Jay Rockefeller

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I think a little context is helpful to understand the situation we were in. Republicans sought to use the FAA reauthorization bill to overturn a recent administrative rule by the National Mediation Board granting certification if a union won a majority of actual voters in a representation election. The Senate correctly rejected that provision of the House bill. The rule was fair and reasonable and I strongly support it.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Chair. The problem we face here is that most people are in the air coming in this direction. Most will land around 5 o'clock. So Senator Hutchison and myself don't feel any particular pressure. We can talk for long periods of time and talk about other issues. Today we are considering the FAA conference report which has been the subject of negotiations--I shudder when I say that--between the House and the Senate for much of the past year, and actually we have been working on it for much longer than that. We have been through 23 extensions. We are now looking at the possibility of a bill that will, in fact, last for 4 years, which will be the best news that the airline industry ever had, that the people who work for the airline industry ever had, that the people who work to improve the safety of the airline people ever had, including those who are doing a new traffic control system. So I am very happy that, as we call it, the FAA Modernization Reform Act of 2012 will extend the authorities through 2015. As the Presiding Officer is aware, we have done this for 2 months, 3 months-- time after time after time--and it makes it impossible to negotiate and it is terribly destabilizing for the aviation industry as well as the Federal Aviation Administration. This agreement is going to provide a lot of stability to the FAA-- they will be happy about that--and it will make certain there is adequate funding to support the agency's mission. The bill takes concrete steps to modernize our air traffic control system. I am excited beyond words to be able to say that sentence because it will take us into a new era that will bring much more efficiency, more planes will be able to take off and land and, in so doing, do it much more safely, being watched from space rather than from radar, which is what we do now. This bill is going to make the air transportation system safer than ever before and make certain that small communities have access to critical air service. I will speak more about that. It will also make sure that the U.S. aviation industry remains competitive and remains strong. We are that way in the world. We do lead in exports on aviation and the Federal aviation industry continues to be the gold standard for safety. That is not to say we have not had problems, but we have been solving those problems. This has been a long and sometimes arduous process. I think my colleague Senator Hutchison would agree with that. Many compromises were made to get us here. Compromises in the present atmosphere are not easy. Conversations are not easy. Compromises are very difficult. While no one got everything they wanted, the bill will permit us--I believe Senator Hutchison would agree--to achieve our shared goals. The agreement will allow us to pass a comprehensive, again, 4-year FAA reauthorization. The legislation we have before us now will move our aviation system forward. It will not be in neutral. People who run the system, the folks who take care of airplanes and who run the companies, will be absolutely thrilled if this bill passes, which I expect it to do. In this era of very scarce resources, we still have managed to produce a bill that provides the FAA the money it needs to carry out its mission. Without going into too much detail, we had to make a compromise on that. But, frankly, that was a compromise that was agreed to and, I believed, was reasonable in terms of the other way of looking at things. So it is stability. The funding authorized for the Airport Improvement Program, which is very important, and the facilities and equipment accounts, which are just gobbledygook to most people, will give much needed support to aviation infrastructure projects and planning across our Nation. It is a blueprint. Over $3 billion a year is provided through the Airport Improvement Program to provide airport grants that will make a real difference in the Nation's airspace system and the people who use it every day. We will create and we will sustain jobs in every State, and we will continue to make substantial investments in our Nation's airports. Based on Department of Transportation estimates, the Airport Improvement Program alone supports over 100,000 jobs annually. I will say later on in these remarks that there are about 10 million people who work because of something called aviation in this country--10 million people. For communities in West Virginia, having up-to-date airports is absolutely critical to our future. The investments we make through the Airport Improvement Program will help the country greatly--not just West Virginia but the entire country. With this bill, as I said, nearly $3 billion will also be provided each year for the facilities and equipment account which basically funds the new air traffic control system. I have said this 10 times from this floor: Mongolia has that; we do not. They have globally positioned--very accurate reading--not only for weather but for aircraft on the ground and also in the air, so the spacing vertically and horizontally is extremely accurate and, therefore, much safer and much more efficient and uses much less fuel. This effort on the air traffic control system is embarrassing, it is so needed. We are working on radar right now. We are working on radar. That is compared to a satellite-based aircraft surveillance system. I have spent, frankly, much of the last decade working to make sure the FAA has the resources and the ability to implement NextGen, the so- called new air traffic control system, the modernized, digitalized air traffic control system. It is so essential. It is so embarrassing we do not have it as a nation. It is such a burden on the air traffic control people themselves, trying to see through the fog, so to speak, of the world of radar. This bill will move forward key aspects of the NextGen effort and make sure that modernization will proceed on schedule with clear timelines and a lot of oversight and requirements. We push for near-term modernization benefits by requiring that precision navigation be implemented first--and this makes sense--in the 35 largest airports in the country--that does make sense--by the year 2015 and then in all airports by the year 2016. This will significantly improve airspace capacity and, by the way, the environment. The bill also establishes a chief NextGen officer--not a bureaucracy but a person--to lead the modernization effort. It is very specific; it is a very calculated and precise instrument that has to be done correctly--and takes steps to improve coordination among relevant Federal agencies. One has to say that. It is sort of a boring statement, but it is kind of a necessary one if it happens to be true, which in this case I believe it is. While modernization will provide the greatest safety benefits, the bill also requires the FAA to move forward on other imperative safety measures. The bill mandates stricter oversight of airlines and their compliance with airworthiness directives. It requires regular inspections of foreign repair stations--subject to controversy--and the implementation of drug and alcohol programs at those facilities--a subject, frankly, lacking in controversy. Specific measures in the bill also focus on the safety of our air ambulance operations--that is a lot of activity in our country--and take steps to improve airport runway surveillance; that is, we have a problem now with literally airplanes running into each other on the tarmac because of fog or because of poor coordination or whatever--the kind of things that a NextGen modernized system would tend to make much less prevalent. This bill will make significant strides for the airline industry through modernization. They crave it. They need it. Commercial aviation helps drive $1.3 trillion in U.S. economic activity and, as I said before, more than 10 million U.S. jobs. So I think those who would consider not voting for this would have to at least start out on that rather alarming fact. The aviation sector is critical to our place in the global marketplace. It contributes $75 billion to our trade balance and represents roughly 6 percent of the gross domestic product of the country. It is huge. We must make certain all Americans reap the benefits of our national aviation system. To that end, this bill preserves and strengthens the Essential Air Service Program. I have to say that had been completely eliminated by the House--completely eliminated. That is life or death for West Virginia and for a lot of rural places. In general, almost all large States also have rural aspects, and they need this kind of help. We provide vital access to the aviation system for small and rural communities. That gives access to the global marketplace. It means people come. CEOs do not tend to want to drive to Montana or to West Virginia to look over possible sites for building plants. It is very important for economic development. It is interesting--and I am sure Senator Hutchison would agree with me--that communities thrive, particularly smaller communities, on how well their small airports are doing. They may have good runway space but not a lot of enplanements because it is not a hugely populated area. But we put very strict confinements on that in the essential air service. We disciplined it. We said there can be no new ones other than the ones currently existing. We put other restrictions on it to make it palatable to the other body. We said, for example, communities that have per-passenger subsidies over $1,000 are eliminated forthwith from the program. That makes sense. That much money going for a couple of passengers is just ridiculous. Communities that have fewer than 10 passengers per day--and there are in my State some very strong communities that have that situation. They just cannot work it out that they get people onto their airplanes or air service, and, as a result, obviously, the service begins to disappear. There is no reason the essential air service should allow any of that to proceed. So we say if they have fewer than 10 passengers per day--if you are an airport of that sort--and are within 175 miles of a large or medium-sized hub airport, you are to be eliminated immediately from this program. That is harsh for some. But it is what brought us a compromise for the majority of us--all of us. The program also caps future eligibility, as I have indicated, to those communities that are currently in this program. Now, I am sure everyone has heard me say the essential air service is the lifeblood for so many communities. I believe this bill strikes a careful balance between the need to cut government spending, which this does, and preserving small community access to our national aviation system by making some of these prudent reforms. It is important for me to take a moment to emphasize the consequences of not passing this bill. Aside from not achieving all the benefits this bill provides, we will find ourselves in a nasty fight with the House when the current FAA extension runs out in less than 2 weeks. This is not just a bill that is floating around. This is a bill that is on a timetable, and the extension--the 23rd extension--of this bill we made runs out in several weeks. So, then, everything goes back to zero, and you remember we laid off a lot of people earlier. The House has no patience left for short-term extensions--I cannot disagree with that--and they have shown this past August they are perfectly willing to send over an extension with policy riders, policy riders which they full well know are totally impossible for this body to accept or for the majority of this body to accept. They also have shown their resolve in all of this. Not too long ago they shut down the FAA. It was not a question of what this is going to do to people's lives. They just shut it down for the principle of sticking by their guns, and they furloughed 4,000 government employees and did not seem to care that hundreds of millions in aviation trust fund revenues were lost forever. If we do not pass the FAA conference report, you can be sure the House will send over an FAA extension that is just as troublesome. We have reached a compromise position under the magnificent watchful eye of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. Again, nobody got everything they wanted, and there are some provisions that people have great difficulty accepting. I understand that. All of this has to be seen within the context of the greater bill, which is a huge piece of legislation, a magnificent piece of legislation, and very much a job-creating piece of legislation. But this is, in my judgment, a very good deal. It is a fair deal. If we do not pass it, I think we will all certainly regret it. I strongly encourage all of my fellow Members to support this bill. Now, finally, before I conclude my remarks I want to thank my colleagues for all of their diligent work on this bill. Let me be clear, we would not be here today were it not for the efforts of Senate majority leader Harry Reid and for his guidance and for his leadership. He and his team negotiated the most sensitive part of the bill. I personally want to thank Senator Reid for his stalwart support throughout this process. Right after him comes Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. Over the past 4 years, she has done more than anybody to get this bill passed into law--hopefully passed into law. Although she was fully engaged in every part of the development, most notably, her work on securing a slots agreement removed one of the biggest hurdles in getting this legislation through the Senate. In fact, it was the biggest hurdle when we got this through the Senate. It was Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison who worked out those compromises and deals in a harrowingly magnificent fashion. Her deep aviation expertise and negotiating skills are truly remarkable, and this bill is another significant part of her already very substantial legacy. Finally, I thank Senator Maria Cantwell. A year ago, she assumed the chairmanship of the Aviation Subcommittee. She made substantial contributions to the entire bill but most notably on NextGen--the new air traffic control system, the modernized one, the GPS one, the digitalized one. She effectively balances very difficult issues and at the same time is incredibly committed to the interests of Washington State. We should be proud of this compromise agreement that will enable our aviation system to move forward to meet the challenges of continuously improving safety, air traffic control modernization, airport development, and small community air service. I thank the Acting President pro tempore.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am in the happy position of mimicking a lot of what my colleague Senator Hutchison has said but for a very good reason. Until one goes through an experience such as the one Senator Hutchison and I have been through for the last year, plus, plus, one has no understanding of how hard staff works. That staff routinely work over the weekends is just a given. They work through the night. They will stay up all night frequently. They have to reach out in so many directions. There are not that many of them as compared to those who have requests of them, and so their work never stops. Let me start, obviously, with Senator Hutchison. She did mention Todd Bertoson and Richard Russell, then Jarrod Thompson, the lead negotiator. That is a tough position. It is a very tough position because people and interest groups figure out whom to go to and whom to pester and whom to follow up with. I have that same situation, and Ellen Doneski is incredible. I called her at 11 last night and she was fine and well and then she got sick and now she is already back at work. Does that mean she is not sick any longer? I don't know. But they are driven to excel. They are driven to drive the product home in ways that are expiring. To my left sits James Reid, who is the No. 2 person on that committee who, as far as I can tell, knows everything about everything and certainly about any discussion that comes up in terms of the Commerce Committee. He is tireless. He has young children with the tension that creates, not in principle but just the idea that you have to occasionally show up at home and be a good father. Gael Sullivan is our lead negotiator, and that is a very special position on a bill such as this. Rich Swayze and Adam Duffy; Rich Swayze and Gael worked so many things together, and Gael Sullivan and Adam Duffy. Let me go to Representative Joe Rahall. Obviously, he is a colleague of mine. I think he has been in the House for 36 years, and he represents the coal fields, in many ways the most volatile part of our State as its economics change rapidly. His chief negotiator is Giles Giovinazzi, and to him goes the same praise. House Members and the subcommittees and committees have so many fewer staff than in the Senate, so we have to praise them very much. Jim Zoia, who is his chief of staff--and has been, I swear, for all 36 years. If it is not the case, it doesn't matter--is a remarkable person; Ward McGarragher and Alex Burkett. With John Mica, I need to mention Jim Coon, Holly Woodruff Lyons, who was his lead negotiator, and Bailey Edwards and Simone Perez. Let me end simply by saying Senator Reid and his people were so heavily involved, particularly in this one aspect of the bill. But he has been driving this bill in our caucuses, as the Presiding Officer well knows, for over a year: Where is my FAA bill? Where is my FAA bill? He has been driving, pushing, pushing, pushing, pushing. His chief of staff is David Krone, who so many people don't know and it is their loss; Darrel Thompson, Bob Herbert, Bill Dauster, who keeps in touch with everybody and everything. To the floor staff of the majority and the minority leaders, just simply to be grateful to them and to make sure we say that to them personally, we say it publicly, and we say it frequently. I ask unanimous consent that, from this point forward, any time spent in quorum calls be equally divided.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Roberts from Kansas and Senator Isakson from the State of Georgia--State of Atlanta--for their very kind remarks. I really mean that. These are two good people with a lot of business experience, with aviation--is Hartsfield still the world's busiest airport?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. And tremendous general aviation industry the Senator has in his State. That they come down and praise this bill means a lot to this Senator and I thank both of them. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Certainly. We had no intention of changing the level of deference that is accorded to the agency in representation matters. The NMB's certification authority remains conclusive.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Yes.

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

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I note that the time is just before 5 o'clock. My distinguished Republican colleague, Senator Hutchison, is not on the floor at the moment, but I do not know of nor have I heard of any other Members wanting to speak. I don't know that we need to do much except go ahead and vote. I don't have the power to command that. I see a whole lot of people up here who do, but I would just say if there is anybody at the last moment who wants to speak, that is fine. We have set up the vote for 5:30. I think there are a lot of our colleagues who aren't going to get here until 5:30 because they are on airplanes that land at 5:00. So we have to take that into consideration. So I stand here to say that I think this is a very good bill, and I think, as has been mentioned often, it is a 4-year product with hard work and with an unbelievable consultation with all of the stakeholders, which includes all of the Members of the Senate and their staffs and all of the people out in the world of aviation. We have spent endless hours with them, and rightly so and happily so. I think there is general support in the aviation community for this bill. I could read a list of all of the people who do support it, the associations that support it, but it would take me a long time. I hope very much my colleagues will vote for this bill. As I indicated, nobody got all they wanted, but that is the nature of compromise. Compromise in and of itself was particularly difficult in this negotiation, but we have done what we have done. It is well regarded. I urge my colleagues, when they do come, to vote for the bill. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I rise to honor Dr. Michael Copps. At the end of last year, Dr. Copps retired from public service--though not from public life. For those of you who do not know him, I want to take this opportunity to tell you about him, the life he has led, what he has done for this country--and what he has done for all of us. After earning a doctorate in U.S. history from the University of North Carolina, Dr. Copps headed south to the Big Easy. He taught history at Loyola University in New Orleans. It was there that he met his wife Beth. Academe had its pull. But so did Washington. So in 1970, he convinced his wife to pack up their life and move north to the capital. He heard the call of policy and politics and told her that after he got it out of his system, he would head back to university life. He never did head back to the halls of the academy. But his keen mind, calm demeanor, and dedication to the public interest have taught all of us about what it is to lead an honorable life in public service. He started in Washington in the office of Senator Fritz Hollings. He eventually served for over a dozen years as Senator Hollings' chief of staff. He is well known and well loved by so many who served in the office of the South Carolina Senator. I know that Fritz Hollings too is proud to call him a colleague and friend. From the Halls of the Senate, he headed on to industry. He took on policy operations in Washington for a Fortune 500 manufacturing company. He also worked at a major trade association. With the election of President Clinton, however, he again heard the call of government service. He first served as Deputy Assistant Secretary at the U.S. Department of Commerce. During his tenure, he fostered public sector and private sector cooperation to strengthen American industry. He led the U.S.-Russia Business Development Committee's oil and gas working group. In this role, he pushed successfully for the removal of an export tax for U.S. companies shipping oil out of Russia. He negotiated power, chemical, and automotive policies with China. He built partnerships involving forest products, agriculture products, and electrical power in Russia, Ukraine, and Turkey. He assisted generously with global automotive negotiations and trade promotion initiatives. Five years later, he was nominated and confirmed by this body, for Assistant Secretary for Trade Development at the U.S Department of Commerce. Again, he served nobly. He worked with the private sector to expand commercial opportunities for U.S. businesses in the global economy. He oversaw a reorganization of trade development within the Department, creating a new office focused on information technologies industries. He also advocated internationally for the creation of independent telecommunications regulatory regimes, transparent legal authority for telecommunications, and investor-friendly climates for information technology. He did all of these things at the Department of Commerce with his characteristic force, impressive analytical skills, and customary grace. But it was only sometime after his tenure at the Department of Commerce that I really came to know Dr. Copps. That was when, in 2001, he was first nominated, and later confirmed, for the role of Commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission. He brought to the role the same energy and enthusiasm that he displayed at the Department of Commerce. He brought the same sense of conviction, and he brought the same belief that through expanding the stakeholders in any dialogue, we can enrich our conversation, grow our economy, and enhance our public life. His accomplishments over the course of his two terms at the agency are too numerous to mention. So I will dwell only on a few. First, as the Acting Chairman of the agency he led the national transition to digital television. He was the man in charge of keeping the television on, as our Nation's broadcasters ceased sending signals in analog form. His calm, clear focus, and ability to marshal public and private efforts to manage the transition kept millions and millions of households with access to television news, emergency information, and entertainment. Second, he called early and often for policies to support broadband, understanding well before others that broadband is the great infrastructure challenge of our age. It was here that his eye for history served him especially well, as he analogized between broadband networks and the railroads that criss-crossed our country more than a century before; between opening ports to new markets and opening communities through new communications networks; and between the need for our interstate highway system and the need for new broadband byways. He called for a national broadband plan well before it was popular to do so. He reminded us that rural Americans must not be left on the wrong side of the digital divide. In fact, he tirelessly pressured to expand service to the historically underserved--from rural areas, to Indian Country, to those with disabilities, and more-- believing that access to communications technologies strengthens our economy and our democracy. Third, he was an early champion of the open and free Internet. As our lives migrated online, he saw the risks posed by the control of both connectivity and content. He gave early voice to basic concepts that grew to become network neutrality. Fourth, and finally--he has emerged as an important voice on media policy. He has never shied from asking the hard questions about our media institutions. He has criticized media concentration for diluting the diversity, localism, and competition we need in our information sources. He has worried for all of us that with the shuttering of newspapers and thinning of journalism's ranks, we are doing great harm to the public's need to know. He was not blind to the great informational promise of the Internet, but instead a realist about its near-term journalistic limitations. Without an informed citizenry, he reminded us over and over again, we risk what is essential for democracy. His zeal for this issue was anything but academic. He took to the road and held countless hearings outside of Washington--giving thousands of people across the country the opportunity to speak about the changes in our media landscape, and the information they need in their communities. As part of this, he also pressed for less indecency in the media, and less coarse content on our airwaves. His media policies had fans and also detractors. But both uniformly respected how he took on these issues and how deeply committed he was to his cause. Simply put, they do not make men like Michael Copps anymore. He represents the best in public service. So as Dr. Copps turns in his badge and turns to spending more time with Beth and their family of five children, I wanted to come to the floor and congratulate him on his accomplishments. His has set an example for all of us. This one-time history professor has earned his place in history. I know I am grateful for his service to this country. I am also grateful to call him a friend.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation I report favorably the following nomination list which was printed in the Record on the date indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that this nomination lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, it is a distinct honor and privilege for me to congratulate Thomas L. Birch, the legislative counsel and founding director, of the National Child Abuse Coalition, for his decades of service to children. After more than 30 years as head of the coalition, Tom is retiring. Mr. Birch established the National Child Abuse Coalition three decades ago as a way to focus greater attention on the more than 700,000 children who are abused and neglected each year. From his earliest days, Tom was inspired to make a difference in the lives of some of our most vulnerable children and families. His interest was first peaked as a high school student working at a public housing project in Stamford, CT. He noticed that not all kids had the same opportunity and that not all children had the same start at life. His experiences also demonstrated that with the right kind of support, we could make a difference in these young lives. We could even the playing field. Tom continued on to college and became an attorney, but when he reached Washington, he brought with him that same passion to make a difference. We all talk about how important children are to this country's future, but Tom felt you had to do more than just say that-- he had to act. He began his new job on Capitol Hill working for the chair of what we now call the HELP Committee, under Senator Walter Mondale. In fact, the week Tom Birch started his work for the future Vice President, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, or CAPTA, was signed into law. He would continue advocating for children and the prevention of child abuse by working on the staffs of Senator Paul Simon and Congressman John Brademas. When Tom ended his career as a Capitol Hill staffer he moved on but didn't move away from his main mission in life: to continue to make a difference for the most vulnerable children in the land. He formed a coalition to focus attention on preventing the abuse and neglect of children. In 1981 the National Child Abuse Coalition was created under the leadership of Mr. Birch. His pride and constant inspiration has been to shape the growth of CAPTA, and that, too, would be the mission of the coalition he founded. Because of Tom Birch's efforts, more than 30 national member organizations, working through the coalition, have been able to coordinate and strengthen their Federal advocacy on behalf of the millions of vulnerable children. Through this time period Tom has contributed to important developments, including the creation of children's trust funds across the States; the establishment of national child abuse data; greater focus on community-based solutions, including the community-based grants to prevent child abuse and neglect; and more recently he and the coalition were an important voice of support for the new home visitation program enacted by Congress in 2010. Through his leadership the coalition has also served as an advocate in the appropriations process for CAPTA and similar programs such as the Social Services Block Grant, SSBG, and the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program, PSSF. When opportunities have arisen he has worked to highlight ways to strengthen programs such as Head Start and childcare to make sure the country took every opportunity to address child neglect and to prevent it. Others have recognized Mr. Birch's contributions, including the American Psychological Association, which honored him in 2003 with their Award for Distinguished Contribution to Child Advocacy. Later in 2006 Casey Family Programs honored Tom again by giving him their Leadership Award. I want to join the many others in recognizing Tom Birch. These days we talk a great deal about lobbyists and special interests in Washington, DC, but there are certain groups of people here in Washington you don't hear about. They won't be featured on the evening news or the front page of the newspaper. These are the men and women who patiently and quietly walk these halls to tell the stories of vulnerable children. These people do it not to get rich or to promote the fortunes of the powerful; they work on behalf of our most vulnerable. Tom is one of these people, an unsung hero who has made a true difference for vulnerable children. It has been a job well done for Tom. I hope his retirement is successful and rewarding in every way he wishes it to be, and I thank him very much for all the contributions he has made to the lives of all the most vulnerable children all across this country.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President. I wish to recognize Katherine Bomkamp, a promising sophomore at West Virginia University, WVU, who invented a new prosthesis that reduces phantom pain for amputees, including many returning veterans. Last month, she was in New York City being honored by Glamour magazine as one of its ``21 Amazing Young Women of 2011,'' to celebrate the 21st anniversary of its Women of the Year awards. At the age of 16, following frequent visits to Walter Reed Army Medical Center while her father was stationed at the Pentagon with the U.S. Air Force, Katherine conceptualized the ``pain free socket,'' a prosthetic device that combats the phantom limb pain experienced by 80 percent of amputees. After two-and-a-half years of research, Katherine is now at West Virginia University, where the WVU Entrepreneurship Center is helping her obtain a patent for the device and find funding to make it available for injured veterans and other patients. The WVU Entrepreneurship Center is playing an important role in helping Katherine commercialize the ``pain free socket.'' It is a great example of how America's research universities are supporting innovative entrepreneurs, whose ideas are vital to economic growth today. Ms. Bomkamp didn't just sit on the sidelines and feel sorrow for the afflicted men and women she encountered at Walter Reed. She listened to their stories and learned that many amputees experienced phantom pain, the feeling of pain in an absent limb. By researching the topic, Katherine found that no medications have been approved for specifically treating phantom pain. Instead, many amputees are prescribed antipsychotics and barbiturates, treatments that can be expensive and highly addictive. For a 10th-grade science project, Katherine decided to leap into action. She created the ``Pain Free Socket,'' incorporating thermal biofeedback into prosthetics to eliminate phantom pain in amputees. Phantom pain is caused by the brain continuing to send signals and commands to the limb. Bomkamp's device would help force the brain to focus on the heat produced through thermal biofeedback, rather than sending signals to the nonexistent limb. Katherine Bomkamp deserves our praise and educational enrichment. She was the first WVU student to be inducted into the National Museum of Education's National Gallery for America's Young Inventors. Now that she is one of the ``21 Amazing Young Women of 2011,'' the sky is the limit for what she might achieve. Success stories such as this one show us that academic and student innovation are alive and well at universities such as WVU, and promise a brighter future for all Americans. It is essential that as we in Congress review our budget priorities, even in the midst of today's financial pressures, we continue--or even expand--our support of higher education and students like Katherine Bomkamp.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the fossil energy funding in the Energy and Water Appropriations bill. Fossil energy is a critical resource that we should not and can not just throw away. Providing the majority of our energy, we need to use these resources in a safe and responsible way. Harnessing domestic fossil energy could create jobs, lift up struggling communities, and provide jobs for our strong and dedicated workforce. I know there are people who remain very much opposed to funding fossil energy research who want to move away from fossil fuels as quickly as possible. But the fact of the matter is that, at this time, our Nation is not capable of quickly moving away from fossil fuels, which provides that majority of the energy we use. We need fossil energy to help us move forward, and we should not pretend otherwise. While I believe that our country will continue using fossil fuels for many decades, it is my hope that we will also continually seek better ways for using these resources. We need to find more efficient ways of burning coal that emit fewer pollutants and protect public health. We need to find more environmentally friendly ways to extract natural gas and oil. And we need to find ways to design and build carbon capture and sequestration facilities that will allow us to reduce the impacts of using fossil fuels on the climate. This is the type of work that fossil energy research and development goes towards, and work that I believe we must continue to support. Without it, we are only putting our country at a disadvantage. In Morgantown, WV, the National Energy Technology Laboratory or NETL is doing this work and pioneering fossil energy research and development activities that are lighting a pathway for a new era of energy use that is critical to West Virginia and our nation. Unfortunately, the Energy and Water Appropriations bill slashes fossil energy funding by 25 percent in just 1 year. In Fiscal Year 2011 the overall fossil energy Budget was $586 million. The President only requested $452.9 million for Fiscal Year 2012 and this bill only contains $445.5 million. In comparison, the overall Energy and Water bill cuts spending by less than 1 percent. The nuclear section of this bill cuts funding by 20 percent and the renewable section of this bill remains flat--not facing any cut this year. I recognize that in this budgetary climate cuts may be inevitable to many programs. But I firmly believe that in the Department of Energy budget no one account can be asked to shoulder that burden alone. But if cuts must be made they should be done in fair and reasonable way, when compared to funding for other energy programs. Unfortunately, the fossil energy cuts in this bill are neither fair nor reasonable. The cuts to fossil energy in this bill are disproportionate compared to funding levels for other areas of research. To correct this situation, I have introduced an amendment that would restore $30 million to the fossil energy account, $10 million for natural gas, $10 million for unconventional fossil fuels and $10 million for advanced energy systems in coal areas. Again, I understand the budgetary times that we are facing in Washington. I understand that cuts have to be made. But what I strongly disagree with is the idea that fossil energy must shoulder more than its fair share of cuts. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to join with me to restore a portion of funding for the fossil energy program.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, last week, the Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing on whether to elevate the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This was an important hearing for the men and women of our armed services, and I am grateful that the committee allowed me to submit a statement for the hearing record. In light of the upcoming National Defense Authorization Act, in which I expect these provisions to pass, I ask unanimous consent that my statement be printed in the Record before the full Senate, so that the rest of my colleagues may have a chance to read it.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

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

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the Senate Joint Resolution 6, which was brought under the Congressional Review Act--about which I wish to talk--to disapprove the FCC's open Internet rules, such as they are. Americans want the Internet to be free and open to them. They want to go where they want to go, see what they want to see, do what they want to do on the Internet. They don't want to have somebody blocking them or to have gatekeepers. They want it to be a nice, open forum for them. They care about the Internet. Everyone uses it. They want to be able to develop new businesses, and they want to read and watch video. They want to reach out to friends and family and community. And they want to do it online. They want to do all of these things on the Internet-- without having to ask permission from their broadband provider. The FCC has promulgated balanced rules that let Americans do all of these things, and keep the Internet open and keep the Internet free. Let us be clear from the outset. No matter how S.J. Res. 6 is dressed up in language that suggests it will promote openness and freedom, it will not do that. The resolution is misguided. It will add uncertainty, in fact, into the economy, and it will hinder small businesses dependent upon fair broadband access, where otherwise they might be put in a slower lane. They want to be in a fast lane. They want to be able to compete with other parts of the country. This resolution will, in fact, undermine innovation. It will hamper investment in digital commerce. It will imperil the openness and freedom that has been the hallmark of the Internet from the very start. The FCC's rules were the product of very hard work, consensus, and compromise. The agency had extensive input from stakeholders from all quarters. They opened up and said send in your comments. In fact, they had written input from more than 100,000 commenters. About 90 percent of those filing supported the adoption of open Internet rules. On top of this, the rules are based on longstanding and widely accepted open Internet principles, which were first articulated during the second Bush administration. These rules do three basic things. First, they impose a transparency obligation on providers of broadband Internet service. This means that all broadband providers are required to publicly disclose to consumers accurate information regarding the network management practices. Second, the rules prohibit fixed broadband providers from blocking lawful content, application, services, and devices. This means consumers and innovators will continue to have the right to send and receive lawful Internet traffic, with mobile broadband service providers subjected to a more limited set of prohibitions. I will speak about that in a moment. Third, the rules aim to ensure that the Internet remains a level playing field by prohibiting fixed broadband providers from unreasonably discriminating in transmitting lawful network traffic-- which they have done. Finally, the rules are meant to apply with the complementary principle of reasonable network management, which provides broadband providers the flexibility to address congestion or traffic that is harmful to the network. These are principles that I believe everyone can support. I see nothing wrong with them. The word ``reasonable'' somehow doesn't scare me. Maybe it should, but it doesn't. I ask my colleagues, what is wrong with transparency? Why would we want to promote Internet blocking or discrimination? Why would we want to have some people on the fast lane and some on the slow lane, depending on whether you paid your Internet provider enough money? What is unreasonable about reasonable network management? I believe that the FCC's effort, along with ongoing oversight and enforcement, will protect consumers, and I believe it will provide companies with the certainty they need to make investments in our growing digital economy. While many champions of the open Internet would have preferred a stricter decision--and I am one of them; I myself have real reservations about treating wireless broadband differently from wired broadband--I think the FCC's decision was nevertheless a meaningful step forward. In a moment, I will talk about other people who feel the same. Supporters of the joint resolution fail to acknowledge that the FCC's open Internet rules have received overwhelming support from broadband Internet service providers, consumers, and public groups, labor unions, as well as high-tech companies. AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson stated earlier this year that while he wanted ``no regulation,'' the FCC's open Internet order ``ended at a place where we have a line of sight and we know and can commit ourselves to investments.'' Time-Warner Cable said at the time of the order's release that the rules adopted ``appear to reflect a workable balance between protecting consumers' interests and preserving incentives for investment and innovation by broadband Internet service providers.'' Numerous analysts from major investment banks have found that the open Internet order removes what they call regulatory overhang and allows telecom and cable companies to focus on investment. Google, Facebook, Twitter, eBay, Skype, and other leaders in innovation all urged the FCC to adopt ``commonsense baseline rules . . . critical to ensuring that the Internet remains a key engine of economic growth, innovation, and global competitiveness.'' More than 150 organizations wrote Congress to oppose this joint resolution. I hate reading lists, but I am going to do it anyway: the Communications Workers of America, the AFL-CIO, the NAACP, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the American Library Association, the American Association of Independent Music, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the National Organization for Women, and Technet. There are a lot of folks at Technet who have a lot at stake. I have their letters here. I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for her remarks and actually fully agree with them in that mobile is kind of left alone, and it should not be because it is everything that is happening in the future. But it is a step, and it was a wonderful speech. It occurs to me that I do not think we have anybody left to speak on this side. I am not sure about Senator Hutchison, but it may be a good time to yield back our time.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, how much time remains on this side?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I would yield it to the distinguished Senator from Washington.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that David Goldman, a detailee from the Federal Communications Commission to the Commerce Committee, be given floor privileges during the debate on Senate Joint Resolution 6.