope. The effect of those reductions was to force NASA to change the planned payloads for those remaining 17 flights to try to accommodate the most important spare parts and replacement parts from the 10 ``cancelled'' flights, for ensuring the safe and effective operation and utilization of the station. Ten flights' worth of flight-ready payloads--averaging between 40,000 to 50,000 pounds per flight--were essentially relegated to storage warehouses where most of them remain today, ready to fly, ready to use, but with no guaranteed ``ticket to ride'' to be of any use to the station. Over 1,400 parts and pieces of equipment, Mr. President! What is most important to remember, is that the decisions about which instruments and equipment to swap into the remaining flights were based on the internal assumption of the need to support the ISS through 2015--not through 2020.

The result of this is that we do not know how many, or which, of those ``grounded payload'' items might actually be needed in order to ensure the station can be supported and maintained until 2020. Not only that, we do not know which, or how many, of them are simply too large or too heavy to be carried to orbit by any existing vehicle other than the space shuttle. And finally, we do not know what additional items might need to be ordered, manufactured and delivered in the future, or what launch vehicle capacity will be needed to deliver them to the station.

This is not the way a great nation should conduct its civil space program. This is not the way to ensure that a decision and pronouncement to continue operations through 2020 will not become an empty gesture due to the deterioration, damage, or failure of equipment and systems vital to providing the oxygen, water, power to make the ISS habitable and to support scientific research in the period following 2015.

This is just one example of the type of considerations that preparations that the Obama administration appears to have ignored while preparing its response to the Augustine panel Report. It is an issue I propose to address, among many, in the legislation being introduced today.

Since last May, when the President announced the appointment of a Committee to review U.S. Human Space Flight Plans, we have all been waiting for clear policy direction based on the report of that Committee, which was released in late September. Throughout that time, at my direction, my committee staff carefully followed the public meetings and briefings of the Augustine panel, and considered the implications of the various options discussed and eventually included in the panel's final report.

In the course of that ongoing review, as well as our Committee hearing last September, I began forming my own conclusions about the correct path for the future of U.S. human space flight programs, as is my responsibility as the Ranking Republican on the policy and oversight committee for NASA. The key factors driving my position regarding that path forward have been: the need to maintain U.S. leadership in space exploration, which I believe is essential to our economic and national security; the need to ensure we do not lose the skills, expertise and industrial capacity that are necessary to conduct space exploration; the need to ensure, as our Committee has in the previous two NASA Authorization bills we have developed and seen enacted into law, that NASA has both a balanced range of activities across its full mission responsibilities, and was authorized the funds needed to carry out that range of activities; and the need to protect--and capitalize on--our massive investment in the ISS, which, along with our international partners, is close to $100 billion. Now that it is almost completed and has a six-person permanent crew, we can begin to conduct the research that we have anticipated all these years during its construction. Research that has the potential to fundamentally change and enhance our understanding of physical processes, vaccine development, and a whole host of other research.

In order to meet those needs, we must first take steps to ensure we do not have an extended period of time during which there is no capability within the United States to launch humans into space, whether to the space station or any other destination. The easiest, most logical and obvious answer in the short term is to continue to use the one launch vehicle that already exists, has a proven history of 98.7 percent probability of success for each mission, and upon which the space station was designed, assuming the shuttle's availability throughout the station's on-orbit lifetime to provide support and maintenance.

Prematurely and voluntarily ending the space shuttle program without a near-term U.S.-built alternative on the horizon simply seems irresponsible, and that is an issue that I believe the Congress must address. While the Space Shuttle will never be completely safe, just as with any vehicle that must carry humans into the harsh environment of space, it is currently flying as safely, if not more safely, than it ever has.

The legislation I am introducing today would ensure that a final decision on the timing of the space shuttle retirement, or even the number of missions it might still be required to fly, would not be made until the issues involved are fully considered and resolved and we are fully convinced that the shuttle's capability is no longer needed. In particular, we must answer the question of how we support, maintain, and fully utilize the ISS, not just in 5 or more years, when any new commercially-developed vehicle might be available, but right now, as we are about to cut the ribbon on it as a finally completed research facility.

I have already mentioned the lack of complete information regarding the ability to adequately ensure the availability and deliverability of spare and replacements parts needed between now and 2020 to keep the space station fully and safely functional. All this is to underscore that the issue of whether to continue flying the shuttle, and the number of additional shuttle flights that are needed, is not simply a matter of shortening the gap between shuttle retirement and the availability of its replacement, or protecting a vitally important workforce. This issue also requires policy makers to understand what the space shuttle can do--and possibly do exclusively in the case of large, heavy replacement systems and structures--to ensure that the promise to extend the ISS to 2020 can actually be fulfilled. We must be certain the ISS can be kept alive and fully functioning over the next 10 years. Again, the administration's Budget Request offers no answers to how we will be able to deliver all the equipment necessary to extend the life of the ISS if the shuttle is not available.

I am also very concerned about the proposal to simply cancel the Constellation programs of Ares 1, the low-earth orbit crew launch vehicle, the Ares V Heavy Lift vehicle for enabling flights beyond low- Earth orbit, and the

Orion Crew Exploration capsule to carry the crews for both of those missions. It is very clear that many of my colleagues are also deeply concerned about this part of the President's budget. I simply believe any decision to terminate those projects needs much more consideration than I believe it has gotten during the preparation of the Obama administration's proposal for NASA.

The approach of the administration--their so-called ``bold new initiative''--is to turn to an entirely new approach based exclusively on the development of commercially-developed crew launch systems. There appears to have been little thought given to how we might leverage the $9 billion already spent on the Constellation vehicles in the identification of potential providers for those commercial systems. I believe that is wasteful and irresponsible and all but guarantees that commercial developments will start from scratch--and therefore take much longer to develop and be much more costly, in the long run, to the American taxpayers.

Another concern with this new approach is that we do not yet have any details about how the $6 billion proposed in the Budget Request for commercial space flight over the next 5 years will be allocated and what it will be expected to support. We don't know whether this will be a collaborative program, creating incentives for matching funding from the private sector, or whether it will represent more of a government subsidy to develop systems for which there may not be a sustainable market for those services beyond what NASA would purchase. I am philosophically and fundamentally opposed to such government subsidies, particularly when it is not clear that taxpayer funding for an approach like this won't have to be followed by even more taxpayer dollars to keep the systems available to meet the needs of the space station, or other government space projects.

The legislation I am proposing will address that issue by directing NASA to consider ``commercial'' options that include the possibility of agreements not only with the ``entrepreneurial'' start-up companies like SpaceX, which represent an exciting but still unproven set of vehicles designed to service a still non-existent commercial market, but also with other, longer-standing and experienced commercial companies. The key aerospace companies with whom NASA currently has development contracts might well be able to jointly develop a new launch system as a modification of their existing contracts under the Constellation program. They could combine their expertise and capability to transition their efforts toward developing a new launch capability based on existing shuttle main engines, external tank manufacturing capability, solid rocket motors, and the Orion crew vehicle. Something like that has been, I am told, a subject of informal conversations among those companies for some time. I believe we need to ensure through legislation that such an alternative will be fully evaluated and considered as one possible approach to the new ``commercial'' space systems development. We have not been given details of this possible approach, because those discussions are apparently still ongoing. But I believe we need to make sure there is a legislative underpinning that would at least allow the full consideration of that approach.

I would not view such an approach as precluding the continued pursuit of the current COTS, Commercial Orbital Transportation Systems, activities being pursued with SpaceX and Orbital Sciences Corporation for cargo delivery services for the Space Station. I have consistently supported that development and believe we should continue to do so. My concern, one I know that of a number of my colleagues share, is to ensure we have redundant and alternative means of providing U.S. human spaceflight capability. If one of those can be more fully commercial in nature, and something that can stand on its own without the taxpayers being responsible for their success, so much the better.

I will be working with my colleagues in the Senate, and reaching out to our counterparts in the House of Representatives, to ensure all of these issues are put on the table for discussion, using the vehicle of this legislation to provide an alternative view to that proposed by the Obama Administration.

This legislation actually tracks closely with the President's request, in terms of the amounts authorized for NASA. It authorizes programs largely at funding levels already enacted for fiscal year 2010, with some very minor exceptions, and at the same base account levels requested by the administration for fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012.

What my legislation adds is the authorization levels necessary to implement the potential continuation of space shuttle flights, at a greatly reduced annual level of flights and associated costs, as well as modest increases in the short-term for the establishment and support of an enterprise to be developed to manage and operate the U.S. National Laboratory.

The greatest difference, as I have indicated, is that this legislation points the way to what I believe is a more measured and reasoned approach that ensures the best use of investments we have already made, provides the Congress and the administration with necessary information to inform our judgments on alternative launch vehicle developments, and provides a means of avoiding severe economic dislocations in the aerospace industry and the highly skilled and dedicated workforce that has provided the capability for this nation to be the world leader in space exploration.

I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the nomination of the Honorable Ben Bernanke to be Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

I am somewhat conflicted about Dr. Bernanke's nomination for a second term as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Our Nation's economy is still reeling from a significant downturn, during which home values plummeted and foreclosures rapidly increased, wreaking havoc on our financial system. Markets tumbled, banks and businesses failed, and millions of jobs were lost. Ultimately, the American people have borne the brunt of this recession, watching jobs, homes, and life savings vanish, while seeing their hard-earned tax dollars bail out the bad actors that caused it.

That being said, the financial crisis could have been worse. It could have turned into a depression. So far, we are not there. I believe some of what Dr. Bernanke did was good. He is an expert on the Great Depression. He unleashed an arsenal of financial tools to combat the recession, he tried to inject liquidity into the financial sector, and did much to try to keep our markets afloat. While I commend him for that, I am very concerned about some of the precedent that has been set in this crisis.

I am especially troubled by the continuing expansion of TARP. Almost immediately after its passage, the Treasury Department deviated from the intent of the program. Instead of

purchasing troubled assets, which we were told would be the purpose, the Treasury purchased equity stakes in over 300 of our Nation's financial institutions. It expanded the TARP to nonfinancial companies, pouring billions into AIG, General Motors, and Chrysler.

We must begin the effort to wind down TARP. With banks paying back their TARP receipts, we need to unwind TARP and pay down the deficit. Although some have suggested TARP is a revolving fund, the legislation was never sold as such--not ever. Americans are tired of excessive spending. If there is anything we ought to do right now, it is to stop spending TARP and stimulus funds that are not allocated and show the American people we have heard the message in Washington.

TARP was designed as a one-time injection of assistance to prevent financial institutions from collapsing and taking down the larger economy. Now that those financial institutions have gained their footing, we should pay back the American taxpayer. In bailing out our Nation's financial system and large banks, we have left the very real impression that no bank is too big to fail. This policy has allowed those who contributed to bringing our economy to its knees to right their ship at taxpayers' expense. It has helped these institutions access cheap capital from the government, adversely affecting safe and sound institutions such as community banks.

I am also concerned about the path our country is on in our recovery. In September, Chairman Bernanke said our recession was over. While our economy may be recovering, many Americans do not see it. At 10 percent, our national unemployment is still extraordinarily high, despite huge spending measures such as the stimulus package, which was supposed to create jobs. The debt and deficits our Nation has incurred over the past 2 years has sent our Nation's debt on an unsustainable trajectory.

Our debt is at $12.394 trillion. Earlier today, the Senate voted to once again raise the ceiling by an astonishing almost $2 trillion, the fifth time to do so in 18 months.

Under Chairman Bernanke's leadership, I do not think the Fed has paid enough attention to--nor has he talked enough about--the mounting debt and the immense burden it is going to place on our economy today and certainly on our children and grandchildren.

Fiscal sustainability is not on the horizon. Instead, we see endless spending as far as the eye can see: health care reform, cap-and-trade energy legislation, a possible second stimulus. All will be huge government programs which will not only raise our government spending but raise costs on individuals and businesses in the form of new taxes and mandates. I am concerned about the consequences this increase in spending will have on our economy.

I will not support Chairman Bernanke's nomination. I am conflicted, as some of the things he did were good, but his actions to save our economy have helped set a very dangerous precedent for the future. The precedent of massive spending is not the answer.

I will continue to examine the Fed's exit strategy and will most certainly encourage further action from Chairman Bernanke on our debt and our Nation's finances.

I yield the floor.