Jay Rockefeller

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now be in recess until 2:15 p.m. this afternoon.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as the Presiding Officer would well understand from his own experience, West Virginia is mourning the loss of 29 brave miners who died last week--most of whom never knew what hit them--when a devastating explosion tore through the Upper Big Branch Mine in Montcoal, WV. It has brought the whole State to a dead halt. Even though it may never be possible to fully grasp the magnitude of this tragedy or to ease the pain of this devastating loss, we in West Virginia believe strongly in the power of prayer and in the grace of God. That has been important this week and will be in the weeks to come. We hold onto it--that feeling--and we offer it to one another and to the families, friends, and fellow miners who are grieving. We revere our miners--the men and women who put their lives on the line every single day to provide for their families and bring light and heat to millions. They live in obscurity. They work underground. Nobody knows much about it around the rest of the country, but it is heroic living, and they make this country work. We offer a heartfelt thanks to the rescue workers who risked their own lives. Our rescue teams, and the entire West Virginia community, never gave up hope and continued to forge ahead in their mission. They know and understand when they volunteer for this dangerous work that at some point in time they will be called upon to put their own lives on the line in the mine. That is what a rescue worker is all about-- pushing the edges. How much methane is there, how far can you get in, how much dust is there, what can you see, does he or she have enough oxygen? They did so selflessly and fearlessly, and they have, as you can imagine, my deepest respect. Even in one of our darkest hours, America has seen the very best of West Virginia--binding together, drawing solace from each other with tears and with mutual love. This is who we are. This is Appalachia. It is the sense of oneness, always against so many odds. The odds are always stacked against us. Maybe that is why I am so proud to represent them--always fighting uphill, others not knowing much about you, not necessarily paying a lot of attention to you but strong, good people. So it is this sense of oneness that sets us apart, in my mind, and why I am so proud to be a West Virginian. We are all too familiar with this agony. I know the Presiding Officer is. We have been here before--with Sago, with Aracoma. When our worst fears are realized, as they were in this terrible tragedy, we know we must find a way through the searing pain and the loss because that is the way it is in our Appalachia--central Appalachia. Everybody understands that mining has always been risky, but it can be made safer by people who want to make it safer. That will often start with the person who is in charge of the company. Safety is about a company doing the right thing. Safety is also about the State and Federal Government stepping in and toughening up our laws where that needs to be done. It is about providing the resources and the people to enforce those laws. Let me give an example. Currently, the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission has 14 administrative law judges. If this year's budget request is enacted, they will have 18. They will go from 14 to 18. Those 18--and right now those 14--administrative law judges, together, face a backlog of more than 16,000 cases, containing 82,000 violations. That is incomprehensible to me. It is ridiculous, but it is true and it is unacceptable. In the aftermath of Sago, I was proud to coauthor the MINER Act, along with Senator Byrd, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Mike Enzi from Wyoming. This was, in fact, the only significant Federal mine legislation since 1977, which meant that we had gone 30 years without passing significant mine safety legislation. That doesn't tell the whole story, but it certainly tells some part of the story. The bill was not perfect, but it did tackle the core problems we faced at Sago, which was a different kind of mine. It was a very rural mine, a much smaller mine than this huge mine in Raleigh County, WV. Because of this bill, we now require that mines have flame-resistant lifelines to guide miners out in an emergency. If you have an explosion. There is dust everywhere. You cannot see anything. So you put in sort of like a handrail, and you hold on to it and you just follow that because you cannot see where you are going. That will lead you to the mine mouth or perhaps to an elevator, if it is still working, that will allow you to get out. We require refuge chambers that are now located in mines to protect miners if they cannot evacuate. Those are safe havens that have oxygen and food. There are stores of breathing devices along the escape routes--part of the law now. We have new flammability requirements for new belt equipment. I know that is mining jargon, but I lay it before the Senate. Yet despite these important improvements, we mourn now another disaster of a very different kind. More lives were lost. We ask: How can this be? Again? Everything we know at this time tells us this accident did not have to happen. This explosion could have and should have been prevented. If you are asked by a coal miner: Does an explosion have to happen? The answer is, no; it is preventable. Yes, that is easy to say and hard to do. But in the real world of serious work in mine safety, it is preventable. Miners do not have to lose their lives. So our responsibility now is to learn from this new and terrible incident. We have to look at it carefully. We cannot rush to judgment. I am going to explain a couple of things that are being done. We do not know exactly what went wrong at Upper Big Branch mine but I promise you we will demand answers, and we will get answers. MSHA, which is the Mine Health and Safety Administration, will conduct a complete investigation into this tragedy, and that will tell us a lot. The agency's quick response and leadership after this explosion has been, in my judgment, highly commendable. Right now, what we do know is we need to enforce aggressively the provisions of the MINER Act that we passed several years ago in 2006 at all mines. Where they are needed, we must put new laws in place, understanding that mine operations are different. Some mines try to do the right thing, others try less hard. It is a hard job. I am concerned that the enforcement process today moves much too slowly, and that hurts the good operators as well as helping the bad ones, even when the circumstances demand the most urgent response. Today, mine safety operators can stop operations in a mine or part of a mine whenever they see imminently dangerous violations. That is in the eye of the beholder, of the inspector, which means they have to be good people and well trained. Once the operator has addressed that problem, then there is no longer a violation and mining can continue. But these inspectors also look for a very interesting phenomena called ``patterns of violations.'' For that they have to look back over the last several years in a particular mine or a particular part of a mine to find out if there has been a pattern of violation, which, in and of itself, might not rise to the level of imminent danger, but could indicate that the mine needs to improve its safety. If they find a pattern, these Federal inspectors, they should be able to impose higher fines. If it is not corrected, they should be able to, as they are now, shut down a mine or just part of a mine where there is a particular problem. This mine where the explosion occurred was huge. It had numerous double-digit entrances into different parts of the mine. It was huge. But, anyway, closing down a mine or part of a mine does not always work that way because companies have found a loophole in this part of the law, the part dealing with so-called ``patterns of violations.'' They just keep contesting and appealing. They appeal and they appeal right on up to Federal court. They appeal the decisions to prevent the finding of a pattern. That is why they do it. If you do not want something to happen, if you do not want to pay a fine, you have been cited for a violation, you have been cited for a fine. But if you appeal it, if you appeal it long and keep appealing, then, if you get a judgment against you, you go to the next court higher up, you do not have to either pay a fine or change the way you operate. The number of appeals has increased dramatically from just 6 percent of total violations in 2005 to 27 percent last year. With such a tremendous backlog of cases and limited manpower, the average appeal took 587 days to finalize last year, which is bad for everybody. Some operators have taken advantage of this loophole, preventing government action and imposing a serious risk to the miners' safety. West Virginians can rest assured that I plan to press this issue aggressively. We are already taking steps to get to the bottom of this. I am glad that President Obama has been involved, and he has called a lot of folks, including miners' families. He has requested a full report to him on what Federal investigators have learned about the disaster, and it is going to happen this week. Now, maybe that is too early. They may not know everything yet. But he wants to be kept abreast of what is happening. I have asked, and others, for a full briefing on the findings for West Virginia's Congressional Delegation. I decided that was not selfish; I decided that was the right thing to do. I want to know what the President knows, and that is going to happen. I have requested that MSHA conduct a top-to-bottom review of all mine safety violations all across the country so that we can get a sense of perspective of where we are in this mine and others in other States. And I have also requested hearings and oversight investigations from the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. They were kind enough to allow me to sit with them during the hearings regarding the MINER Act so that I could contribute what I know. In closing, I wish to say our coal miners have lost too many brothers and too many sisters. Coal mining has always been dangerous, and it is a common story in West Virginia--southern West Virginia particularly-- which is where I first went, where there is so much coal mining that mothers do not want their sons to go into coal mining. But there they are living up a hollow, up a creek. No other work is available, and they can get paid $60 to $70,000 for doing this job after some training. What are they meant to do? What if it is a mine which does not have any kind of representation which allows people to tell somebody in authority that something is not being done safely? Well, we have mines where the operators use intimidation. If somebody tries to do something like that, they are out of a job. There are all kinds of ways to do that. And while we all know their journey is a dangerous one, our coal miners must know that everything is being done to keep them safe. That is why I am standing here, simply to say that. We have a solemn, urgent and, I think, sacred obligation in Congress to find the truth, do it fairly and carefully, and take action in their honor. These men have given us all they can, and we must honor this sacrifice. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 13, 2010, at 2:15 p.m.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``ESEA Reauthorization: School Turnaround'' on April 13, 2010. The hearing will commence at 2 p.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 13, 2010, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Removing the Shroud of Secrecy: Making Government More Transparent and Accountable Part II.''

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Airland of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 13, 2010, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 13, 2010, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Impeachment Trial Committee on the Articles against Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 13, 2010, at 4 p.m.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 13, 2010, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Wall Street and the Financial Crisis: The Role of High Risk Home Loans.''

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

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

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I have always wondered if this day would come, when I could stand on the Senate floor before my colleagues and say those words: We did it. We passed comprehensive health care reform. Many have come before us and we have worked together for years. We took on a monumental task and faced obstacles at every corner. It wasn't easy--nothing that is worth doing is easy. But we put aside our own differences and came together to pass meaningful legislation that will transform the way health care works in our country. And it was worth every minute and every hurdle. It was worth every setback and every step forward. Because for all those challenges, for all our debates and negotiations, I know that any trouble we faced was nothing in comparison to the daily struggle millions of Americans face everyday without health insurance. Millions that are without coverage who live everyday in terror of becoming sick--parents powerless to provide care for a sick child, workers unable to change jobs and pursue a new opportunity, families forced to choose between seeing a doctor and paying their mortgage. When I think about the cause of reform, I think about those people and their stories. And I want to tell you about some of them today. I want to tell you about the Bord family of West Virginia. The Bords are two dedicated school teachers--with health insurance, through their employer--whose son Samuel had Leukemia and needed treatment well beyond the onerous annual insurance limits, they didn't even know they had. Samuel's parents were desperate and feared for the worst. When he hit his million dollar cap, my office helped his parents find more resources. But, the Bords were left with two heart-wrenching suggestions-- consider getting a divorce so that Samuel would qualify for Medicaid and stop taking their other children--Samuel's twin brothers--to the doctor altogether, even if they got sick, in order to save every penny for Samuel. That's right. Get a divorce and choose one child's health care needs over another's. Those are the choices our Nation offered to these caring, hard- working parents with a sick child? They did everything in their power but, this fall, Samuel passed away. It breaks my heart to think of what his parents went through: not only the pain of watching their son fight a terrible disease, but also the uncertainty of paying for his treatment when the coverage they counted--on and paid for--abandoned them. And so now, we are creating a more secure and reliable health care system that works for every American: where those who are uninsured finally have someplace to go for care; where those with health insurance know that the coverage they count on--and pay for--will be there when they need it; and where a profit driven insurance industry cannot play mercilessly with people's lives or steal their hope for a healthy future. This new law is for all those countless people we have lost to a broken system. This is Samuel's law. We will never be able to bring him back--but we can make sure no one's health is ever left to the whims of annual and lifetime caps or pre-existing conditions or arbitrary rate hikes. In the course of my Senate Commerce Committee investigations into the health insurance industry, I met a wonderful woman named Susan Pearl. You see, we knew in the committee that health insurance companies were not being straightforward about how much money they were spending on actual medical care. Too many people were not getting the care they needed, yet health insurance industry profits continued to soar. So Susan came to us. Her husband owns his own business, and they had coverage--good coverage. And they were glad to have it--their son Ian was born with muscular dystrophy, but was doing well with medical treatment. Unfortunately, Susan's insurance then decided that her son's care-- including the round-the-clock nursing necessary for advanced muscular dystrophy--was getting just too expensive for them to continue paying. So with the full knowledge of the devastating and fatal effects of dropping coverage--Guardian Insurance abruptly rescinded, not just Ian Pearl's coverage, but the entire family policy, replacing it with another plan that was, quite simply, inadequate. With Ian's life-saving care costing upwards of $1 million a year, Susan did everything she could to reinstate Ian on his original plan-- the one she had paid into faithfully for years. Thankfully, Susan Pearl was able to recover Ian's old coverage--but only after Guardian's deplorable practices drew worldwide media attention. This new law means health insurance companies can no longer gamble with people's lives and rescind coverage because it's hurting their bottom line. You shouldn't need the full focus of a Senate investigation, just to be treated fairly by your insurance company. I think of small business owners like Kate from my home State of West Virginia who shared her story on the White House Office on Health Reform's public website www.healthreform.gov. Her 2-year-old son is the only person with health insurance coverage in her household. Many of us know that it is often hard for small businesses to find affordable coverage for themselves and their employees. She and her husband are small business owners and they simply could not find an affordable policy. Today, small businesses pay up to 18 percent more than large firms for the same health insurance policy, so many just don't even offer it. While small businesses make up 82 percent of businesses in West Virginia, only 37 percent of them offered health insurance coverage to their employees in 2008. Kate wished she even had the security of catastrophic coverage. She knows she is risking her home and economic security without health coverage, but, basic health insurance is a luxury she and her husband simply can't afford. When it comes to health care, small business owners have been facing higher administrative costs, lower bargaining power, greater price volatility and fewer pooling options. These are not minor details. They are major problems and health care reform includes concrete solutions to begin solving them. Now, with this new law, West Virginia businesses will have access to far more affordable coverage options. In 6 months, as many as 20,000 small businesses in West Virginia like Kate's will have access to tax credits for up to 35 percent of the cost of health coverage for their employees. And new State-based health insurance exchanges will be designed to help small businesses cover their employees in the small group market. By expanding the pool and spreading risk across every individual in the State exchanges, we can significantly decrease premiums for small businesses and lower administrative costs for small business coverage by as much as 30 percent. Many people have heard about Sarah Wildman, a woman who purchased insurance on the individual market right here in Washington, DC. Sarah was an informed consumer and specifically chose a policy she believed included good maternity coverage--one of the few policies on the individual market that cover maternity care at all. Of course, her so-called ``Maternity'' coverage didn't cover labor, delivery, or even her stay in the hospital. And as a result, Sarah was left with a $22,000 bill. And, because she gave birth by cesarean section--she now has a ``preexisting'' condition and can no longer get coverage elsewhere. Sarah's situation would seem absurd, if it were not so deadly serious. And it begs the question: What is the value of health insurance that offers no coverage when it's needed? But soon she won't have to worry. This new law will mean the elimination of preexisting condition exclusions--right away for our children and as soon as the exchanges are up and running for adults. Both the House and the Senate have spent more than a year working on a meaningful plan to move our health system forward. For many of us this journey started in earnest three years ago in our effort to reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance Program. Protecting that program--which will cover more than 14 million children by 2013--represents yet another of this new law's enormous achievements. But today's achievement is built on more than 50 years of effort and incremental change--some quite meaningful, but none truly comprehensive. At last, our work has brought fundamental changes to a broken health care system, and takes an enormous step to begin making people's lives better. I was so proud to be there with the President when he signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law--after spending my entire career in public service committed to this cause, it was a chance to witness history in the making. I want to thank my colleagues in the House and Senate who did the right thing for the American people. I know we are walking on the right side of history. I know many wanted to do even more, and go further. I know this bill is not perfect, but it will be transformative and that is a good thing. I particularly want to thank two courageous colleagues on the House side--Congressmen Allan Mollohan and Nick Rahall who took a stand for the American people and voted to pass this legislation. I want to thank Harry Reid for his leadership, and his unwavering vision which helped deliver a final bill to the President's desk. And finally, I want to thank the President who came to the White House as a champion of change. And now, he has delivered. We knew it would not be easy to change our health care system, but we persevered. All of us have stories like the ones I told. I am enormously proud to have supported this legislation, which, more than anything, means a better health care system. It means a better America and a better life for families everywhere.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 22, 2010, at 5 p.m.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as we conclude this debate on this reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration, I wish to thank my colleagues for their hard work, and I wish to do so with some specificity. First, I thank Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, the ranking member of the Commerce Committee. Senator Hutchison and I, in a sense, kind of grew up together on the Commerce Committee. We have worked together, in my judgment, entirely successfully on aviation issues. For much of the last decade, Senator Hutchison and I have served as either chair or ranking member of the Aviation Subcommittee. In 2009, I assumed the chairmanship of the Commerce Committee, and she assumed the ranking member position on the committee. But, more importantly, we have a long history of producing strong, bipartisan aviation legislation and working well, generally, starting with the landmark AIR 21 bill in 2000--which greatly increased funding for our aviation system--through the chaotic days after September 11, 9/11--which culminated in the Aviation and Transportation Security Act--to this important reauthorization we are considering today. I am profoundly proud of our work together over the years. I respect her professionally. I respect her personally. I think our work is a legacy we both can be very proud of. I know I am. She is an extraordinary Senator who is deeply committed to making sure the United States has the finest aviation system in the world. She has many other interests, but that is one of them. Our Nation's aviation system is demonstrably safer and more secure because of her efforts. I also thank my good friend, Senator Byron Dorgan. In 2009, Senator Dorgan became the chair of the Aviation Subcommittee--just a year ago-- but he has attacked it with such ferocity and intensity, typical of him, that it seems like much longer than that. He has been a magnificent chairman of that subcommittee. His laserlike focus on making our aviation system safer has become a cornerstone of this bill. He held, for example, eight hearings on aviation safety over the last 15 months. Eight hearings in 15 months does not seem like a lot, but given our schedule around here, it is. He was totally focused, such as on what happened in Buffalo and all other aspects. As with every issue in which he is engaged--and there are many of them--he has made a lasting contribution. I personally regret he has chosen to retire at the end of this year. Not only will I miss him as a friend, but the people of North Dakota and this country will lose one of their most passionate and effective advocates. He should be enormously proud of his work on this bill. I know I am. I also recognize the work of Senator DeMint, who has championed a number of important safety provisions and has been a strong advocate of moving this bill forward. It is important to say, very important to say. Senator Baucus worked hard to develop a revenue title for this bill. Through his efforts, the aviation system will have resources it needs to build the modern digital air traffic control system our Nation demands. We will be spending about $500 billion a year. As with every bill that moves through this body, much, much, much of the work is done by our staff who put in extraordinary hours. First and foremost, I would like to recognize, among other people, Gael Sullivan of my staff. Gael has served as a professional staff member for the Aviation Subcommittee for almost a decade. For 3 years, Gael has worked tirelessly on this bill. It would not be a reality without his efforts. I would also like to recognize Rich Swayze and Adam Duffy of my staff, in addition to Jim Conneely, a detailee from the FAA, as it turns out, to the Commerce Committee. He has been of invaluable assistance. I would like to thank Jarrod Thompson and Ann Begeman of Senator Hutchison's staff. They are true and total professionals, without whose work the bill would not be possible. I would also like to thank Margaret McCarthy of Senator Dorgan's staff, who worked seamlessly with the committee staff. As always, Senator Baucus's staff was critical to getting the revenue title in place. Finally, I would be kind of remiss if I did not mention the hard and constant work of Ellen Doneski, the staff director of the Commerce Committee, who was my legislative director in a former life; Mr. James Reid, who sits beside me, my deputy staff director; and the Commerce Committee press team, Jamie Smith and Jena Longo. The staff never gets enough credit. We talk about it. We say it. I think they know we mean it. I wonder if they can guess how much we do mean it--the hours they put in; their selflessness; their willingness to work together; their willingness to work across party lines, where sometimes their Members cannot as easily. So I am fortunate to have so many talented people working with me and with Senator Hutchison. But most of all, I thank Senator Hutchison. Mr. President, I want to say just a few words about two very important programs at the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA--the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise and the Airport Concessions Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Airport Improvement Programs. These programs have been critically important in helping to level the playing field for minority and women owned businesses in the airport industry and continue to be instrumental in addressing ongoing discrimination. While it is true that our nation has made tremendous progress against discrimination in the past five decades, there continues to be a good deal more work to do. Discrimination in the lending, bonding, and bid process, as well as disparities in the treatment of DBE subcontractors once a contract is awarded are real life problems faced by these businesses. For this reason, I strongly support the provisions in this bill to improve the DBE program, including provisions to adjust the personal net worth cap for inflation and to require certification training for those who review DBE applications. We must not forget the true impact of DBE firms on the economy. Minority and women owned businesses not only improve the vitality of the airport industry, but they are important economic contributors to their communities. The statistical and qualitative evidence of discrimination is clear and has been compiled in disparity studies that are conducted by state and local governments around the country. These studies are well constructed third party examinations that shed light on whether qualified DBE firms in the area are being utilized, examine the contracting and business activities of the state or local government, review the corresponding private markets in the same geographic area, and analyze anecdotal reports about discrimination from actual stakeholders. These studies, many examples of which were received during the Commerce Committee's May 2009 hearing, and during a hearing in the House of Representatives in March 2009, demonstrate that progress has been made and that our efforts here in Congress are still necessary. For example, studies have showed that airports operated by Denver, CO, Phoenix, AZ, and the State of Maryland all have made progress, but that significant hurdles remain. These studies demonstrate that discrimination continues to exist in both the public contracting process and in the private sector, such as in access to credit markets. The inclusion of the DBE provisions in the bill will provide an important on-the-ground benefit to businesses by helping to level the playing field and enabling fairer competition. I am pleased that Congress has recognized the continued need for these programs and these new provisions as integral to the reauthorization of the FAA.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be divided equally.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, notwithstanding the order of March 19, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 3527 not be withdrawn; that it be considered when the managers' package is presented.

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

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent the time be charged equally to both sides.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, expanding air service to metropolitan airports is always a very contentious issue. I believe it is important that we give due consideration to local interests when considering the addition of slots, particularly at National Airport. Senators Warner and Webb have significant reservations about moving forward on any changes to existing policy at this time, and I have worked to address these concerns. I believe the agreement reached between Senators Dorgan, Warner, Hutchison, Kyl, Ensign, and DeMint is a reasonable way forward. It will allow us to balance the desire for additional slots against the opposition from local residents. Pursuing a more abrupt policy change such as eliminating the perimeter rule altogether has significant implications for competition, small community air service, congestion, and delay. Going forward, we need to make sure there are not unintended consequences from such changes and that service to small communities is preserved. Obviously, service to small communities is very important to me. I also wish to make clear that the Federal Government's role in this process is specific. Air carriers sometimes treat airport slots as though they are their own property. It is not. It is their privilege. The air transportation system is operated for the benefit of the public interest, not for the private interests. Too often, the air carriers abuse the rights they have been granted. They schedule too many flights at congested airports, and the result is gridlock. This is part of the reason there is a cap on slots at National. The air transportation network requires that capacity be managed carefully so the entire system functions rationally. It is the responsibility of the Federal Government to make sure it operates well, and I take this role very seriously. If the air carriers cannot manage their slots in an effective manner, the Federal Government will have to step in and do it for them. Crafting a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the FAA has been my long and difficult journey, together with the ranking member, Senator Hutchison. I recognize that many of my colleagues have a strong interest in expanding service at National. I appreciate the work they have done. But I do believe that what has been discussed here and will be discussed later in conference is a balanced approach. I look forward to working with my colleagues in a conference with the House that will achieve an appropriate agreement that is acceptable to everybody. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as we approach a final vote on the FAA reauthorization, which we are doing slowly--that will take place at about 5:30--I wish to talk briefly about why I think this is so important. I see my distinguished colleague from Texas is here, whom I am going to praise so much in my final comments, but she will have to wait for that. I wish to discuss why we have spent so much precious time in the middle of a national debate on health care and jobs and the economy to work on this bill, which we have been doing now for several years. As I have often pointed out, it was sort of pushed forward 11 times without a final resolve. We want a final resolve this evening, and we believe we are going to get one. We are here today because FAA reauthorization is about so much more than aviation. It has everything to do with safety for our people, it is about jobs, it is about our economy, it is about, frankly, our self- esteem as a nation in the world of aviation. Fifty percent of all the flights that take place in the world are American planes, but we are behind, in some ways, and we shouldn't be. The Congress has allowed us to be behind because we haven't been able to put attention on this because time is hard to get on the floor. So I appreciate Leader Reid's willingness to give us this time, even as these momentous matters are going on. To me, this is all about improving commercial aviation air service to small and rural counties, communities. You would expect that from me. I represent my State. But as chairman of the committee, I represent the country, too, as does my distinguished ranking member. It is also very much about establishing better consumer rights protections for the people who fly, whom we call passengers and whom we also call consumers. But ultimately it is about improving safety and about modernizing our system, which I have taken very seriously for years and about which we have done precious little. In other words, it is about people's lives every day. I can remember years ago I could say a relatively few percentage of the folks from my State flew. They just didn't fly. I mean a lot did but most didn't. That has changed now. You can't do business in West Virginia, and West Virginians can't do anything without getting on an airplane, if you can find one to get on and if you cram yourself into one--which would be a problem for the Presiding Officer as well as the present speaker. In other words, our utmost priority always has to be safety in the skies and for the passengers and their families. They have to trust us to get this right. There is a lot that goes wrong. There is a lot that isn't noticed that goes wrong, but we do notice and we haven't corrected it and we have a moral obligation to correct it. So let me say a word about safety. Statistically, as everybody says, we have the safest air transportation system in the world. I always bridal a little bit when I hear that. It is true. Our airlines talk about it, politicians talk about it. But it is so much less safe than it could easily be if we were to be a bit more farsighted and energetic. We have done that in the Commerce Committee, and we have put forward a bill which does that and creates a much more wholesome story and I will get into that. It has been a little more than a year since the tragic crash in Buffalo, NY, of flight 3407 that took the lives of 50 people. It is clear we need to take serious steps to improve pilot training, to address flight crew fatigue, which seems to be an esoteric subject until you look at it. Senator Byron Dorgan, who is the chairman of our subcommittee, had some charts which brilliantly showed what pilots in some of these commuter airlines have to go through to get to work and sometimes then go two nights with no sleep before they fly. Well, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that is dangerous. And then you have chatter in the cockpits. We have even had one instance of an 8- or 11-year-old kid helping to land a plane. I mean it is ridiculous. It is pathetic. It exists. We are trying to get rid of all that. Our bill does a lot to address these problems. We need to have resources for all our airports, both large and small. This legislation is about equality among airports and economic stability among airports. We have to provide adequate resources to airports, both large and small, both urban and rural. When people think of California, they think of San Francisco and Los Angeles, but they don't think of the dozens of places in between and above and below that are rural or the inner part of California, where people need air transportation but have a hard time. The continuing economic crisis has hit the U.S. airline industry very hard. That is easy to say, but it has been devastating for our legacy airlines. They have been in and out of bankruptcy, mergers have taken place, and they are always on the edge. I remember at one point they were showing how they were going to move the seats about an inch closer to each other and there was an uproar. So the pillows disappeared and the pretzels and the potato chips disappeared and we have come to understand that. They are not doing that because they want to treat us badly. They are doing that because every penny is desperate for them, and they have overwhelming problems with the recession. Even before the recession, they were having overwhelming problems. That is the whole question with the deregulation of airlines. A lot of things happened, not all of them good. I can remember--and I hope my ranking member will indulge me--when I went to West Virginia in 1964, and I drove there, actually, but there were Eastern Airlines jets, there were United Airlines jets, there were American Airlines jets, and all the big jets at that time. Within 3 weeks of deregulation, they were all gone. Now I take my 6 feet 6\1/2\ inches and pray I get an exit row. I am a master at working the exit system, should that ever be necessary, but I have to have that exit row, which is always No. 7, or else I am in big trouble. The continuing economic crisis has hit the U.S. airline industry extremely hard and this affects the future of hundreds of our communities and particularly rural communities because the rural communities are always at the end of the food chain. When you are at the end of the food chain, it is akin to being at the end of the line. You are the one who is cut out. No more seats in the house, you are cut out, cut off. I have witnessed that a lot in West Virginia and it hurts. It hurts. I have seen, time and time again, how important a lifeline it is for local communities, and therefore it continues to hurt. The Federal Government needs to provide additional resources and tools for small communities to attract adequate airline service. That is possible. It is not just a matter of the Federal Government supplying a certain amount of money or the essential air service, it is a matter of the local airports taking themselves very seriously as a product. We discovered that in West Virginia. Others have discovered it, perhaps before us or after us, but it makes no difference, you have to market yourself. An airport is not just a place where planes land, it is a consumer product and it has to be marketed. It used to be that lots of our people drove to Cincinnati and took Southwest, and there was nothing we could do about it. Of course, there was something we could do about it, and that was to market our airport in Charleston, WV, and we did that. They marketed on the air, in the newspapers, and they marketed it in every way possible. Gradually, the people who had been going to Cincinnati stopped going to Cincinnati because they discovered they didn't have to spend the money on gasoline and the overnight motel rooms. They could simply go to Charleston, to Yeager Airport, and get to Huntington or Parkersburg or wherever it was. So it is a tough fight for local communities. It is easy if you are in a big city. It is hard if you are in a small State, and the Presiding Officer is familiar with that. So our legislation accomplishes this business of new resources by building on the existing programs and strengthening them. There are some very good programs. I will not go into all of them now, but there are some very good programs. The Airport Improvement Program was started a number of years ago. It is absolutely superb at what it does. It allows airports to expand, to build parking garages, to expand runways, and build those sort of off-ramp safety places, as they do for trucks, so that when they are speeding too much and suddenly there is something which shoots up the hill. Airports have something called EMASS, which is the same thing. At the end of a runway, if the plane lands on a short runway--because most of our airports are on the tops of hills--and they overshoot a little bit, they can end up in an EMASS and they are safe. It is soft concrete blocks. We had 34 lives saved in the last month and a half because of that EMASS system which happened to be there, and that has to be utilized all over the country. Consumer rights. This bill also strengthens passenger protections by incorporating elements of the Passenger Bill of Rights to deal with the most egregious flight delays and cancellations. We are rather specific about that. You never know exactly how things work out, but we have set some rules. We have said nobody can wait more than 3 hours without food, without medical attention, without bathroom facilities. They have to take the passengers back, get them to unload so you don't have these 9-hour, 8-hour, 7-hour waits that always become national stories whenever they happen. That is not a question of being practical, it is a question of being humane. It makes sense. It takes away people's anger, and it makes them more likely to want to fly. Passengers, frankly, have really had it with endless delays--they really have had it. They do not like the way they are being treated, especially when they are stuck on a tarmac in the summertime. People feel bad sometimes when they are just in an airplane--the white-knuckle syndrome even if they are not flying, just being in an airplane. The air is not always so good. People can come close to a point of panic. You don't want that. We deal with that in this legislation. We do have a responsibility to bring their rights back into the equation and take them seriously. Modernization. Our system is outdated. It is strained beyond its capacity. I feel very passionate about this one and I have for years. America's air traffic control system is literally using a World War II technology. We are the only ones in the industrialized world who do that. It is embarrassing beyond belief, it is costly beyond belief, it is climate-unfriendly beyond belief, and it is dangerous beyond belief because everything is based on radar. It is ancient, World War II. We have not changed. Everybody else has. Mongolia has done it. We have not. On the committee, we decided we were going to get into it in a very big way. The Next Generation Air Transportation System, called NextGen--that is what we call it--will save our economy billions by creating additional capacity and more direct routes, allowing aircraft to move more efficiently. Why? Because it will be GPS, it will be digitalized, and it will be real-time streaming of where airplanes are. It will help the ground controllers. They will have to put equipage in the airlines themselves so the pilots and the ground-control people will know exactly where they are at all times. That means maybe they will be able to bring planes closer together and can land more often or fly a little closer together--things that cause the whole system to purge itself of inefficiencies, but not unsafely but safely because you are using a digitalized system which the rest of the world is already using. It has the further advantage, which I have indicated, of reducing carbon emissions and noise emissions. Noise emissions are very important. The noise emissions can be overestimated by some; nevertheless, if people feel strongly about it, they feel strongly about it, and people do feel strongly about it. You see that in our local area here. So we want to be helpful on that. A modern air traffic control system will provide pilots and their air traffic controllers with a better situational awareness--I have said that, but it is so important--giving them the tools to see other aircraft, both at the same time, both streaming information real time. Also, the weather maps, so they have precise knowledge--not just visual knowledge of where there might be a thunderstorm but precise knowledge. This kind of modernization requires sustained focus and substantial resources. We have worked that out in our bill, and we will have a nationwide system by, I believe it is, 2025. It seems like a long way off, but considering where we are starting--we only have one in place, in the gulf, which is working. We have to do the whole system. It costs money, both by the Federal Government and by airlines--which are not going to love that, but it is part of the deal. This authorization takes steps to make sure we begin all of this now. In closing, we have to move boldly. This is a huge subject. It is a huge part of our economy. I guess 700 million people fly today, each year. In the next 10 years, it will go over 1 billion, maybe 1.2 billion people in the air over the course of a year. At any given moment, there are 36,000 planes in the skies. How do you keep track of them all? How can you be sure that they are safe, that they are not going? How do you shut off the chatter business where pilots are just talking to each other about things. How far do you go on that without invading privacy rights? On the other hand, if you don't go far enough, you are invading consumer and passenger safety, and I lean in that direction. Last week, I spoke a little on the floor about the main four goals we set out to achieve with this bill. No. 1 is to address critical safety concerns. No. 2 is to establish a roadmap to implement NextGen, that is, the modern system, so we can catch up with Mongolia and accelerate the FAA's key modernization programs. No. 3 is to invest in airport infrastructure. It is so important. If you look at what is happening at Dulles Airport--that is sort of an extreme example because that is preparing for the 23rd century, not for the 21st or 22nd. But they have it right, they have all the land out there, they have bonding authority, and they can do what they want. They have a good board. It works very well for them. It needs to work for other airports, also, in small communities as well. No. 4 is to continue improving small communities' access to the nation's aviation system. You know I will never deviate from that, coming from the State of West Virginia. Frankly, I am proud of how far we have come and prouder still that we got here in a truly bipartisan fashion. It is refreshing. It was quite wonderful, working with Senators--obviously Senator Hutchison being the key; Senator Dorgan, a terrific chairman of the aviation subcommittee, absolutely terrific; also, Senator DeMint--toward a vibrant, strong aviation system so fundamental to our country. I urge my colleagues to give the FAA the tools, the resources, the direction, and the deadlines to make sure the agency can provide effective oversight of the aviation industry. This is a big-ticket item that appears not so dramatic as events of the recent days, but over the course of our country, it is extraordinarily dramatic. I will at the proper time urge my colleagues to support reauthorization. As I say, we have put this off now 11 different times. This will last for 2 years after conference--it may be 3 years. I would take more than that, myself. But we cannot afford to wait any longer. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 463 submitted earlier today.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, en bloc; the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc; that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 464, submitted earlier today.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.