research and education programs that will help us win the future. at its core nasa's vision remains fundamentally the same as it always has been; to reach for new heights and reveal the unknown so that what we do and what we learn will benefit all humankind. but now we carry out this mission in fulfillment of our vision with a new, with a renewed commitment to focusing on what we do best while empowering today's innovators and entrepreneurs to carry out the rest. even in these difficult fiscal times the budget supports all elements of the bipartisan nasa authorization act of 2010 and carries out our national goals of outinnovating, outeducating and outbuilding the rest of the world. because these are tough fiscal times, tough choices had to be made. our number one priority is

safely flying out the shuttle and maintaining the safety and well being of the american astronauts currently living and working in space and those, like mark kelly and his sts-134 shuttle crew members, who are training to serve this nation on the frontiers of tomorrow. the president's fiscal year 2012 budget funds the diverse array of human space flight programs that maximize our use of current capabilities such as the international space station, facilitate innovative approaches to insure u.s. leadership in lower earth orbit and position us to explore frontiers of deep space. taken together, these human space flight initiatives will maintain our leadership in space for generations to come. ..

that is why this budget boosts funding for our partnership with the commercial space industries and prioritizes our efforts to ensure that american astronauts and the cargo they need are transported by american companies rather than continuing to outsource this work to foreign governments. this approach in getting crews and cargo into orbit will create good jobs and expand opportunities for our american

economy. if we are to win the future and outbuild our competitive is it is essential that we make this program a success. we make a responsible choice to fund full pension liability of the united states. not only is it contractually required but it is the right thing to do. these workers have supported our flagship program, the space shuttle, as well as the international space station and other missions, heart and soul for many years. in addition to supporting the iss and commercial crew to sustain leadership in lower for but we need to address these two primary areas. the flight system to take us beyond a low earth orbit including a deep space crew vehicle and an evolve heavy lift rocket. key research and technologies to enable the long term into deep space. the budget funds work in these critical areas. the heavy lift rocket and crew

vehicle are crucial to explore all of our beyond earth destinations. we need to get started on them now. nasa is actively pursuing the space launch system and multi-purpose crew vehicle and will release plans for them late this spring. our destinations for humans be onerous have not changed. among them of the moon, asteroids and mars. we prioritize the systems, research and technology for deep space to enable logical sequence of human exploration missions. these difficult fiscal times and we have long-term challenges that will not be addressed in any single year. the bipartisan agreement reached will begin to focus on them in this budget. this budget provides many new milestones in scientific discoveries. both new missions and ongoing

support for the many space anderson observatory's successfully carrying out their work now. in fact this evening we expect to receive new images of, temple one from our stardust spacecraft. this innovative and cost-effective reuse of an existing space craft will allow scientists for the first time to look for changes on a, surface that follow its orbit around the sun. you saw this approach last november with the mission's encounter with, partly to. the kepler space telescope continues to find new planets orbiting other sons. later the messenger spacecraft will arrive at mercury. the mars science laboratory is set to launch early in 2012 taking the most advanced payload of scientific gear every used to

the surface of mars. the president has responsibly invested in a nasa of the future and we are proud to be part of our nation's reinvigorated research technology and innovation agenda. nasa technology investments will stimulate the economy and build america's global economic competitiveness through the creation of new products and services, new business and industry and high-quality sustainable jobs. by investing in high payoff, high risk technology that we cannot tackle today nasa matures technology required for its future missions while proving the capabilities and lowering the cost of other government and commercial space activities. through these technological investments nasa and our nation will remain on the cutting edge and outinnovate all of our competitors. our work is not without challenges and it will take a

lot of effort in all of nasa's problem-solving skills to meet them. delivering a space launch system and multi-purpose crew vehicle that are affordable and fit within the guidelines established by congress and the president in order to meet our nation's exploration goals is not an easy task but it is a task we must achieve to maintain u.s. leadership in technology and exploration. remember, here and as we don't drive on easy. nasa does the hard stuff. among the ways we're looking at addressing these challenges are innovative and acquisition approaches that may include transition of current contracts as well as increased competition to reduce development costs. this year we learned some hard lessons. the report we requested on the james webb space telescope

piloted the ongoing problems of this flag ship mission. we have faced the fact and made corrections. i am confident we are the right path as we focus on improved budget management. we will continue this vigilance in nasa's other missions also. as we made in the upcoming juneau and grail which are on schedule. we are focused on bringing about a leader -- more responsive nasa. we are going to live within our means and responsive reinvest in the future. we are going to manage our programs better and look for new ways of doing business. and the human space flight center is in the coming months to align our workforce numbers and skills without requirements. but each of our centers will benefit from revitalization plans that will help us beat better stewards of our community, bake the use of our

infrastructure and help us beat the president's clean energy goals. we have released our strategic plan today in tandem with this budget. outlines the court vision, mission and values we will adhere to as we make necessary changes to perform at higher levels and do the big things you all expect of us. despite the challenges this budget sets ambitious but achievable goals about america's continued leadership in space and science exploration. goals that implement a rare bipartisan agreement on how this mission is investing its future success. in order to win the future, we must adopteducation, outinnovate and outbuild everyone of our competitors and at nasa we are at the forefront of this bold

endeavour. here to go over specific details of our 2012 but i wanted to introduce nasa's chief financial officer, dr. beth robinson. >> can everyone here me? i will be taking you through a presentation which will show up on the screen here. there we are. this is the cover of our budget which you see on the web and in hard copy. on the cover is the international space station. you heard charlie talk about how it is the centerpiece of this budget and humanity's presence in space. next slide. we also released our strategic plan, here's a copy in hard copy and you can get it on the web and a new vision statement that he also quoted which is written here to reach for new heights and reveal the unknown so that

what we do and learn will benefit all mankind. next slide. turning back to the 2012 budget. the budget provides $18.7 billion for net asset in 2012 which should be a familiar number to those of you who follow nasa budgets. it is the number we had in the fiscal year 10 appropriation and the number we are currently living with. the budget supports all the major elements of the nasa authorization act including development of a heavy lift launch vehicle and the space crew vehicle and aligns with the president's priority of innovation, education and infrastructure. as charlie mentioned we need to make some tough choices including reductions to earth science and administrative costs, elimination of exploration focused robotic programs and maintaining the heavy lift vehicle and crew

capsule at approximately the 2011 levels. throughout all those decisionmaking, we prioritize investments in the international space station and the safety of our astronauts on the station and going to and from. next slide. i have tried to capture all the highlights in one slide but this is nasa so we will have two slides of highlights because we do so much. we maintain the nation's commitment to the international space station which is our national laboratory and exploration platform in space and a place where nations come together in a common pursuit as they're doing right now as we speak. to provide safe and reliable and cost-effective access to station we are embracing a partnership with the commercial space industry and we also hope has to develop capabilities we can lessen our reliance on foreign services. we are developing a heavy lift rocket's crew capsule to carry explore is beyond lower court

and investing in research and technology that enables that exploration. many of you know there are significant technological hurdles we haven't overcome in order to put humans on long duration space flight and as we saw in the video we are following capabilities driven approach where as we develop those capabilities and conquered those hurdles we will proceed to the destination they allow us to do. para destination's remain the same they were last year which is the mellon, asteroidoon, astd other environments. there was a recent discovery by our scientific programs following national and science

community priorities. we are also investing in high-risk technology the kind that industry can't tackle alone, hoping to transform the nation's capabilities for exploring and utilizing space in the future. we are conducting -- with increased focus on aviation safety and air space efficiency and reducing environmental impact. you know that our aeronautics program is aligned with the next gen and other agency collaborations' and this is another year they will be contributing to that important cost cutting work. all of us who work at nasa are blessed in that what we do helps develop and inspire people, adults as well as the next generation through focus on stem education and all the work our mission do. finally, as charlie stressed this budget will focus on long-term affordability and

efficiency through right sizing and renewing nasa capabilities and infrastructure and we want to be very responsible in our clothes out of programs. in the case of the shuttle we do owe a top payment for pension of the workers who have worked their for so many years and it is contractually required and we are happy to pay it because it is important that those workers can transition to other careers with a strong financial footing. next slide. in the budget takes place in a context. perhaps the context this year is a little more complicated than others but as always, accommodation of internal and external factors. internal and external factors are we don't know what is happening in funding levels in 2011. the agency is proceeding in all of its programs. commitments to life cycle costs are likely to be impacted by

whatever we get in 2011. internal consideration management consideration but also budget consolidation and decided the account structure we had in place would serve us well through 2012 so you will still see space operations and explorations in account. as i am sure you heard already if you follow the rollout of the president's budget our funding options on notional. in a time of fiscal austerity nasa has accepted the challenge -- those who look it detail in the president's budget you will knows nasa's out years don't match but that is the level we were given by the office of management and budget. the president's plan says

they're notional but needs to have out years to plan its mission. everything we do takes six or seven years so we need a planning assumption which is topped line and each account you will see that reflected in slides to come. finally as a our portfolio is migrating to the nasa authorization act portfolio there are a number of changes in the project level. nasa has been operating under a full cost methodology where we allocate labor to the project that use them. this is something we will continue but in the execution, the year where we spend the money we want to consolidate labor into a specific allocation in each account. that will allow us to more efficiently a sign labor from project to project and you can

imagine project portfolios turning over, difficult to manage every single person every two weeks for government a cycle and so we hope it will be more efficient and allow us to focus on strategic work force and provide funding stability for our civilian civil service. they deserve to see the funding for them and they will see it in the details of the budget. next slide. this slide is entirely too small to read but you will see it. there are a couple things i would like to point out. everything adds up. as we go through wine by line one might lose that picture. everything winds up. another feature you will see in the detail of our budget is how we present 2011. in 2011 we are operating under see our so those controls are at

the account level. we are also operating with the authorization act. we have to mary both of those laws. you will see this display both in this budget so that you can use them as comparison. next slide. this slide is very busy, but i would like to point out the bottom part of the chart which goes out from 2010 to 2020, shows all of the launches we're doing and nasa is planning a robust launch schedule throughout this decade of science missions the personal exploration missions, we have a lot to do. next slide. as we go through program by program the first is earth science. in 2012 we requested $1.8 billion for earth science to support the launch of ndp.

we took reductions in earth science affecting the speed with which we put the next generation of missions in space. i would like to make a note you will see that these are not flat for delegation the areas where we have life cycle missions costs that we have committed to we have allowed and planned for them in the budget under a top line for science that is flat. in other programs we see that it is flat because we have not made a life cycle commitment that we need to make sure to plan for. next slide. i am not going to read all of these slides. you can find them on the web at nasa.gov. they do contain some details.

hopefully this will contain more details. planetary science, we have requested $1 billion, on the video we're launching the science laboratory in fall. it aligns the portfolio with those results. next slide. astrophysics, those of you familiar with numbers, these will look small. the reason is in the wake of the report, james webb telescope report, that project will be reporting directly to -- we

change the budget. this is what remains in the portfolio. in this area emphasize core research with explore her mission, and continuing the work we have an existing projects. we are terminating work on the joint dark energy missions, using the results for astrophysics. we are pursuing a number of potential missions. the premier missions, we are pursuing that. we are looking at collaboration with european space agency on their mission. while we are formulating the path toward euclid and w.first

we are not reflecting it in the budget. we expect to have that by next year in 2013. here is the james webb telescope. the independent review, and we are looking into that. charlie has gone ahead and followed recommendations on changing the management approach. this funding level will provide stability and for all the other science projects in 2012. in this spring we are developing a revised profile or revised cost scheduled profile that will

bury the out years, 2013 and beyond. we will communicate about that this summer and reflect a profile in the 2013 budget. i want to say that in the midst of all of this the project, technical achievements have been stupendous. they produce mirrors and infrared sensors. is going along even with all of this uncertainty. next slide. helio physics, this was funded at 6:22 -- 6 ended $22 million in 2012. this is fairly stable. the major change is we have added an explorer missions election in 2012. that was in line with recommendations of the astrophysics detail. next slide. another feature you won't see reflected directly in our budget is reimburseable work.

we have consolidated our reimburseable work into a budget of its own because we took responsibility for the joint polar satellite system. we wanted to make sure we had the management structure associated with it and it made sense to combine the work we do -- plan to do for noaa and usgs. this division exists but works on a fully reimbursable basis so you won't see the money for it. this is our chance to provide project management and other capabilities to customers around government. next slide. moving on from the science account to the aeronautics account. aeronautics this year is requesting $569 million. there are some changes in the

portfolio to increase research and utilization of advanced ground based technologies and automation. the effect of high altitude crystals, composite structures and materials and utilization of alternative fuels. it continues support for the 2011 new initiatives that we proposed. and another to reduce the environmental impact of aviation. those have not started yet, bidding for completion of fiscal year 2011 appropriations they are fully funded in 2012. to make these adjustments we have refocused the hypersonic project and focus them on foundational research. next slide. space technology was a new feature as a separate entity in the 2011 budget and we continue

here. there have been some notable changes. one is we have transferred part of the exploration portfolio from exploration to space technology to provide this energy. and essentially $1 billion we requested. also, spr are funded at $187 million. this program funds advancements in innovation and tries to advance the next generation technology on a broad range area, useful to nasa and other agencies and focus on communications sensors, robotic, and uses our more novel funding mechanisms. next slide. moving to the exploration systems account.

exploration systems has three major components in it. the first is what we call the human exploration capability and we have requested $2.8 million for that. this is where we find a space launch system and multi-purpose crew vehicle. we had to make some tough choices. we are choosing to fund a these at approximately the levels in the 2011 levels in the authorization act providing a steady amount of funding. we believe we can make progress at these lift vehicle was the heavy lift vehicle was funded at 2011 -- we have a vehicle design that is shuttled derived. we're still collaborating with study contracts to evaluate that design to see if it is the most cost-effective and efficient approach.

in parallel with those activities we are continuing work on the constellation contract to maximize their contribution. the nestle selected beyond the orion block 2 as the reference vehicle design but we also see -- this me to available funding and will take both of the programs to optimize their development. some final decisions in spring and summer time frame. next slide. the second component is commercial space flight program. our request of $850 million in 2012. this investment will leverages private sector investments to expert the development of u.s.

commercial human spaceflight. it builds off of the success we're having in the coertercial crew development activity that started for covering funds. we believe at this l the suel w support multiple competitive milestone agreements with potential competitors for the eventual service. next slide. as i mentioned there was a part of the exploration technology portfolio that move to the space technology portfolio. this is what remains. the human research program and will we are now calling the advance exploration systems program that contains h 2 her technology readiness level activity protonologpeing life-support, habitation and extravehicular activity. we also had to make the tough choice in eliminating the

exploration focused robotic precursor program but there are some funds here and in science to collaborate to buiu. instruments that will fly on science missions to meet the needs of explore precursor programs. next slide. moving to the space operations account we will fly out the remaining three shuttle missions this year but then continued disposition and property and capabilinolog has to continue f at least two years. ..

>> it will be -- it's now fully operational so it can conduct on experiments and also in looking at improvements to our ability to operate in space and demonstrate new technologies. also here we book the services we need for the supplies and crew services through about 2015 or so, and 9 reason i -- and the reason i say that is --

next slide, this is the state's port. the numbers in the outyears here go up, and that relates to what i was just talking about which dls about $400 million a year here that we have booked to purchase seats going back and forth to the international space station hopefully, and we plan to be from our u.s. commercial partners, and those moneys have to start early because the nature of the agreements is you have to put money down through the three years earlier. also, this account supports space communication and navigation capabilities for all of nasa's missions and also for the other agencies, and we are working with our partners to look at the future of the satellite systems, and we have booked some money in the outyears as well for that. next slide. okay.

education, as was mentioned in the video, we have a core education effort, and then, of course, all of our missions. through the core education effort, we're requesting $238 million in 2012. that contains programs which you're familiar with including our space grant colleges. it will continue our pilot, the summer of innovation which started last year and will be continuing this summer, and this will be the final year, the 2012 year, for that pilot. also, the education team has been working with an outside review called the design team, and they have restructured much of their portfolio to align with those recommendations. next slide. of course, nasa would be nowhere if it didn't have its facilities and its centers, and this is where we fund our infrastructure

base, our nine nasa field centers, and headquarters as well. we have, in 2012, we are maintaining steady funding at 3192 billion, and we are also upping our construction requests to $450 million because we really want to emphasize we're maintaining as well as renewing our infrastructure, and so these are the necessary funds to do that. also, this is where you're going to see much of the administrative cost savings booked. this is where we have accepted the challenge to reduce costs and travel and printing and in other things, and so you'll see the details there. next slide. okay. in summary, this has been a tough year, but we used our priorities as the guides for making all of those tough

choices and flying the international space station and maintaining the health and safety of people on it as our foremost priority. we are also lucky in that there's a bipartisan strait ji laid forward for us in the authorization act in 2010, and this budget fully aligns with that act. thank you. >> all right. we'll start with the question and answer portion of the news conference. we'll start here, headquarters, then to the nasa field centers. limit your questions to a question and then a follow-up. starting here. >> frank with aviation week for charlie. it was said that there's an outyearing the of about $400 million a year for seats to the international space station, and i'm still very curious about how

the business cases close for commercial crew with that kind of market which i think is not even ensured at this point since those are notionble figures. >> frank, i'm not sure what you mean when you say the commercial seats we're purchasing as not assured. it's vital for us if i understand the question correctly. >> attracting the private investment to go for that market. >> okay. a couple things, frangs. our emphasis is safety of the crews both on the way to station while in orbit and then the exploration program. that is a big focus in talking about the fact it's tough fiscal times, and we have to try to keep our spending under control. we find that reliance on the commercial entities to provide that transportation for cargo and crew allows us to decrease the amount of costs that we have

had and historically for infrastructure, day-to-day operations and the like while we go explore, so that's -- that's our real focus. you know, try to help the nation as we try to outeducate, outinnovate, and outbuild everybody. >> it's my understanding these private companies would be paying nasa for the infrastructure that the taxpayers are paying for right nowment again, i repeat the same question. what evidence do you have that there is going to be enough private investment to do that for that market? >> what you mentioned is a hope. you know, in terms of infrastructure, it's our hope we can maximize the unitization of the existing infrastructure. some of the infrastructure will go away in time, but my plea has been to academic to look at the infrastructure in the nation and make sure we utilize it to the

best that we can to get the best bang for your buck. if you're looking at the amount of money nasa invests in commercial crew and cargo, that is an investment. we are a partner in that every denver, so the commercial entities up front are paying quite a bit more than we are, and we're working with them now to steady their business models making sure they have a viable industry from which we can draw. >> ap, in terms of timing here with this budget propose, when would you see the first human mission be in orbit and has that changes because of the budget constraints in when do you see that heavy lift and when do you see the first commercial crew

going with nasa? >> as i said briefly in the numbers, the times today are very difficult fiscally, and we're going to live within a budget. you heard me say the montra, what we do has to be sustainable and make sense. it's too early for me to give you dates. the president and congress have given us dates, and you will see that nasa is being a can-do organization as it is, we want to meet the dates the president and congress gave us. some is putting people on mars by 2030s or putting people on an asteroid in 2025. if we can see our way through working with our industry partners, international partners, those dates may accelerate, but i think what you'll find is what i emphasized.

we're going to have to make small steps so we move incrementally. our goals have not changed at all, but the time will be infliensed by the out-- influenced by the outyear funding. it's premature for me to project a date that we will do anything certain right u -- now. >> when you talked to the commercial crew, they are talking wops they get more seat money, they think they can do three, four years or two years for the commercial crew. when do you, in your plans, see switching from from the commercial crew to the others? how much money will that save you? >> i didn't say that. you misquote me if you say that. our goal is to have a domestic u.s. set of vehicles to take

cargo and crew to lower orbit. you know, to think that other nations will not still want to have their own spacecraft for their own purposes, you know, that's not up to us, but what i want to have is a u.s. made family of spacecraft commercially available to us in compliance with the will of the congress and the president again to keep the astronauts safe because they are developed here in the united states with our oversight and partnership with them and i want to do that as soon as i can. you sited the three years from the time that the first contract is left, and i think that's the agreement that we have in our partnership with the commercial entities, and you know, later on when you do the specific brief with the space and operation systems, they'll give you a more definitive answer than i did. this is a budget brief, so i want to put my cfo to work

here. ask her questions. [laughter] >> sorry to disappoint charlie, but this is for you too. >> okay. [laughter] >> why does this budget differ greatly from the nasa authorization act? compared to the funding level it cuts $1 billion from heavy lift, doubles the amount of money in space technology, invests $350 million more in commercial space. pete olsen from texas called this budget a nonstarter. why does it differ suture and how will you get the hill to except it? >> i disagree that it differs. this keeps our faith with the authorization act. it carries all the elements from the 2010 authorization acted signed into law by the president. as i explained too earlier and beth elaborated, it's difficult

fiscal times, and we had to make very difficult choices. the center piece for us in exploration and living in space is the international space station. if i want to sustain it, have it safe for crews, i need to have a way to get cargo and crew there as quickly as we can to decrease or at least hold the gap between the end of the shuttle era when we then have to rely on foreign entities to get there and the beginning of a domestic, commercial capability. with that goal in minute, we change -- in mind, we change the balance of funding to the commercial crew and vehicles themselveses, but they are both -- i hate the word robust. robust is a bad word. we adequately fund both commercial crew with funds more than the authorization act provided because we want to make the astronauts safe, have a

capability to get to the space station, so i had to put increased funding there. i hope that answers your question. >> in one follow-up here, with this importance of commercial crew, i think someone earlier mentioned you hope to have capability by 2016. is that date accurate? >> it's premature to give dates. remember, i asked you to bear with me. we are doing -- we are following the elements of the authorization agent. we are complying with the law. we're trying to produce vehicle that are safe for american crew members and also trying to -- if i go back to the three things we really need today for the nation is we have got to help increase the amount of innovation in this country. we've got to help educate our students because there's nobody to replace me and this team of leaders you see her or the engineers around the nasa centers if we don't focus on that. in order to make a valuable economy, we have to start building things again.

that's where the commercial entities come in. you know, one of the things you hear me talk to them about is we are about facilitating their success in building a vibrant and viable commercial space industry. that industry is not just transportation vehicles. that industry is people like bob bigalow who builds on orbit habitats. i don't want to imagine what american ingenuity will do as we support the commercial entities and let them do what they are accustomed to doing. i apologize for being redundant here. nasa has never built. we have never built a spacecraft -- that's not true. chris will get angry. we build satellites sometimes. when you talk about launch vehicles and the like, it's a nasa-industry partnership with the very beginning, and that is not changing. what's changing for us is that we are going to rely on the

industry to provide the vehicles and we're going to buy services. we are not going to have them build something that i buy and then try to operate and keep infrastructure to do that. that's the frugal thing for us to do, the prudent thing for us to do if we want to outinnovate, out educate, and outbuild. the partners provide access to orbit. trust me, i wouldn't be doing this if i didn't think it could work. we need to look at immediate past achievements. space-x with their dragon capsule did something last year that's unharrelled. there's three entities that did that last year. that is launch a capsule from earth, have it orbit earth, if it come back to earth in tact. interestingly the other try are nations, so that's success. now k people say that's only

one. you know, when we landed on the moon, that was one, but we went from there, so we've got to start somewhere. i had an incredible time at the space center last monday, a week. i've never seen a rocket chest before believe it or not. i've watched friends fly on them, but i watched something and it was absolutely incredible. it was a contractor for orbital testing the aj-26 engine that orbital is going to use to take, you know, their spacecraft in orbit. we are doing really, really, really exciting and important things, but we're doing them with industry, and we're doing them with academia, and we're trying to go back to what i call the glir days. you know, when you pull together and do what this nation does so well, and that's innovate. we can out innovate anybody.

i defy anybody who says american industry can't do what is i have faith in them doing. >> with that, questions from the field centers. just a reminder after this news briefing, there's conferences with the individual mission directors. you can find that and supporting budget informs on our website, www.nasa.gov/budget. >> thank you, mark row asking for aviation week and space technology. i wonder if you decided whether johnson space center will play a role in the constellations and multipurpose crew vehicles or are you envisions a different kind of management and development structure? >> mark, i will take that one, and we don't have lead centers, so they won't play a lead center

role, however, hopefully -- maybe by the end of this week or sometime pretty soon, we are going to make announcements on where program offices are going to be. the three i think we'll make immediately will be the space launch system, the multipurpose crew vehicle, and commercial crew. those will be announced. you know, the human space flight centers that have been leads since time began will continue to play a critical role in everything that we do. we have nine nasa field centers. we have one laboratory at the jet propulsion lab, and then there's a group of talented people here at headquarters, and all of us play a role in going forward. give us a couple weeks, and i think you'll be pleased where we put program offices and where we put the management responsibility for these programs. >> i would caution you about one thing, management responsibility

or program management at a center, you know, that does not define where the funds are spent, so just because the center does not have a program management responsibility doesn't mean that they are not going to manage projects and pieces of the programs and they're not going to have people in their local communities who are, you know, helping us to grow our economy. >> i believe there's a follow-up question. is that you, mash -- mark? >> thank you very much. i had a question with constellation. nasa played the role of integration contractor in a sense, and i'm wondering if nasa will continue to play that role and development of heavy lift and multipurpose crew vehicle, or do you envision in an integration? >> mark, i doubt that anybody can answer that question for you today, but i'm not even going to guess, so let me have you ask

that question of doug cook later on because we are still looking at those details. >> all right. i believe we're coming back here to headquarters. any follow-ups? anybody happen to have anything? no? >> [inaudible] >> we did that last year and got in trouble for it. >> don't let allen answer questions. [laughter] >> okay, mark, one more follow-up with you. >> i guess follow-up what he said earlier with charley. how do you sell the hill on this plan? >> you know, mark, we have already briefed -- well, yeah, i think all the appropriate staff, laurie and i had personal calls

with members of congress both in the house and senate, and i don't want to seem too confident, but i'm confident that we have sufficiently angered enough people and sufficiently pleased enough that we're probably just about right. the thing that's important, you know, i listen to the president this morning when he was talking from the middle school in baltimore, and i listened to jack lew this morning and what you gather is these are really difficult times. most members of congress while not happy, they understand that the budget for everything had to come down, and nasa was no different. the important thing for us is that we're living within the elements of the authorization act. we're really staying focused on safely flying out the shuttle and then providing follow on vehicles whether they are

procured or whether nasa operates it that it's safe for the crews to get them to orbit or wherever they are going in deep space and then safely back home, and that we stay within our budget constraints. i'm really excited about it. i know we can do it. there is no question that we can do it. we just got to make very difficult decisions, and that's what you see in this budget. you know, when you look at the funds for 21st century, there are funds that go into the intent of 21st century when we talk about the ground systems for the heavy lift launch vehicle, for example. they are not reflected in 21st century, but that's 21st century funds, and, again, when you get into the more detailed briefs with others and somd, they can give you a little better idea of where those funds lie.

again, when we decided to fly shuttles well into this year, remember, they have been finished with shuttles in calendar year 2010, and when we extended into this year in order to provide safety and state for the international space station, we incurred additional expenses not planned for, and i made the decision that it was most important for us to maintain the safety of crews and maintain the viability of the international space station so we invested some of the 21st century money we did not think we would be able to spend, you know, in 2011 and 2012 in programs that were immediately needed with sort of a promise that we would go back and get it to them. we have a challenge, but we intend to put whatever funds are appropriate into the kennedy

space center to facilitate the ease of our commercial partners operating from those two sites, facilitate the successful launch of a heavy lift launch vehicle that's taking people and things on for deep space exploration so we will get there. we are very cognizant of the strife that our contractor work forces are undergoing, but we are looking at ways to try to help them whether it's through retraining or moving them to other positions or the like, so we continue to work that with bob cabana. >> i believe there's a follow-up. >> i was wondering if you could talk about the heavy lift program and maybe what type of flight task regime you are planning on and whether you think that program will help you bridge the gap in maintaining

critical skills between shuttle and whatever comes next. >> one thing, it's -- remember i said, whatever we do has to be affordable and sustainable, and it has to be realistic, and without going into too much detail on the heavy lift, one of the things people should understand is that it will be evolvable. now, what does that mean? it means it doesn't start out as the biggest program. it means we'll produce something in 75-100 metric tons because that's what we need as we start out with the early precursors. by the time you send somebody to mars, you'll be up to 130 metric ton vehicle would be my guess, but it's premature for me to try to say that. the thing is we want to get american entities involved as quickly as possible in building an operating our vehicles, so the quickest way for me and nasa

was to increase our partnership with the commercial entities that want to provide access to orbit and those commercial entities are boeings and atk's, and space-x's and anybody else entering the phase. the quicker we bring them on board, the quicker we can facilitate their success, the better we can narrow the gap and put people back to work who are leaving the space shuttle program for another program to turn to. >> thanks, that will conclude today's news briefing. there's follow-up teleconferences beginning at 3 3:30 eastern time. for additional budget details go to www.nasas.gov/budget. thank you, and have a good

afternoon. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> when i was sworn in as president, i planned to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term. >>ed sers r -- >> the u.s. senate is about to gavel in working on a bill with

aviation programs. the first vote of the day is at noon that prohibits the distribution of images from airport security machines. the senate is in recess from 12:30 to 2:15 to attend weekly lunches. live coverage of the senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senae will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, l lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. unto you o lord do we lift our

hearts this day in praise and thanksgiving. you are our god and we put our t in you. lead us away from shame, for you are our rock and refuge. today, give your grace and streh to our lawmakers. empower them to live worthy of y trust this nation commits to thr hands. make them champions of liberty, surveyors of peace, and servantf your kingdom. we pray in your great name. amen.

the presiding officer: please jn reciting the pledge of allegiane to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the cled a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., february 15, 2011. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable jeanne shaheen, a senator from the state of new hampshire, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following any leader remarks there will be a period of morning business until 11:00 a.m. this morning with stphorgs permitted to speak -- with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. at 11:00 the senate will resume

the f.a.a. reauthorization bill. at 11:40 the senate will resume consideration of the nelson of nebraska amendment. the nelson amendment relates to criminal penalties for the unauthorized distribution of advanced energy technology. at about noon the senate will proceed to vote in relation to the nelson amendment as amended. the senate will recess from 12:30 to 2:15 for our weekly caucus meetings. after caucus there will be ten minutes for debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to the wicker amendment. the wicker amendment relates to the collective bargaining rights of t.s.a. employees. the senate should expect a vote at about 2:30. both of these votes are subject to 60-vote thresholds. additional votes are expected throughout the day. h.r. 359 is at the desk and due for second reading, i'm told. the

the clerk: an act to reduce federal spending and the deficit by terminating taxpayer financing, presidential election campaigns and party conventions. mr. reid: i would object to any further proceedings at this time, madam president. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will be placed on the calendar under rule 14. mr. reid: madam president, i'm going to take a few minutes today to talk about a friend of nevada and a friend of mine. this man is from the other side of the world. his name is manny takoya. he's here in washington today. those of us who serve here are close with our colleagues in the united states congress and some even achieve celebrity status inside the beltway itself, the so-called beltway bubble. few of our names and faces are recognizable beyond our shores. senator ted kennedy was an

exception to that rule with fame he earned due to his dedication to public service. i traveled to europe with senator john glenn. he was really a rock star all over europe. he was a global hero because he orbited the globe. but no one in our national legislature comes close to the level of worldwide fame than the congressman from the southern tip of the philippines, mr. pakayo. during world war ii when the pacific nation was a commonwealth of this country, brave filipino troops served under the native american flag. with the leadership of senator dan inouye who acted so her rockically in the second -- heroically in the second world war, he fought here in the legislative branches of our government to give those

filipino troops well deserved and long overdue pensions they earned during a time of war. now congressman pakiyo is a member of congress from the philippines. he's also a boxer who holds many other title than that of congressman. he holds the title of super welter weight champion. he's the only person in the history of boxing to hold eight world titles. he's the first person in history to win ten world titles in eight different weight divisions. he started out being a champion at 106 pounds. he's fought them all, madam president. he's fought them, people outweighing him 35 or 40 pounds. he has been declared the fighter of the decade, three-time fighter of the year. he's rated the number-one pound-for-pound best boxer in the world. he has been -- from fly weight to light middle weight champion,

welter weight champion, light weight champion. no boxer in history has achieved what he has achieved. he's an ambitious young man with a closet full of championship belts and a promising political career already under his belt. i'm most gratified that he's a friend of nevada's, where his sport is a major player in our economic arena. he's someone i really admire. manny pakiyo and i came from oppose sides of the globe. manny grew up with nothing. he was a kid when he had to leave his home and live in the streets. he started fighting in the streets and went into the ring where he certainly has been one of the all-time greats. he fought for money when he was

a mere boy. he has done so well in life is he's a devout roman catholic. when he stepped in the ring for the first time, it changed his life. he's a fighter -- i've talked about that. there's near unanimous agreement that he's the best pound-for-pound fighter on the planet today. that takes into consideration some great fighters: sugar ray leonard, sugar ray robinson. he's a man who is so fun to watch. his last fight, i watched that fight. he was outweighed by some 30 pounds, won the fight. he won every round of that

fight. the man he fought had been the champion. but he knows it's not enough just to fight for yourself, and he does that very well. or to be a world champion many times over. you have to be a champion for others. that's what he believes. he's very tough. we know that. not because he can take punches as forcefully as he gives one but because he fights for those who can't fight for themselves. the filipino community looks up to manny. he sets a welcome example of an athlete who does good for many. he's someone who isn't in public service for fame or glory or money but because he knows people need his voice. he's a friend of nevada, a friend of america and i'm happy to say a friend of mine.

he when president obama released his budget yesterday, he made one thing clear. getting our economy back above water will require shared sack tpaoeufplts few documents -- sacrifice. few documents are more complex than our national budget. beyond the numbers what i found deep in this budget is affirmation of our principles. there is a commitment to recognize and adapt to reality, investing in what works and changing what doesn't. i appreciate the president's call for shared sacrifice and living within our means. and more than that, his willingness to do more than just talk, but actually lead toward fiscal responsibility. he didn't just talk about tough choices. he made them. i don't agree with all of his choices. i disagree with some of his cuts. but i cannot deny but that by making the difficult decisions he showed hraoefrplt i also found -- leadership. i also found in the budget the recognition we're not in a competition to determine who can cut the most. rather we need to cooperate to discover where we can cut the

smartest. this budget proposes a long-term plan to responsibly cut the deficit in half in president obama's first term. it doesn't do that by blindly chopping bottom lines or eliminating programs wholesale. it invests in things that grow our economy, things like education, things like innovation and things like infrastructure. it doesn't buy into the partisan talking point that there is no difference between spending and investing, because there is. in other words, it recognizes that you can lower the deficit not just by subtraction, but also by addition. when we invest in education, we create a smarter and stronger workforce. when we invest in innovation, we create jobs before the rest of the world beats us to those jobs. when we invest in our infrastructure, the spwepbt *f internet -- the internet, we lay the foundation for prosperity. they're trying to slash programs that keep us safe and eliminate programs that keep us

competitive. they're fighting for billions in special breaks for oil and gas companies. madam president, last few days the former president of chevron oil said we don't need those subsidies. but yet, republicans are fighting for subsidies for oil companies when the oil company executives say they don't need them. we've already tried it their way. substantiating billions in special breaks for oil and gas companies, the insurance industry and billionaires. we tried it. it doesn't work. that's why we're in the mess we're in. the republican reaction to the president's budget has been an attempt to go back in time. they shouldn't stop at president bush's failed administration. they should keep going to his predecessors when we balanced the budget with president clinton. we live in the present, and we budget for the future. we have spending challenges before us. we can't afford to forget those

challenges won't be solved by extreme rhetoric or idealism. they'll be solved only when reasonable partners are willing to come to negotiate with responsible proposals that find a critically important balance, one that brings down our deficit while keeping our economy moving in the right direction. when we find that middle ground, we'll leave the next generation with an economy they can count on, with the confidence we seek in our future and with the knowledge that when difficult decisions need to be made, americans don't shirk that responsibility. when presented with the tough choice, we make it. madam president, i would ask unanimous consent that my statement regarding congressman pacquilo and my speech on the president be separated. the presiding officer: without objection. the senate will be in morning business until 11:00 a.m. with

senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders on their designees. mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: madam president, the president presented to congress a budget. it's the annual process or ritual where the president makes the first move presenting a budget and then congress responds. the house and the senate come up with a budget resolution within the confines of the president's spending and decide how to spend the money. we're now at that phase. but i want to say a word about what the president suggested and what we're hearing from across the rotunda from house republicans. the president understands that we have two challenges as a nation. the first is to create more jobs because we have too many people out of work. and secondly, we need to reduce our deficit. it seems that they're cross-purposes, but they don't have to be. the president is trying to chart a course that moves us forward in a responsible way, cutting spending where it will not hurt economic recovery and growth.

investing with the federal funds we will spend in programs that count. he's talked about an agenda for more education, more innovation, more infrastructure and economic growth. that, i think, is the appropriate balance. but if you look at what the republicans have done in the house of representatives, they have ignored that balance. they believe that just cutting spending by itself, without concern about the impact is the best thing for america's future. but it really defies our common human experience. if you said 10 a family just starting out, there's going to be tough economic times ahead. there will some things you'll have to do without. is there one thing you want to make certain you invest in? most families would say, we want to get the kids educated. we want to make sure that our children going to school. if they don't get a good education, they won't make as great a contribution.

the same thing is true at the national level. what the president has suggested is that we need sound investment in education. unfortunately, the house republicans in their approach cut some of the most basic programs when it comes to education. the president understands, and i think all of us appreciate, the united states has slipped from first to number six in the world in the percentage of high school graduates going to college. how can we be more competitive in this century? how can we expect to attract good businesses here and the right kind of inveterans and innovators that will really spark growth in our economy if we don't have more of our students attending and graduating from college? madam president, we've also slipped from first to 12th in the percentage of people holding college degrees. america better wake up and look around the world. i recently spoke at a commencement for a law school in chicago and i was surprised when it came to the master's degrees

in law. those are advanced degrees. anyone with that degree has been in school at least 20 years of their life. and when i looked at the graduates in the city of chicago from a law school there with master's degrees, more than half of them were women from china. i thought to myself, i never would have dreamed this. in my time -- and this goes back quite a few years -- there weren't that many women in law school. now that make the majority of law students. but who would have guessed that chinese women verify the majority of law school -- chinese women would have majority of law school degrees from a university in chicago? can we do anything less? our nation's strength lies in its ablght ability to outcompete and innovate every other country in the world. we can't do it if we're not preparing the next generation of

scientists, entrepreneurs and innovators. let's take a look at what the house did, the house republicans. they are promising that we can cut off investments in education even as quickly as this -- the remainder of this quic fiscal yr and still prosper. i question that. they released their continuing resolution on friday night. their proposal cuts $4.9 billion in education programs from pre-kindergarten through clergy the money that helps schools teach and helps students goat college. here's what they cawvment $1.1 billion from head start, a program that helps low-income disadvantaged kids,. you've seen these head-start programs. i have, too. you think to yourself, where would these kids be without it? many of them come from single-parent families and many of parents are struggling making basic minimum wage and hardly anymore. and this is where they send their kids during the day so the

kids, at an eliminatorly age -- 3, 4, 5 years old -- are exposed to socialization, getting to know other children, have mentors and teachers in the room, and learn the basics. and then the day comes when they're ready to go to kindergarten, they are truly prepared and ready to go. the house republican cut in head start would drop 127,000 low-income preschoolers from the program over 5,000 in illinois. that means cutting the rolls by 20% and laying off 5,000 teachers and staff. so is that where we start to build for the future? taking these children out of the head start classrooms? laying off 55,000 teachers? what does that say about the future of those children? will it be as good? or worse? i think we know the answer to that. $700 million under the house republican proposal would be cut from the schools serving more than a million disadvantage students. we understand, because we're tasting, that kids who go to

school, who happen to be from many times lower-income fails, disadvantaged families don't do as we will. we know t we see it in the test scores. we try to put money in the districts for what purpose? rediewts size of the class, provide extra help mentoring and teaching after school, and give these opportunities, who would otherwise fall behind and might drop out, a changes to succeed. we will, the republicans say, there's an area to cut. they end up firing 10,000 programs in these teachers, over 280 of those from disools in my state. innovative programs that are working today to move our states toward reform in education would be seriously cut. race to the top gave to our secretary of education, arnie ae duncan, incentives of millions of dollars is to offer to states if they will do things that are bold, innovative, and successful. in improving education. it's interesting that the first

two states that were awarded, if i'm not mistaken, were delaware and tennessee. it's pretty clear that the department of education wasn't looking for any political agenda here. they were looking for states truly committed to reform. i'm sorry that i will i will didn't make the cut. you would have thought the president's state would have had an advantage. we didn't make it. and in fairness, there are things we could have done that would improved our chances. but other states chains changed the larks moved forward. what do the house republicans think about that? we will, they think that we should cut that, dramatically cut that program. and they would cut pell grants by $845 per student. what does that mean? i know that the senator now presiding over the senate, like myself, has met many of the students receiving pell grants. a lot of these kids come from families where no one has ever gone on to college. many of them come from low-income families that can't give them any financial support.

and many of them struggle to try to stay in school and still take a job earned enough money to get bism the pell grant helps them. the pell grant says, if you are from a low-income family, we're going to give you a helping hand. now, to say that we're going to cut that grant means that many of these students won't be able to continue in school. they'll quit. some may return at later time. many won't. we will have wasted an opportunity for young, ambitious student whose use the pell grants and student loans to really have an education that can lead somewhere. madam president, i might say in fairness that i know a little bit about this subject because i went to college and law school borrowing money from the federal government. had i not been able to do that i don't know i'd be here standing today. i still had to go to classes and take the tests and earn the grades and eventually pass the bar exam, but the fact is that money made all the difference in the world to meevment there was no way that my widowed mother

was ever going to pay for my dmeatioeducation in those days. now repeat that story millions of times across america, what are the house republicans thinking? they're going it cut pell grants for these students who are struggling to go through college? what boo we do? why would we do that when 80% of our nation's fastest-growing jobs require education. an estimated 61,000 students in illinois are going to sea their pell grants slig educed or eliminated. the house republicans also want to eliminate $1.5 million to grants to states for job training. when you think about the number of unemployed in america today and how few of them will be able to return to the same job they left, you understand, as i do, that they need new skills, new training. hthey've got to move into new areas of training. the president makes a dramatic cut in spending, freezing our

spending, reducing our spending over $400 billion over the next five years and bringing domestic discretionary spending in america, as a percentage of our gross domestic product, down to a level lower than it was in the 1950's. so he calls for sack fishings as we should. but the president understands the importance of education. his budget includes $8.1 billion for head start, to serve nearly a million children and families. it includes $1.3 billion to support almost 2 million children and families through the child care development block grant program. the president's budget also includes $26.8 billion, an increase of about 7%, for elementary and secondary education. focused on raising standards and encourage innovation and rewarding success. madam president, last week the heads of many school districts in illinois came to see me. they're struggling. with real estate prices going down, values going down,

property tax receipts are not what they used to be. our state is in bankruptcy. it doesn't have the known send back to school districts. a school amount, about 5% that comes from the federal government is important to them. if the house republicans had their way, that amount will be reduced. president tries to maintain that contribution from the federal level to help local school districts. there's something else the president does which i think is essential to better education. he invests $18 a 5 million for a new presidential teaching fellows program which would provide scholarships to talented, aspiring teachers who commit to teem teaching for three years in a high-needs school. it also invests $80 million to promote improved teacher training in the stem subjects -- science, technology, engineering and math. i think most would degree that the success of an education depends, first, in my case and many others, in strong family support and encouragement but also in the quality of the tierch in the classroom. we want to make sure we've the best teachers so we have the

best students, the best graduates and are in the best position to compete in the years ahead. 's budget also maintains a maximum pell grant of $5.050 a year. ensuring 8 million students across the country can to inpursue a college degree. there's also money for worker training which we desperately need. also an inp $1.4 billion in competitive programs to bring about reform in education, an early learning challenge fund, the new race to the top, bringing resources to school districts willing to make reforms, and a new firs first-in-the-world competition which should graduate more high-needs students aand preparing them for employment there are skeptics who believe that no matter what the government does, that will not create jobs or opportunity in america. i think we can go too far in selling the government's role

but we can understand that the government's role does make a difference. i try calculate in my mind -- it's been barely 54 years since we made a decision in congress that we were going to invest in student loans to help young people go to college, the same program that helped me go to college. it happened after sputnik was launched and we were concerned about the russian effort to put satellites in space, followed by missiles, followed by cold war faceoffs that we might experience. and so we said we need more engineers and scientists. we made the investment and it bork worked. we moved the american economy forward to lead the world in the last half of the 20th century. it was no accident. part of it was the investment our government in education for our citizens. the president believes we've got to keep that commitment. i agree with him. the think the house republicans have gone too far with their cuts. they start with a skepticism

that government can't do anything right. many of them were the beneficiaries of college student loans through the government. they've forgotten it. families across america count on it and we should too. we've got to make sure that we've a strong budget that cuts deficits. congress needs to enact a plan that will lead to fiscal sustainability over the long term if we want to ensure a strong economic future. the president has provided us an excellent starting point in that conversation. madam president, i yield the floor. before i yield the floor, i ask unanimous consent the time consumed in any quorum call during the period of morning business be charged equally to both sides. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. isakson: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: thank you, madam president. rise today in the united states senate and on the floor of the senate to speak for a few minutes about the gentleman whose 70th birthday will be celebrated next monday night in atlanta, georgia, a gentleman who has deep advertise to the united states senate. his name is t. rogers waivmentd came to the senate as a chief legislative assistant. senator talmadge was chairman of the powerful agriculture committee. rogers wade is one of these unique people that all of us are lucky to have in our offices, somebody that supports us, keeps us moving in the right direction, helps us back home with our people. in other words, kind of drives

our ship of state. my chief of staff does rogers wade did it for senator talmadge. he brought these talents and brought them back to georgia in 1980. he first came back and founded a firm called he haddington-wade and associates that represented several fortune 500 companies. he did many other things in georgia, founded leadership georgia, a program today celebrating over 40 years in our state. generating new leaders for our staivment a great program. he came to the institute of leadership and serves on the board, sefrbgs e serves on the board of the richard russell foundation. he came to something known as the georgia public policy foundation, an organization that is nonpartisan and dedicates itself to opine on legislation going through the georgia legislature or initiatives. he gave them an unvarnished,

nonpolitical straight-talk expression of what that law or issue would be, become one of the most respected foundations in our state and r-rpbd the country. he served as president of that foundation from 1997 to 2009 and today is a trustee of the foundation. one of the interesting things t. rogers wade did, a lot of people talk about what they want to do to reform education and help kids in need, t. rogers wade did it. he founded something called tech n.i.h. atlanta, georgia -- called tech high in atlanta, georgia, brought in excellent faculty in the stems, and opened it as a charter school approved by the state of georgia for the most in need kids in the metropolitan system. so successful has tech high been that arne duncan, the secretary of education chose it to be one

of his first visits after he became secretary of education under president obama. it is a guiding light today of what can be done with a focus on excellence and helping kids in need to brighten their future. recently with the election of the new governor of georgia, he picked one person in the transition team. it was t. rogers wade. he was on the pwaor of -- boardf the u.s.o., and citizens around our state by being the president of the public policy foundation. next monday night i'm going to have dinner with a great georgian and great american. i rise on the floor of the united states senate to pay tribute and honor to t. rogers wade on the occasion of his 70th birthday. i yield back the balance of my time and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. baucus: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: i ask that further proceedings of the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: madam president, i realize we're in morning business, but i'd like to make a short statement, and i ask for consent to do so. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: madam president, i rise to oppose the mccain amendment to -- i rise to oppose the mccain amendment. his amendment will eliminate essential air service program. that amendment will probably come up when we get to the f.a.a. bill later this morning. i applaud my colleague for supporting twice address our deficit and i want to join him in look for ways to control spending but this is one program we must preserve. we won't improve the deficit by stifling local economies. the department of transportation estimates that 1.1 million travelers from more than 150 communities rely on essential

air service program. the essential air service program is a promise to rural america which absolutely needs airports for economic development, as noted in a 2009 journal of rural studies report entitled "the economic importance of air travel in high-amenity rural areas." end quote. nearly half of the american west consists of publicly owned lands containing mountain ranges, forests, rivers, lakes, parks, and areas for wilderness, wildlife and grazing. many people from around the country come especially from the east to visit the west, emin the summer. they go fly fishing, camping, tourism -- in the winter, skiing. people enjoy public lands in the west. we have so many public lands in the west, madam president, we don't have private land for development.

this means we have tremendous distances between population centers, and we need reliable air travel to ensure jobs, private enterprise and access to medical assistance. montana is primarily a rural state. we rank 47th in population. that is, only three states are less populous than we. while being the fourth-largest in land mass. to put it differently, although we are slightly larger than the country of japan, we have fewer citizens than the state of rhode island, the smallest state in the nation. montana has eight essential air service communities: sydney, glenndiife, half are inand west yellowstone. the first seven rely on industries such as agricultural and mineral extraction, industries that are vital to american growth, industries which exist in rural america rather than in downtown

metropolitan areas. a couple of those airports also lie near indian reservations where economic needs are paramount. without essential air service, all of these areas risk isolation. in 2008, montana's essential air service provider went out of business. we lost air travel for months. i want to read a passage from a recent great falls tribune article to illustrate the impact on jobs and the economy. it says -- quote -- "when haver, a city of 10,000 people, lost its air service, it closed its local office and moved the operation to billings." think of that. think of the irony. the railroad needs reliable air services. didn't have them, so it had to move to another location. it shows how interconnected our economy s i want to take this

opportunity to announce that i am setting up a caucus. senator collins is cochairman of the caucus. i enurge my other colleagues to join and stand with us. it is important to rein in the deficit. that is clear. but let's be responsible about how we do it. pulling the rug out from under programs like essential air service will shrink the economy rather than shrinking the deficit. i will not turn my back on communities that rely on this program as a lifeline. madam president, i yield the floor. you i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. rockefeller: i ask that the order of the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of s. 223, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 5, s. 223, a bill to modernize the

air traffic control system, and so forth and for other purposes. mr. rockefeller: i thank you. i understand that the senator from montana wants to make a modification. mr. baucus: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: my amendment number 75 be modified further with the changes that are at the desk. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. baucus: i thank my good friend from west virginia. he's a good man. mr. rockefeller: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: thank you.

mr. president, i'm here to speak on the legislation that's pending before us. we all know that this country faces big challenges. we face a declining infrastructure that's critical to our businesses. we need safe, reliable transportation if we're going to keep the flow of commerce moving. but, as president obama mentioned in his state of the union address, when american engineers took a look at our transportation infrastructure, they gave it a "d" grade. that's not quite failing, but it's certainly not very good. our declining infrastructure threatens not only our safety but also our global economic competitiveness. america is falling behind economic competitors like europe and china, which are making significantly more robust investments in their infrastructure. in the united states we currently spend about 2% of our g.d.p. on infrastructure.

that's a 50% decline since 1960. china and europe, on the other hand, spend close to 9% for china and 5% for europe of their g.d.p. respectively on infrastructure. we need to make the kind of smart investments that will help keep america competitive. that's why i'm very glad that we're moving forward with this bipartisan f.a.a. reauthorization bill. it's been almost four years since congress passed an f.a.a. bill, and in that time, our economic competitors have continued to invest in their 21st century aviation systems. airports are critical to commerce and economic activity in all of our states. the major airport in my home state of new hampshire, manchester airport, generates over $1.2 billion in economic activity every year, much of

that comes from out-of-state residents and foreign travelers. without that airport, without that air infrastructure, we wouldn't be able to generate that kind of economic activity. the aviation industry in new hampshire and across the country also provides good jobs for pilots, flight attendants, mechanics, air traffic controllers, and so many others. manchester airport alone provides over 1,900 jobs. the f.a.a. legislation that's now before us will accomplish the long overdue task of upgrading one critical component of our aviation infrastructure: the air traffic control system. it will upgrade the system to an efficient 21st century system called nextgen. now, i don't think very many people realize that when they get into an airplane, the pilots

and the air traffic controllers are using a 20th century technology to navigate the skies. i was just at a meeting of the high-tech council in new hampshire and having this conversation with them. they didn't realize that that's the kind of aviation system that we use to fly our planes, so although our cell phones and cars have g.p.s. systems, our multimillion-dollar airplanes use world war ii era radar systems. the system we have now is inefficient. it wastes the time and money of everyone involved in the aviation industry. as chair -- the chair pointed out it happened so many times. even mongolia has a more advanced system than we do. that is just unacceptable. not surprisingly, our outdated system is at capacity. according to the f.a.a., delays

resulting from the constraints on the system cost the united states over $9 million every year. that number is going to continue to rise if we do nothing. we need to take action. the f.a.a. forecasts that the aviation system will carry more than a billion airline passengers annually by 2023. we cannot afford to let such an important part of our 21st century economy languish with 20th century technology. by investing in nextgen, our air traffic controllers will finally have the 21st century technologies they need to make our system more efficient. let me just give an example of the progress that nextgen would make. right now air traffic controllers give all of their commands to pilots over the radio. they tell them when and where they'll be landing.

because all of the pilots in the area are listening, there is the potential for miscommunication sometimes. our pilots and controllers are very professional. they do their jobs well, but sometimes people talk over each other, pilots hear the wrong information. this system that we currently have wastes time and it puts the flying public in jeopardy. once nextgen is in place, controllers will be able to type a command and send it directly to the plane. to all of us who use e-mail, this sounds pretty basic, but it's an example of the kind of upgrades that are needed to make our aviation system more efficient and safer. by funding nextgen, this will bring our air traffic control system into the 21st century. nextgen will reduce congestion by allowing planes to fly more direct routes, it will conserve energy and make flying safer for

everyone. of course some flight declares unavoidable. we can't control the weather, as we all know. but when delays can't be avoided, we can make sure that airlines are treating their customers fairly that's another critical component of this legislation. that's why this bill includes the passengers' bill of rights. i cosponsored the passengers' bill of rights after a businesswoman from bedford, new hampshire, told me her store rifs being stuck on tarmac for hours without access to food and water. these experience wr-s so frustrating -- were so frustrating to jennifer that she became a leader in the movement to get this legislation passed. unfortunately her stories have been all too common in recent years. according to the department of transportation, hundreds of thousands of passengers have been stuck on the tarmac for more than three hours. this bill will codify

protections put in place last year by the department of transportation so we won't go back to the days when airlines left travelers on the tarmac. i want to commend chairman rockefeller and ranking member hutchison for producing a strong bill. i look forward to being able to support this legislation with all of my colleagues and pass it very soon so we can upgrade our transportation system to compete with the rest of the world. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

mr. rockefeller: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. rockefeller: mr. president, i have seven unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rockefeller: thank you. i note the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mrs. hutchison: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, i am -- the presiding officer: we're in a quorum call. mrs. hutchison: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. hutchison: we are working very hard, mr. president, to have an amendment on the perimeter rule that would accommodate all the concerns of western senators who do not have easy access to washington reagan national airport and the concerns of the virginia senators who are concerned about congestion, and other senators from the far west that want to try to have a better chance at a direct flight. senator rockefeller and i have filed an amendment that we think is a fair approach, and we did

this because we didn't have enough consensus and we were trying to drive that consensus. so i would like to offer the -- ask that the amendment be brought up. it is our intention then to set it aside for senator nelson's amendment, which is scheduled for a vote. and i have informed efrpbl that i am going to -- and i have informed everyone that i am going to ask the clerk to call up amendment 84, the rockefeller-hutchison amendment on the perimeter rule. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: is there objection? ms. cantwell: mr. president, reserving the right to object. i know my colleagues who are the ranking member and the chairman of the committee have been working diligently to try to resolve this issue. it certainly is a thorny one given the history of the commerce committee and previous votes on this issue.

the issue for me is i certainly do want access to the west, certainly want to make sure that the nation's capitol is accessible to all parts of the country. but we also 0 want to make sure tphr-s -- make sure there is a fair pro serbgs the decision to open up national airport is run through the department of transportation, an f.a.a. process, that we don't hand-pick here on the senate floor any of the people who would be winners in this process, but that we make the decision on how much access is available. i would say to my colleagues, the whole issue here about airports is that any time you've had a limited footprint, you have had discussion about how to give access to that through a process of the f.a.a. i would say to my colleague, let's keep dialoguing and working on this issue. but a process and an amendment

that includes conversion, that is to say that a predominant carrier out of national airport can continue to hold that dominance in the marketplace i think is the wrong approach. i look at what's happening now at what the department of justice said about the delta-u.s. air swap between new york and d.c.a. they basically said they have too much market share and they ought to divest if they want to engage in that kind of swap behavior. any kind of conversion process that would allow swaps to be converted is like saying if you own real estate around the capitol, you can buy real estate about the process. i hope we come waup process that puts the f.a.a. in charge of this but not make the decision here on the senate floor. allow the f.a.a. and dot to do -- and d.o.t. to do their job as they have in the past. at this point i will object to the senator's proposal. the presiding officer: objection is heard.

the senator from texas. mrs. hutchison: i just ask unanimous consent to have one minute to respond to the objection. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, the reason for the conversions was to accommodate the needs of the washington national airport people and to also understand that the incumbent carriers, of which there are four, have mostly paid the lion's share of the cost of the additions to washington national airport. we do want a fair process. that's why we have separated the new entrants, which would be five, to accommodate carriers that have no presence. but also have conversions of flights that are already in place so that there would be fewer new flights into washington national and there would be a fair process with the incumbent carriers who have paid such a lie kwraopb's share of

the -- lion's share of the airport to keep it competitive and fair. with that, we will continue to discuss. we hope we can have an amendment that can be voted on. i think it is imperative that we vote on this so that there is a senate position. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: there will now be 20 minutes of debate equally divided on the nelson amendment number 58. mr. nelson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. nelson: mr. president, the amendment which senator schumer, akaka, shaheen, tester, yourself, the chair, whitehouse, menendez, senator nelson from florida and i have offered, which we'll be voting on shortly is a commonsense approach to protecting the interests of an individual's privacy when they pass through security check points at airports and public buildings. nebraskans and americans understand that every step must be taken to keep federal

buildings and air travel safe in america, particularly after the 9/11 attacks. however, as we promote security, safeguards are necessary to protect everybody's privacy from misuse of images generate bid body scanning machines. our legislation sends a commonsense message: we won't ignore people's privacy as we make sure air travel and federal buildings are saefplt the amendment is very -- are safe. the amendment is straightforward. it would, number one, make it a crime to photograph or record a body scan image or distribute a body scan image taken at either an airport or any federal building without express authorization to do so either by law or regulation. second, it imposes a penalty of up to one year in prison and $100,000 fine on violators. third, we provide an exception from prosecution if the actions

taken occur while the individual is engaged in their official duties during the course of an authorized intelligence investigation or criminal prosecution. this language which was worked out with officials at the f.b.i. and d.n.i. are important. this is not an abstract concern. there's already been a case where these images have been taken and posted online inappropriate. so it's my hope that by creating a deterrent, a very strong deterrent and establishing criminal penalties for those who take and distribute body scan images inappropriately, that will help prevent that from occurring again. by adopting this amendment, we're telling our constituents that we're not going to ignore your privacy in the process of making sure we have safe airports and federal buildings. i ask my colleagues to support our amendment, and i also will be calling up a second-degree

amendment as the details are worked out. when i call up second-degree amendment number 85, which is at the desk, and ask that it be modified with the changes that are at the desk. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the second-degree amendment, as modified, is agreed to. mr. nelson: i ask my colleagues, mr. president, to support our amendment, and i ask for the yeas and nays, and i believe other colleagues are here to -- the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. mr. nelson: and i believe other colleagues are here to speak. i notice that senator schumer is here. i appreciate very much his support, mr. president, working together very carefully with total collaboration, we've been able to, with our colleagues, bring about what i think is an important privacy legislation.

i yield the floor. mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. first i want to congratulate my good friend, the senator from -- good friend and hunting buddy, the senator from nebraska, for the great work he has done on this. it's been a pleasure to work with him on it. we've had parallel interests and this amendment hopefully will solve a problem that has arisen lately. because of the full-body scanners that are being installed at airports. as everyone knows, late last year the t.s.a. began installing full-body advanced-imaging scanners at airports across the country. these new scanners are better able to quickly and accurately detect explosives than the old scanners and would likely afforded the christmas -- have thwarted the christmas day bomber before he had even goaten otoen pleafnlt but from the get-go, legitimate questions popped up about the potential for privacy violations from the

use of these scanners. what happens if a rogue t.s.a. employee disseminates your image or what happens if a fellow passenger takes pictures of body scanner images and mails it to friends and mails it to places like newspapers? are there safeguards to prevent such abuyses? if it happens, what are the consequences? safety is our paramount concern. mr. president, we can oftentimes by carefully legislating, we can have our crake and eat it, too. to make sure that safety stays number one but make sure, as the senator from nebraska and i are trying to do, make sure that privacy is protected whenever possible. and that's what yo senator nelsn and i teamed up to do, to devise a sensible solution to the problem, a solution that would protect privacy without

sacrificing safety. the legislation we came up with, which senator nelson is now offering as an amendment to the f.a.a. bill, strikes just the right balance. first and foremost, the amendment makes it a federal crime to record and disseminate images from airport scearns. it providers a sentence of up to one year in prison, a fine of up to $100,000 per violation for anyone who is convicted of violating the law. i should note, the amendment not only covers the misuse of the original images recording from the scearns but also photographs of scans taken by security personnel, airline employees, passengers, or anybody else. americans want to know: when they take to the skies that everyone possible precaution has been taken for their safety and at the same time they want to know that precautions have been taken to ensure their prief six the amendment would -- their privacy. the amendment would provide that

much-needed assistance. i applaud senator nelson. he is a member of the emerging threats and capability subcommittee -- for his leadership on this issue. i urge my completion to support the smart -- i urge my colleagues to support the smart, practical amendment that we are offering today and urge that it be passed as quickly as possible by this body. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. mr. schumer: i suggest the absence of a quorum. quorum call: mr. kyl: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. kyl: thank you. i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings of the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kyl: since no someone asking to speak on this amendment, i wanted to ask unanimous consent to put something in the record. we were all celebrating last week the -- what would have been the 100th anniversary of

ronald reagan. and there was a piece in "the wall street journal" by one of the economists who advised ronald reagan, a arthur laugher, which i think recounts and discusses probably as good as any other summary that i've ever seen the contribution that reagan and his administration made to the economy of the united states. and, therefore, i would like to insert in the record -- not in the middle of this debate but at the conclusion of this debate -- the article from "the wall street journal" dated february 10, 2011. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kyl: thank you, mr. president. mr. nelson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. nelson: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to add senator bill nelson from florida to amendment number 58, as an original cosponsor. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: thank you. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the

clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: