Jay Rockefeller

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with, no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

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

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I withdraw my amendment No. 4585.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I wish to inform the Presiding Officer of a quandary. We have in front of us a bill which would come close to rescuing the aviation industry of the United States of America. It is a bill that the aviation industry supports. It is a bill that the general aviation community supports. But it is not supported by a couple of Senators, with their reasons, and we find ourselves, therefore, in a position not to be able to move forward in the short term. It is one of those situations when the more you wait, or the greater the disagreement, the more people dig in. I wish to offer my feelings which are that in a big bill such as this, which I think would be the biggest policy bill this Congress has passed this year if we were to do it, there are always areas of disagreement. The trick is to work out those areas of disagreement. That is what the floor of the Senate is for. That is what negotiations are for. But I do want people to understand that in the interests of protecting certain prerogatives, protocols, our aviation industry as a whole is being ignored and thereby threatened. If we were to put up some purportedly helpful amendments, we have no idea at this point how they might turn out. So there are really a couple of people who control this entire situation. As long as they remain negative, there is very little we can do that we can count on turning into success. The aviation industry, just in my State, as I have explained a number of times, is a $3.4 billion industry that employs 51,000 people. That is something almost nobody does in a State as small as West Virginia. But we have to work this through. Everybody can't come out an exact winner. If I were to line up one side versus another side, I think having an aviation industry, giving them the confidence to go forward, the passing of this bill would be like an increase in their bond rating, certainly psychologically, and it would give them the confidence that we are trying to do the right thing by them. In doing that, we have held all of the commercial aviation airlines harmless so they will not have to pay any more fuel tax than they do today, which is about $10.7 billion, and adding a small portion of fuel tax on to the general aviation industry so they would be paying about a billion dollars. We found a mechanism, being clever but correct, to actually raise $400 million a year for the life of this bill. Of course, there would have to be other bills to get us on our way to building a $20 billion to $30 billion to $40 billion air traffic control system which is sufficient for the needs of the aviation industry. I know the Presiding Officer has an amendment which I would support, and there are others who have--they just don't want to--I don't know how to put it, but they just don't want to lose their position in all of this. So the question is, What do we do? I am just here to report that we are hard at work. Everybody is working feverishly in back rooms--that is in a good sense--the Democratic and Republican cloakrooms. Senator Hutchison and I are in precise agreement on all of this, and it is a bipartisan bill. It has enormous consequences to the economy of America, to the passengers who are held hostage by delays and maintenance problems. Sixty-eight rural States have had airports entirely removed from service which were previously served. It is very painful if you are from a rural State. It sort of defines the meaning of being cut off from the rest of the world. That is not important to some people, but it is very important to those of us who come from a rural State, and to be quite frank, every one of us comes from a rural State in some part. So what I am saying is, the stakes are extraordinarily high. It is, in my judgment, and on a bipartisan basis, an amazingly one-sided case. You protect your legacies; that is, your commercial airlines, you get the support of the general aviation community which has an enormous number of airplanes with millions more to come, and you get the financing to start on an air traffic control system which is behind that of, as I have said today several times, Mongolia. Landing aircraft by ground radio and x-rays is not really the way to run a safe system. We have had so many close collisions that have been averted only at the last moment by air traffic control folks and very quick-witted pilots. Hundreds and hundreds of deaths could have easily resulted. So I think it is a choice of the people doing the negotiating or the people who want to block the people who are doing the negotiating to think in very clear terms about what is important. Is it pride? Is it the future of the aviation industry? We haven't passed any bills in Congress on our side, and this would be a major accomplishment. But that is not important. The importance is it would save an aviation industry, and they believe that because the bill carries on for a number of years. They would begin to get their safe landing system. So people must be wondering what is going on, and I just wanted to report that people are at work, hopefully in good faith, trying to get a parliamentary situation or an amendment situation or whatever that works our way through this crisis. In the meantime, we are on hold. I wanted to make that report to the Senate. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I would observe that from the very beginning of this most interesting day, my very good friend, Senator Hutchison, who is the ranking member on the Aviation Committee, has said there is a way to pass this bill in 5 minutes and that is: One, we do the amendment with respect to what my substitute amendment does; and, secondly, that the extraneous amendments, financial amendments which the Republicans do not like, they can put up that amendment. Now, they have said nobody on their side will vote for our amendment on the theory that it didn't come before they had a chance to take out the extraneous amendments. So I would say to my distinguished friend, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, offer your amendment right now, right now. Offer it. You may find a more welcome audience than you think.

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

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Durbin's amendment. The debate is not about an arcane, technical pension funding rule. The issue before us is about whether thousands and thousands of airline employees are allowed to keep hard-earned defined benefit pensions or if we are going to regulate them or throw them out to the underfunded PBGC, which has so much debt that you cannot count the zeros. This issue is about whether we are going to send additional major carriers, who have so far avoided bankruptcy in these brutal financial circumstances, into a downward spiral. My premise is to hold the main carriers harmless. They are up against it, at the cliff. We should hold them harmless. Adding this pension provision to the FAA bill would defeat the whole purpose of this compromise brokered by the Finance and the Commerce Committees, which was done with the underlying principle that we should hold the commercial airlines harmless during these turbulent economic times, which are expected to last. That is sacred. That is why it would be unwise to load up an additional liability on airlines trying to do the right thing for their employees. It would be especially wrong to cause that result in a misguided effort to put the preservation of regular order before common sense--in other words, going around a committee. It happens. Airline employees will pay the unnecessary price for this change from current law. It cannot happen. During these tough times of rising fuel prices and mounting financial losses, this is not the time to impose tougher, unrealistic pension funding requirements upon the airline industry. To do so would risk more bankruptcies and force carriers to dump their pensions into the woebegone PBGC. That would put in danger the economic security of workers who would prefer to stay employed and not have their pensions frozen. In 2005, when the Senate was considering the Pension Protection Act on the Senate floor, we passed an amendment by voice vote that I cosponsored with Senator Isakson and Senator Lott. The amendment would have given all airline carriers substantial pension relief. The amendment did not pick winners or losers within the airline industry. It is not our business. Rather, it focused on keeping their defined benefit pension plans solvent. Unfortunately, as Senator Hutchison pointed out, the final product that came out of conference in 2006 limited the pension relief the Senate sought to give all airlines. Led by--and I will say he is gone and I am not sad--the Ways and Means Committee chairman, Bill Thomas, the conference report chose winners and losers. It gave some carriers more pension relief than others, creating a competitive advantage for some carriers. A number of Senators were not happy with the airline provisions bill, including Senators Durbin, Reid, Obama, Harkin, Menendez, Lautenberg, Bill Nelson, and a lot of the rest of us. They entered a colloquy on the floor arguing that this disparity needed to be dealt with. That is why in last year's Iraq war supplemental appropriations legislation Dick Durbin did the only thing that he had available to him to do, and with the strong support of Senator Hutchison, he sought to right this wrong and inserted a provision that brought the airlines up to par and gave them the necessary pension relief that they deserved. I understand this was perhaps not the best process. We are not a body known for our meticulous protocol. We are trying to get something in that is lifesaving for the Nation. As a senior member of the Finance Committee myself, which has jurisdiction of pension legislation, I agree with Senator Baucus that it would have been more ideal to go through the regular order and have the Finance Committee review and vet the provision. The problem is that it wasn't going to happen. However, airlines need and deserve pension relief. We cannot adopt the pension provision of the Finance Committee tax title and impose higher pension burdens upon five domestic airlines, which has been discussed by various people, during these tougher economic times. Remember, hold legacy commercial airlines harmless. So we would be turning our backs on American, Continental, US Airways, Hawaiian, and Alaska Air. To do so would risk more bankruptcies and more job losses. I pointed out earlier that one out of every six jobs in the airline industry has been lost in the last 6 years. In 2005, while we were debating the Isakson-Rockefeller-Lott amendment that brought all airlines equitable pension relief, I stated on the Senate floor that my goal was to protect the employees and retirees who worked so hard to earn retirement benefits, and that remains my goal today. To deny disadvantaged airlines the relief they rightfully deserve in the Pension Protection Act and which the Senate voted to give them would be unfair. I have the utmost respect for Senators Baucus and Grassley. They are a superb team. They did their very best and did a very good job on the whole on the Pension Protection Act. But the Finance Committee in the Senate should not have received the dicta of the now thoroughly retired former Ways and Means Committee chairman. The former House majority succeeded with their desperate efforts to achieve questionable policy goals by holding long-awaited pension reform legislation hostage. But that was then and this is now, and we should not give the former House majority the satisfaction of achieving their desired objective over a jurisdictional squabble, and that is all it is. It counts. I understand that. It counts. People lie on the floor to protect it, but in this case, we are dealing with something much larger. We can do better, and that must begin by us stepping back and invoking the ``do no harm'' principle. America cannot afford another major bankruptcy to cripple our aviation system. With all of my respect to the Finance Committee leadership, we just cannot do one more thing to jeopardize the health of our domestic aviation industry, particularly the commercial sector. The rest of it is doing very well. For that reason, I will support Senator Durbin's amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I don't know if I am closing or not. I want to offer this observation. I have been here virtually all day. I have had plenty of rest--very little talking and very little learning. What strikes me, as this day closes, is that the people who are objecting in various ways to taking a vote--there will be no votes from our side on this or that or whatever--are missing the whole point of the bill. I support the Durbin position on pensions because it is part of the written law. It is not very difficult. Everybody wants their own little piece to win. I have heard almost no conversation today--and virtually none yesterday--about the perilous condition of our aviation industry, particularly the commercial aviation industry. There isn't any sense of urgency about the large matter. Maybe people have it in their hearts, but they don't choose to bring it out here because on the floor they want to win points or they have ideological considerations that we cannot raise taxes or whatever. But while we are sitting here doing nothing--and I am sure impressing the American people mightily with our vigor--we have an aviation industry that is on the verge of collapse. I pointed out a number of times that one out of every six employees has been laid off by commercial airlines. The fastest growing part of the aviation industry is the general aviation industry. I have very strong feelings about that, but for the sake of the chairman of the Finance Committee, I backed off of my solution for a fee of $25 per flight for a high-end private or corporate jet. I never really figured out how the $25 was going to bring them to the feet of catastrophe. Most of the jets that are made at the high end are sold elsewhere, overseas. So I am very frustrated, as chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, that we are not really talking about how to fix aviation. We are talking about how to keep our turf, how you are going to get no votes on this until I get my votes on that. None of it is about the big picture. It is about little things inside the bill which people choose to put their feet down on and then not move. That is very depressing to me because I am very keenly aware that aviation is not a subject that has a great deal of appeal broadly. Most of our meetings on the Commerce Committee are attended by relatively few. There are relatively few on the floor of the Senate who really understand the condition of the aviation industry or the details pertaining to its condition, the history of that condition, and what the future holds. I hope that, as we go through this night of cooling down, we will become reflective about what the bill is about, which is trying to give the commercial aviation industry, as well as the general aviation industry, a chance to survive in one case and flourish in the other case. I made enormous compromises with the chairman of the Finance Committee--monumental, from my point of view. But so what. That is not even the point. The point is commercial airlines. So many of them are closing down. So many of them are in chapter 11 bankruptcy, in and out of chapter 11. Some are headed toward chapter 7. It is a national catastrophe--not to speak of our air traffic control system where we are at this point behind Mongolia. So these things are important, and evidently others don't think so because they want to win their points to keep their positions and let the aviation industry take care of itself. I have not heard anybody on the floor today discussing with any passion, any coherency, or logic the condition of our aviation industry. That is very disappointing to me. So I put up that caution and say that I hope we will be a wiser group tomorrow and that we will reach an accommodation because if we don't, we will not only not be the world class of aviation, we will be very far from it. It is not just the commercial airlines, it is the air traffic control system. And, yes, you do have to kind of raise taxes for that. You have to build a digital GPS satellite system at the same time as you maintain an analog system. It will take 10 or 12 years to build this modern air traffic control system which every other country in Europe has--Japan and probably China have it. It is discouraging to me for people not to be keeping their eye on the central force of this bill, which is to preserve what we need to do in commerce, to stay in touch with each other, to visit a dying mother, and do all kinds of things that are in the American way of life. Our debate today has not reflected the American way of life. It has reflected kind of a much more parochial view than I am comfortable with. But I am managing the bill, so I have to deal with that. So I just close by saying that I hope tomorrow will be a brighter day. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I honor, as always, the words and wisdom of the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. The Presiding Officer is an extraordinary person.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we were going to go to the FAA bill at 11 o'clock. I was not aware morning business had been extended until 12:30 p.m.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, imagine this: gridlock in the skies; passengers delayed for hours and hours on a runway; an aging, antiquated air traffic control system just struggling to keep up with the growth of air traffic; a fight over how to pay for the billions of dollars needed to address airport infrastructure, infrastructure in all of its manifestations. I could be talking about the present, but I am not. I am talking about the years 2000 and 2001, prior to 9/11. Then 9/11 did happen. It changed our country forever, and it changed it in countless ways. It forced us to understand how important aviation is to our Nation, our economy, and, in fact, very much our way of life. It also showed how fragile our system is and, I will argue, how fragile our system remains as it further deteriorates. This Congress has worked diligently to address the security weaknesses. That was the TSA that took place a long time ago. That is working. It is not perfect, but it is working. I think people feel safe with it, but we have not adequately addressed any of the other weaknesses. We have completely inadequately funded the Federal Aviation Administration. We have a chronically unprofitable commercial aviation industry, which is the backbone of our Nation's commerce. We have an inadequate investment in aerospace research. Because of this, we face the same problems we did in 2000 except they are worse. I want to spend a couple of minutes discussing why we have made so little progress in addressing this significant aviation system, and this is really my introduction to the bill. It is just not done in sequence. Perversely, the attacks of September 11, which brought the commercial airlines system to its knees, flat to its knees, properly to its knees, solved the crisis of gridlock in the skies, to say the very least. The enormous dropoff of air travel in 2002 and 2003 reduced the stress on our Nation's 1950s air traffic control system. We are the only ones in the industrial world--and I have another comparison to make which is even more stunning later on. So delays and congestion were not issues for travelers. We felt pretty good about it. Passengers were not daring to fly yet. They didn't want to fly that much yet, so there was not a lot of congestion. Not so good for the airlines but good for people who wanted to get to places on time. As is often the case, the urgency surrounding the need to modernize the air traffic control system and turn it from basically an x-ray and ground radio system into a digitalized, highly modern system, as every other industrial country has, the interest in that system becoming current, safer, more efficient, able to handle more passengers on time and more delivery of cargo, waned because the air traffic control system is not easily understood. It is assumed. It is taken for granted. People assume it is the most modern because it is America; therefore, it has to be. In fact, it is the least modern of all systems in industrial countries. So interest waned, and in the 2003 FAA reauthorization, which I helped author with then-Senator Lott, we laid a foundation to build a modern, digital satellite-based air traffic control system. We authorized a significant increase in the FAA's capital budget to meet the ATC modernization needs, an increase based upon the administration's own request, in fact. But instead of investing in the system in 2004 and 2005; that is, speed of landing, parallel landing, all of those items, even taking into account wind shear, which every other country has except us, instead of that, in 2006, the Bush administration proposed dramatic cuts in the FAA's facility and equipment account, which is precisely the account which funds the modernization of our air traffic control system. I have to say, Congress complied. I am not proud of that fact. I am not quite sure the reason for that, but facts must be stated. Over this period, Congress therefore appropriated $600 million less than the 2003 FAA bill authorized for the FAA's capital accounts. It is a sad story on the part of the administration, and it is a sad story on the part of us. Neither of us were living up to our obligations. Obviously, people didn't see the future. Under the leadership, however, of Senator Murray, the Senate has begun fully funding the FAA's modernization needs, but the damage of underfunding the FAA is not easily repaired. It is a large battleship. We just cannot turn it around in a couple of years. The budget surpluses that we once had are gone, but by the FAA's own estimates the development of the next generation of air traffic control system, NextGen--when I say that, I mean the digitalized GPS system--is going to cost between $20 billion to $40 billion through the year 2025. I might add, we are going to have to not only maintain our analog system because that is what we are using, inefficient as it might be, but build a new system at the same time. Despite the popular misconception that we are building a new system that the FAA will turn on one day in 2025, NextGen is a program that will then employ multiple technologies over time. I will discuss NextGen in detail later. I will discuss a lot of items in a lot of speeches later. But we cannot just shut off the ground-based radar system. That is all we have, crummy as it is, pathetic as it is. The FAA will need to operate that system for years to come, probably 10 to 12 years to come. By late 2006, it was clear that air travel was returning to pre-9/11 levels. That took some time, but in 2006 there we were. The ATC's system ability was again overtaxed to meet the demands being placed upon it. Gridlock in the skies returned, and it is only going to get worse. I said yesterday the FAA is forecasting that 1 billion passengers will pass through our Nation's aviation system by the year 2025. That is a 300 million person increase from this year. We cannot ignore this issue anymore and, hence, this bill. The United States is losing its position as the global leader in aviation. As the Economist magazine noted--this is so horrible I cannot even say it, but I am going to because it is true--the United States is behind Mongolia in the adoption of new air traffic control technologies. That is a national disgrace, and there is also a reason for it. Mongolia did not have an air traffic control system of any sort. So when they decided to do it, they did it digitally, GPS. So they are ahead of us. I think it is a national embarrassment that a major carrier has to inconvenience 200,000 passengers--that is what we have been reading about for the last several weeks--because the FAA was not properly overseeing the airlines' maintenance. Our Nation's aviation system is, to be quite blunt, on the brink--it is on the brink. It is at the cliff. We must move boldly into the future or we risk losing a lot of safety and a lot of lives. I cannot emphasize the importance of a vibrant and strong aviation system. I want people to hear this point. They take it for granted. You get on an airplane, and you go do something. No, you get on an airplane, you go do something, but it is also the bellwether of the Nation's economic underpinning. It is not the U.S. highway system. People don't drive to States to look at industrial sites or to make decisions; they fly. What you cannot do over the Internet, the next closest step is aviation, and it bears our attention. It has never gotten it in the 24 years I have been in this body. It is fundamental to our Nation's long-term growth. It is also vital to the economic future of countless small and local communities, something the distinguished Presiding Officer from his very roots understands very well. For example, in West Virginia, people who work in the automotive industry need easy access to Asia to facilitate their business. Yes, that is West Virginia, but that is very important to me. West Virginia is like every other State. There is no State in this country that does not have rural areas. All of our future is tied to a modern aviation system, if we would only have the will to build it. In this bill, we begin to. We have all witnessed the fragility of our Nation's aviation system firsthand. It has been all over the news. People are furious. The waiting lines, the stories about planes bumping into each other or almost bumping into each other on the runways as they move around--it is just too much, too many people. Go into any airport. As I said yesterday, I came back into Washington National Airport from some city in the North, and you couldn't move. You could barely move. The whole airport was just packed with people--not just around the counters, not just around the gateways, but the whole place was packed. I was saying to myself: This is Washington National, the Nation's Capital, highly prosperous, definitely growing. What is it going to be like 10 years from now? If we do everything we want, we will not have this system in place by 10 years. It was scary. Our constituents are very frustrated about flying and they have every right to blame us, the administration and the Congress. It is easy to blame the airlines. That is always everybody's choice of blame--blame the airlines. There is no question that the airlines have a lot to do to improve their customer service, and the bill addresses that issue. All kinds of things have to happen in the airline industry. But I am going to give a speech this afternoon which talks about the airline industry and how absolutely desperately close it is to collapsing. I exaggerate not. We must address the core problem facing the system and the lack of capacity to allow more aircraft to use the skies. When the weather is clear and our Nation's aviation infrastructure operates perfectly, most travelers get to their destinations on time. It just seems the weather is not clear very often these days, and people are frequently shuttled to other places to get to where they are going, the original place, or they have to sit on the tarmac for a long time and they get in a very bad place--and indeed they should. It is a conundrum. I heard this morning a couple of airlines are thinking about raising their prices. They have the price of oil and their fuel. The prices of oil and their fuel are, in fact, two very different numbers. What are they going to do? How are they going to get out of this? If the equipment fails to work properly because the weather is bad, or even for a few minutes, the system often grinds to a halt, and delays in key airports such as JFK and O'Hare Airport are felt through our entire system. You can take eight runways--Senator Durbin and I tried to do this a number of years ago. You can fix the eight runways at O'Hare Airport, which was built back in 1962 with very few people traveling and the runways were not built in the modern sense, with modern flow in mind. It would take about $10 billion to $12 billion to do that. But if you did it, air congestion in the United States would probably clear up by about 25 to 30 percent instantly. So it is not a large, complicated thing. Sometimes it is an air traffic control system you need, sometimes it is a reconfiguration of runways, sometimes it is how do you handle the New York-New Jersey area. But these are not problems beyond our reach. Aviation gridlock is not just an inconvenience, it is becoming a threat to our economic well-being. Aviation experts predict that these delays are going to go from bad to worse--soon. By the year 2015, delays will become so bad--I hope my colleagues will listen to this part--that none of the 1 billion people who will be traveling on airlines that year will get to their destinations on time--not one. That is what is being predicted. That is not very far from now. That is what is being predicted. More planes will be needed and they will lead to greater congestion in the skies. The meltdown of the air traffic control system will put passenger safety at unnecessary risk. S. 1300, our bill, authorizes approximately $65 billion for all FAA operations and programs. Most important, our bill lays the necessary foundation for developing NextGen air traffic-- that is the new air traffic control system--by providing it $12 billion over the life of this bill for FAA's capital investment accounts. Importantly, Senator Baucus and Senator Murray and I have agreed on the creation of a new subaccount--this is not manipulation, it is a perfectly proper thing to do--a new subaccount with the aviation trust fund that will provide $400 million for the next length of this bill, and then for bills after that because we will have to do it again, so we can get our air traffic control system rebuilt. I appreciate the hard work of our colleague. Senator Murray is unbelievable on these things, as she is on virtually everything. A new satellite-based radar system will allow airplanes to move more efficiently, improve safety, improve the flow of commerce, reduce the consumption of fuel which in turn creates environmental benefits. The bill provides approximately $16 billion for airport infrastructure--it is a boring word with large consequences. Since 2000, I am pleased we have been able to double the amount of funding annually for airport infrastructure grants--that means lengthening runways, that means improving conditions, that means upgrading what is needed to handle air traffic in a rapidly growing traveling world. Our investment in runway capacity has made dramatic improvements in safety. I believe everyone in aviation recognizes the need to modernize our national air transportation system in order to meet the growing surge of passengers and to accommodate the enormous increase in general aviation. I am going to have a speech to make about general aviation, but I will not do it today--particularly high-end general aviation. That is called jets. I am not talking about crop dusters. General aviation is made up of lots of things--we only include 10 percent of that 100 as our target, where we can rightfully and legitimately go. Those people are getting a free ride. I will have a speech about that, I guarantee you. It is a very unhappy situation when people hear about it. It is probably best explained on Jay Leno or David Letterman. That would probably drive it home to people. Until then, it is sort of an abstract quality. Until then, look at those big, fancy jets. We don't like those big, fancy jets. What they are not doing is helping pay for all this. They are paying for 3 percent of our air traffic control system even though they are the majority of airplanes in the skies at any given moment over the United States of America. All this has been a long and very bitter dialog. In early 2007, Senator Lott and I asked the stakeholders to come to an agreement on FAA funding issues. It was a fascinating experiment, which we see very often. No one wanted to compromise. So we said we will give you a choice. You sit down in a room. We will provide the sandwiches and the Coke or whatever. Then you come out with an agreement or we will write a bill for you. They chose not to yield a single point, not a single point. They all had to have exactly what they had. They didn't want to pay anything more. Air traffic control--push that aside, you are not going to tax me. It is the other guy. So Senator Lott and I imposed a compromise on everyone. The compromise sparked an absolutely fascinating but not pleasant multiyear, multimillion dollar campaign against our lovely bill, S. 1300. Later on I will discuss, as I indicated, much more about that. We have compromised. I have compromised--not happily but necessarily--in order to reach a bipartisan bill that could actually be signed into law and begin the work of modernization in earnest, along with making such needed safety improvements. Air traffic control modernization is but one of the many challenges the FAA faces. Over the last several weeks, the FAA's ability to oversee the airlines it regulates has undermined the public confidence in the safety of our Nation's air traffic system, and nobody can dispute that. People are in shock at what they have seen over the last several weeks. Statistically, the United States has the safest aviation system in the world. That is what they always throw at us. But statistics do not always tell the whole story, nor do they say anything about the future. I am particularly concerned about the number of runway incursions. That is when airplanes are on the tarmac and they are moving around, positioning themselves under the guidance of the air traffic control system. They are constantly almost running into each other--or in the air--or just missing. It is unacceptable. It is horrible. It is heading in a much worse direction. It is not something we talk about much, but once in a while stories of near misses at our Nation's airports in fact do make the news. Let's be honest. If it had not been for the quick thinking and action of a few air traffic control people and our pilots, our Nation would have had one if not several major accidents claiming the lives of hundreds of people over the last several years. This legislation and the managers' amendment I have offered contain provisions to improve the safety of the Nation's aviation system and the FAA's oversight of that system. The AMAC, as we call it, includes a number of provisions to improve safety, providing the FAA with the resources to conduct thorough oversight of air carriers and foreign repair stations--this is a very controversial subject so expect to hear more about that--and upgrade the existing safety infrastructure at our airports. Later in our debate--not today, not this morning--I will outline the important facts of the safety provision in the bill. The bill addresses the other core challenge which will be facing our aviation system, and that is keeping America's small communities connected. The Presiding Officer and I understand that. So does every Senator in this body; if they choose to focus on it, they should be able to understand it. The continuing economic crisis facing the U.S. airline industry absolutely imperils, in stark and terminal terms, the future of hundreds of small rural communities across our country as area carriers drastically reduce service to small rural communities-- which is exactly what is going on. That acceleration is going to pick up. Then you have to say years ago we did this e-rate thing to make the Internet available to everybody in every classroom; no different rural and urban, everybody had it. We went from 15 percent connection to 97 percent. Not so on aviation. We are going in the other direction. While small and rural communities have long had to cope with limited and unreliable service, we are grateful to have limited and even unreliable service. We are grateful to be able to get into a little prop--because that is what we have--and get from here to there because we can connect in the hub-and-spoke system. All of these problems have been exacerbated by the weakened financial condition of most U.S. airlines. I am going to talk about that this afternoon. The reduction or elimination of air service has a devastating effect on the economy of small communities. Having adequate air service is not just a matter of convenience or pride, it is a matter of survival: economically, psychologically--self-esteem. Without access to reliable air service, no business is willing to locate its operations in these areas of the country, no matter how attractive the quality of life, no matter how much less the housing costs, no matter how much land may be available. They will not go there. Airports are economic engines that attract critical new development opportunities and jobs. West Virginia has been able to attract firms from around the world. Why? Because corporate executives know they can visit their operations with ease--for no other reason. As I will explain in my next speech about the state of the airlines, which is a very depressing speech and therefore important, that is in jeopardy. Rural and smalltown America must continue to be adequately linked to the Nation's air transportation network. That is all we can do. We can't get from here to an important place directly, but we can link into the hub-and-spoke system, which has been what we have always done. I wind up. Small and rural communities are the first to bear the brunt of bad economic times and the last to see the benefit of good economic times. That is not fair. Americans are Americans. The general economic downturn and the dire straits of the aviation community have placed exceptional burdens on air service to our most isolated communities. The Federal Government must provide additional resources, and our bill does that. The bill also reaffirms our commitment to rural America by increasing the essential air service--the Presiding Officer well knows what that is--and also to the Small Community Air Service Development Program, for 4 more years, and we also have a passenger bill of rights which will be discussed later. The industry would be required to provide a number of things: Telling people about what planes are on time, what are not, what the pattern is; sort of to get a sense of all that, but there is a lot more. So all of us recognize there are no quick and easy solutions to this timely and timeless problem that plague our aviation industry. Aviation incorporates so many things that are so critical to all of us. It connects people to distant family members, links businesses to businesses, allows people to interact easily on a global scale. We are a global world, but it is still amazing to me to be able to get on a plane in the morning in West Virginia and be in Asia that same day. So what railroads were to the 19th and 20th centuries, air transportation is to the 21st century; with all due respect to our interstate highway system. So given the challenges our Nation's aviation system faces, I think we must pass S. 1300, which is called the Aviation Investment and Modernization Act. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Will the Senator yield for 15 seconds?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Senator. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all postcloture time be yielded back and that the motion to proceed be agreed to and the motion to reconsider laid upon the table; that once the bill is reported, the Senator who is now speaking be recognized to offer a substitute amendment; that upon reporting of that amendment, no further amendments be in order during today's session and that there be debate only today.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for allowing himself to be interrupted twice, and I wish him a good evening. Madam President, I wish to talk, with your permission, for about 25 to 30 minutes on what I consider to be the core problem we face; and it is the real condition that people need to know about the American aviation industry.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I call up my amendment.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as I was indicating, I do not think most of our colleagues--they pick on certain subjects within aviation that are of interest that have hot buttons to them--look at the general situation of where the U.S. commercial aviation industry is, how bad its situation is, and I think it is time to tell the truth about that before we begin the debate on this bill. After posting nearly $35 billion in cumulative net losses from 2001 through 2005, over the past 2 years, American commercial air carriers were able to recover financially for a brief period from the effects of September 11's grounding and subsequent adjustments. That is understandable. Domestic airlines earned an estimated net profit of roughly $3.8 billion last year, more than twice the $1.7 billion net profits they achieved in 2006. That would appear to be going in the right direction. This year, however, marks a turning point, which I fear will be a sustained downturn in the industry's long-term outlook. Within the past week alone, we saw the Nation's third largest carrier--Delta--announce a first quarter loss of $6.4 billion. On that same day, the Nation's fifth largest airline--Northwest Airlines--posted a quarterly loss of $4.1 billion. This month, we witnessed four of our airlines--Frontier Airlines, Aloha Airlines, ATA Airlines, and Skybus Airlines--forced to declare bankruptcy. Four airlines collapse in 1 month, and two airlines announce a combined loss of $10.5 billion in one single quarter. I think this underscores the dangerous direction in which I believe our aviation industry is now truly heading. It is clear that in 2008 this industry is moving through what could be one of the most tumultuous periods it has ever experienced in our history. The recent window of profitability that commercial aviation experienced now seems to have closed. A worrying question for all of us--and for the future of our economy--is whether these losses will come to characterize its long-term financial outlook. I fear it will. The challenges confronting our Nation's aviation market have now sharply affected a variety of consumers and stakeholders. Airline companies have been posting multibillion dollar losses this quarter alone. Tired and frustrated passengers are being caught up in the thousands of flights that have been canceled or delayed due to a number of things, including safety issues. A quarter of the airline industry's entire workforce have lost their jobs since the year 2000. I will repeat that: One quarter of the airline industry's entire workforce have lost their jobs since 2000. The air traffic control system remains outdated. As I indicated, we are trying to catch up with Mongolia. And management problems continue to beset the industry's overseer, the Federal Aviation Administration. Compounding all of these difficulties is the reality that the industry is operating against a backdrop of a weaker American economy and general turmoil in global credit markets. Aside from all this, however, there remains one factor that has done more to change the face of the commercial aviation sector than any other; that is; the escalating cost of its lifeblood. We call it the price of oil. To illustrate this dramatic spike in costs, it is worth recalling that back in 2000 the price of oil stood at $30 a barrel. Recently, oil prices have been approaching $120 a barrel. But this does not necessarily reflect the true cost to the airlines, as there is a difference between the price of oil and the price of jet fuel, what the industry refers to as the ``crack spread.'' This means that, for example, on April 18, 2008, when oil was trading at nearly $116 a barrel, the price of jet fuel per barrel was trading at nearly $144-- $116 for a barrel of oil becomes $144 for airplanes. Such a dramatic increase in the industry's largest single cost clearly illustrates the extent of the problem it must absorb. With oil prices alone having risen 75 percent in the past year, it is somewhat unsurprising that the move toward further consolidation is gaining in speed. It seems increasingly inevitable that the Delta-Northwest merger proposal will unleash a wave--a further wave--of industry consolidation. I note that various airlines have been considering a number of possible pairings for some time now. In September 2005, US Airways and America West Airlines merged. In 2007, US Airways pursued an unsuccessful bid for Delta, and Midwest Airlines was purchased jointly by Texas Pacific Group and Northwest. Numerous reports also indicate that further consolidation between United Airlines and Continental Airlines is likely--we will see--to happen as a consequence of the move by Delta and Northwest to consolidate--the domino theory. With the emphasis on pursuing market share prior to 9/11, the big air carriers are now focused on route and flight profitability and are less willing to fly half-empty planes to keep their nationwide networks competitive. In an effort to improve their financial standings and compete with smaller carriers, many legacy airlines--commercial airlines--have aggressively sought to cut costs by reducing labor expenditures and by decreasing capacity through cuts to flight frequency, use of smaller aircraft, or the elimination of service altogether to some communities. The major U.S. carriers have shown much more capacity discipline over the past few years and have retired, to their credit, many older, inefficient aircraft. Available seat miles--which is a term of art: a measure of capacity--increased only 0.3 percent in 2006, down from a 3.3-percent increase in 2005, and an 8.7-percent increase in 2004. As a result, load factors have increased by more than 10 percent since 2000, bringing in more revenue per operation. Profitability. Statistics from the Air Transport Association show that the legacy carriers' combined fleet was 2,860 aircraft in 2006, an 18-percent reduction from almost 3,500 planes at the end of 2000. So it has gone from 3,500 planes in 2000 to 2,800 aircraft in 2006. That is clearly a trend. In West Virginia, aviation represents about $3.4 billion of the State's gross domestic product. To us, that is a rather huge figure. It employs over 50,000 people in our State. So the State has a direct interest in the impact any consolidation within the industry may have on services. I know the Presiding Officer knows that feeling. I have said before that while I am not unilaterally opposed to consolidation, I do believe every transaction has to be considered on its own merits. With regard to Delta-Northwest as a merger, I believe it is critical that the Federal agencies examine the fine details of the merger thoroughly before approving it. Now, this is of particular concern to me because Delta and Northwest provide critical air services to my State of West Virginia that allow businesses in our State to be connected with the rest of the world. I have said in the past, and I reiterate here today, that air services to small communities in my State and across the country depend on network carriers that use hub-and-spoke operations. There are no other sustainable options available to us. None. We have very few private aircraft, and obviously they are not available for commercial use. Low- cost carriers are not going to serve West Virginia's communities because we do not have the volume of passengers to work with their business models. My State needs healthy network carriers if we are to attract new air services. At present, low-cost carriers are not going to fill the service void in our markets. It disturbs me, then, that since March 13 of this year alone, American air carriers have exited from 86 routes throughout the country, my guess would be all of them rural. I fear these airlines plan to exit many other routes in the future. It was to ensure West Virginians continued access to adequate air services that I helped to create and expand the Small Community Air Service Development Program and the Essential Air Service Program. Both of these arrangements provide a Federal subsidy for air carriers to operate out of very rural areas. From my perspective, an adequate air service in West Virginia is not just a convenience but it is a flatout economic necessity for our survival. The airline industry is not only about the viability of the companies that it comprises. It is important that we not forget the increasingly large number of American passengers who underwrite the industry by consuming its services each year. Passenger traffic demand has now surpassed pre-9/11 levels, with total passenger enplanements of 745 million in 2006, nearly 12 percent higher than the 666 million passengers who enplaned in 2000. The FAA's most recent forecast estimates passenger enplanements will grow to 794 million in 2008. We are all aware and have probably often experienced ourselves the delays and the cancellations that seem to be a growing feature of this industry. Air carriers and their passengers continue to be plagued by severe weather problems--which seem more than normal each year--and an air traffic control system that lacks the necessary capacity to handle demand effectively. That is why, when we talk about building an air traffic control system, which is at least up to Mongolia--and as I said this morning, that is a little bit of an exaggeration because they had no air traffic, and so they started with what we want to move to. They started with what they should have started with, and that is digital GPS. These conditions produced near gridlock at several key gateway airports throughout the country this past summer which almost matched the record delays reached in the summer of 2000. Congestion and delay problems cost the airlines and passengers billions of dollars each year in lost productivity, canceled flights, and, obviously, fuel expenses. The severe congestion and delay problems that continue to plague air carriers and their passengers further exacerbate the high cost, therefore, of fuel. Inclement weather, an out-of-date air traffic control system, and management problems keep planes in the sky longer, which only increases fuel-burn. Due to these conditions, only 69 percent of reported commercial airline operations arrived at their destination on time during June and July of 2007. I am pleased we have been able to work with the FAA on several efforts currently underway to address these problems, including a continuous focus on expanding infrastructure and adopting operational procedures, such as the implementation of reduced separation requirements and programs such as this fascinating acronym, the Area Navigation and Required Navigation Performance program, that permit more precise navigation of aircraft. But, you see, that is very difficult to do with x ray, with ground radio. That is why we need an air traffic control system which is modern, as every other modern country in the world has. Furthermore, since many of these delays originate in the New York City airspace, the FAA has committed itself to taking a number of specific steps to relieve congestion there--and I applaud them for that--including airspace redesign and the opening of military airspace to create additional capacity during particularly congested times. All of these efforts are a part of a longer term endeavor to solve these problems by modernizing the entire air transportation system through the implementation of the Next Generation Air Transportation System, the system I have been talking about a good deal. I am confident we can continue to pursue a workable strategy to increase the capacity of the National Airspace System to keep pace with projected growth and demand for air travel while ensuring that we continue to operate the world's safest aviation system. But then again, you always have to look underneath the figures. The pending Delta-Northwest merger could represent an absolute watershed moment in aviation industry history which would have a dramatic and wide-ranging impact on the industry, passengers, employees, and our national economy. This merger is emblematic of the aviation sector's future, in my judgment. We must acknowledge that a greater degree of consolidation is becoming simply unavoidable due to pressing economic factors, and we have no excuse to not manage these changes responsibly. I will always remain a fierce defender of West Virginia's right to adequate and reliable air services. That is why I went there in the first place. That is why I am there. I fight for fairness, and we don't have it in aviation, and I fear losing more of it. Even in these new challenging times for the sector, I will continue to ensure that my State is not adversely affected by this consolidation or any consolidation. Finally, I am concerned that even when the aviation industry did return to profitability over the past 2 years, services in my State did not dramatically improve or expand. They weren't investing. Now that the sector looks to be heading toward a more decidedly bleak future over a prolonged period, our efforts need to be redoubled so as to ensure crucial air services to small and rural communities everywhere are rightfully defended. Mr. President, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. The time is now 5:30.

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

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I believe it is absolutely crucial and probable, perhaps, but crucial that we have a vibrant and strong aviation industry and aviation industry discussion on the floor of the Senate. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Nation's economic well-being depends on the Federal Aviation Administration and the aviation industry moving millions and millions of people and tons of cargo every single day. I just landed at Washington National Airport, and it was absolutely jammed. I am trying to think what it will be like in 10 years. Even on the very best day, the Federal Aviation Administration struggles to operate the most complex airspace system in the world, a job made harder by an extremely antiquated air traffic control system which nobody else in the industrial world has, but we do. It is akin to using an x ray instead of an MRI. It is antiquated, it is pathetic, it wastes a lot of time, and it creates a lot of waiting for passengers. Bad weather, mechanical problems, lax oversight by the Federal administrators can end up stranding hundreds of thousands of passengers--and it has--increasing jet fuel costs and making it harder and harder for airlines to operate. I particularly refer to legacy; that is, to the commercial airlines, which is the heart and soul of our system. All this amounts to a perfect storm that can and very may well wreck our aviation system. An aviation expert predicts the situation is going to get much worse and very soon. By the year 2015, delays will become so bad that none of the 1 billion people predicted to fly that year will ever get to their destinations on time. More planes will be needed, and that will lead to greater congestion in the skies, a meltdown of the air traffic control system, and it will put passenger safety at extreme risk. If the FAA cannot manage the current situation, how can we expect them to deal with the challenges of the future. Clearly, we need to take steps to turn this situation around. We must be prepared to take bold action and chart a course toward modernizing our aviation system and improving passenger safety. Again, I remind my colleagues, we are far behind every other industrial country in the world in our capacity. Toward that end, the Aviation Investment and Modernization Act truly lives up to its name. It is called S. 1300. It will establish a roadmap for the implementation of the next generation traffic control system. That is a GPS digitalized instead of an analog, x-ray type of system we have now. It will adequately and fairly fund this system, invest in our Nation's airport infrastructure, and continue to improve small community access to the Nation's aviation system. S. 1300 is a product of compromises, not all of them pleasing to me. It is a good bill that has been made stronger. I have no doubt it will be further strengthened as it is considered by the full Senate. In crafting this legislation, then-Senator Lott and I listened to the industry stakeholders. Each had their own opinion on how to best improve the aviation infrastructure, which was basically based upon the premise that they did not want to pay any more for anything. The one common theme from everyone was the urgent need to modernize our air traffic control system to meet the growing surge of passengers and to deal with the enormous increase in general aviation, particularly high- end jet aircraft. I will have a lot more to say about that in the next few days. However, in recent months, that sense of urgency has been replaced with a debate over who should pay and how much as we work through how best to fund the modernization of our air traffic control system. The far more critical point of just how severe the problem has become, therefore, has been lost. Everyone is looking at how much they are going to do about this or do about that, and the general situation, the crisis we are facing all across this country, is not being looked at. Our air traffic control system relies on radio and radar to direct the hundreds of thousands of planes in the skies. It is a relic of the 1950s. The sad truth is that the GPS device in our cars or cell phones is more sophisticated than the hardware used to guide passenger and cargo planes in the air. That should not make Americans happy. In this Senator's judgment, our air traffic control system is a national embarrassment. Unfortunately, the administration does not share this view. They seem to be prepared to accept the status quo. More to the point, they don't seem to care and have not shown up. Before Senator Murray assumed control of the Appropriations Transportation Subcommittee, the administration, in fact, proposed a $600 million cut in the FAA's--and this is just a technical term-- facilities and equipment account, which funds the whole question of a new air traffic control system, a digitalized GPS-based one. To reverse this course, S. 1300 provides over $12 billion to modernize the Nation's aging air traffic control system to allow the FAA to meet the projected increase in passengers over the next 10 years. Overall, this will probably cost between $40 and $60 billion in the long run. I believe S. 1300 lays the necessary foundation for developing the next-generation air traffic control system. We create a stable and guaranteed level of funding for FAA's capital investment accounts. That is what the current situation desperately needs. As a result, passenger safety should improve, commerce will flow more efficiently, and air carriers will see their fuel costs reduced. I say that with my fingers crossed. What should not get lost in all this talk about runways and air traffic control systems and financing is the human element of air travel. The U.S. aviation system is, in fact, the safest in the world. But underneath those statistics lie lurking a lot of danger. We have to stay vigilant if we want that record to continue. This act, called the AIM Act, includes a number of provisions to improve safety by providing the FAA with the resources to conduct thorough oversight of air carriers and foreign repair stations and upgrade the existing infrastructure at our airports. It is arcane stuff, but at the heart of our commerce system. S. 1300 authorizes approximately $65 billion for all of FAA's operations and programs and provides approximately $16 billion for airport infrastructure grants to meet airport safety and capacity needs. The bill also reaffirms our commitment to rural America, and it increases the authorized funding level for the Essential Air Service Program. Most won't know what that is, but those of us who live in rural areas know that we have no connection with the outside world without the Essential Air Service Program. If we want to connect with the rest of the world, we have to have that. This bill extends the Small Community Air Service Development Program for 4 more years. What is that? I will not explain it fully now, but this program has provided dozens of communities with the resources necessary to attract and retain air service. As a Senator from West Virginia, I know how incredibly crucial both of these programs are in keeping our rural communities connected with the national aviation system. We have to be a part of that blood flow or else we shrink up. Without these important subsidies, air carriers would have no incentive to operate in and out of the most rural parts of many States--not just West Virginia, not just Iowa, but Texas, California, all kinds of places--New York. Rural is everywhere. Rural airports are everywhere. People should not be discriminated against because they come from rural areas as opposed to urban areas. These two subsidies--the Essential Air Service Program and the Community Air Service Development Program, the airport development program--have made an incredible impact on the economic development in West Virginia. Having flights connected with Atlanta, Dulles, even Detroit, have helped attract international investors to our State--for example, Toyota. It is absolutely essential, moving forward, that we raise the authorization for these two programs so that people everywhere can continue flying and get to where they need to go. Our bill strengthens passenger protections by incorporating elements of the Passenger Bill of Rights to deal with the most egregious flight delays and cancellations. For example, the industry would be required to provide passengers with information regarding ontime arrivals and chronically delayed flights. Aviation incorporates so many of the things that are so critical to us. It connects people to distant family members, links businesses to businesses, and joins the world which has already shrunk and allows people easily to interact on a global scale. It is still amazing to me to be able to board a plane one morning in West Virginia and to be halfway around the world that same day. But really, what railroads and highways were to the 19th and 20th century air transportation is to the 21st century. But I know that if we do not make investments in our Nation's aviation system now, then we will fall far behind the rest of the world. Falling far behind the rest of the world is a relative term. I just want us to be good and safe. I want us to be good and safe. We are not now. Our commercial airlines are just barely hanging on-- barely. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the motion to proceed to S. 1300, the Aviation Investment and Modernization Act of 2008. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the women of our Nation who have the cherished title of mother and grandmother. Whether through natural means, adoption or foster care, their patience and unending well-spring of love and affection make an incredible difference in the lives of children. No treasure, no riches can ever compare with a profoundly reassuring hug, the kind words that soothe broken spirits, or that reminder, rooted in affection, that we're not living up to our full potential. They inspire, believe and ultimately profess enormous pride in us--no matter our successes or failures. That is why it is not surprising that a young woman from Grafton, West Virginia, took to the streets of her hometown to honor her recently departed mother's love and life by passing out white carnations to all those who passed by. Anna Jarvis' one simple act of personal commemoration in May 1908, grew year after year. Eventually, Grafton's efforts would be recognized by the entire State of West Virginia in 1910. This was the first time a state recognized Mother's Day, and many more would soon follow. In 1914, President Woodrow Wilson declared the first national Mother's Day, and from that day until now, mothers have been honored with flowers, breakfast in bed, and of course, those endearing homemade cards by little children that are steeped in sentiment--and often covered in glitter, macaroni and school paste. My wife Sharon would tell you that there is nothing more important than these simple gifts--first from our children, and now our grandchildren. They are cherished touchstones. At the same time, we think of our mothers as invincible. However, not even our mothers are immune to age or disease. For many families across the country, Mother's Day takes on even deeper meanings as parents get older. In my own life, my mother was a tremendous force. Each Mother's Day was a celebration of her spirit, intellect and determination--and all this was put to the test in her battle with Alzheimer's disease. It's not easy seeing the woman who raised you struggle with an illness that robs her of her dignity and quality of life. I know that my family is not the only one that has been touched by this disease--and I am certainly not the only son who could talk in such a deeply personal way about losing a mother. But just like Anna Jarvis, my sisters and I sought to honor our mother--and perhaps in the process help another mother or grandmother or family--by opening the Blanchette Rockefeller Neurosciences Institute. So it is altogether fitting and proper that as we prepare to commemorate that first, historic Mother's Day celebration in Grafton, that we as a Nation begin to reconnect with what Anna Jarvis was trying to achieve--community recognition of the role that women play in all our lives. Today, I am introducing legislation that authorizes the U.S. Treasury to mint commemorative coins to celebrate the centennial of Grafton's celebration. I am proud to have Senator Robert C. Byrd as an original cosponsor. The companion bill also has been introduced in the House of Representatives by my West Virginia colleague, Shelley Moore Capito. The proceeds from the sale of these coins won't go to the Government. Instead they will go to two organizations that are actively working to make a difference in the lives of our Nation's women who are battling breast cancer and osteoporosis--the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation and the National Osteoporosis Foundation. Every day can, and should be Mother's Day. Through this bill, Americans will now have the chance to show, with the purchase of these coins, the high regard we have for not only our mothers and grandmothers, but our sisters and nieces, and all the women who have made a difference in our lives. In the process, we can contribute to funding research that will improve the quality of their lives. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the women of our Nation who have the cherished title of mother and grandmother. Whether through natural means, adoption or foster care, their patience and unending well-spring of love and affection make an incredible difference in the lives of children. No treasure, no riches can ever compare with a profoundly reassuring hug, the kind words that soothe broken spirits, or that reminder, rooted in affection, that we're not living up to our full potential. They inspire, believe and ultimately profess enormous pride in us--no matter our successes or failures. That is why it is not surprising that a young woman from Grafton, West Virginia, took to the streets of her hometown to honor her recently departed mother's love and life by passing out white carnations to all those who passed by. Anna Jarvis' one simple act of personal commemoration in May 1908, grew year after year. Eventually, Grafton's efforts would be recognized by the entire State of West Virginia in 1910. This was the first time a state recognized Mother's Day, and many more would soon follow. In 1914, President Woodrow Wilson declared the first national Mother's Day, and from that day until now, mothers have been honored with flowers, breakfast in bed, and of course, those endearing homemade cards by little children that are steeped in sentiment--and often covered in glitter, macaroni and school paste. My wife Sharon would tell you that there is nothing more important than these simple gifts--first from our children, and now our grandchildren. They are cherished touchstones. At the same time, we think of our mothers as invincible. However, not even our mothers are immune to age or disease. For many families across the country, Mother's Day takes on even deeper meanings as parents get older. In my own life, my mother was a tremendous force. Each Mother's Day was a celebration of her spirit, intellect and determination--and all this was put to the test in her battle with Alzheimer's disease. It's not easy seeing the woman who raised you struggle with an illness that robs her of her dignity and quality of life. I know that my family is not the only one that has been touched by this disease--and I am certainly not the only son who could talk in such a deeply personal way about losing a mother. But just like Anna Jarvis, my sisters and I sought to honor our mother--and perhaps in the process help another mother or grandmother or family--by opening the Blanchette Rockefeller Neurosciences Institute. So it is altogether fitting and proper that as we prepare to commemorate that first, historic Mother's Day celebration in Grafton, that we as a Nation begin to reconnect with what Anna Jarvis was trying to achieve--community recognition of the role that women play in all our lives. Today, I am introducing legislation that authorizes the U.S. Treasury to mint commemorative coins to celebrate the centennial of Grafton's celebration. I am proud to have Senator Robert C. Byrd as an original cosponsor. The companion bill also has been introduced in the House of Representatives by my West Virginia colleague, Shelley Moore Capito. The proceeds from the sale of these coins won't go to the Government. Instead they will go to two organizations that are actively working to make a difference in the lives of our Nation's women who are battling breast cancer and osteoporosis--the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation and the National Osteoporosis Foundation. Every day can, and should be Mother's Day. Through this bill, Americans will now have the chance to show, with the purchase of these coins, the high regard we have for not only our mothers and grandmothers, but our sisters and nieces, and all the women who have made a difference in our lives. In the process, we can contribute to funding research that will improve the quality of their lives. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.