Floor Statements

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.

The Presiding Officer is an extraordinary person.

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.

Will the Senator yield for 15 seconds?

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.

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.

Madam President, I call up my amendment.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The time is now 5:30.

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. 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.

Madam President, I ask my colleagues to join me today in commemorating the 125th anniversary of the National Crittenton Foundation and the Crittenton Family of Agencies.

For the last 113 years, Florence Crittenton Services Inc. in Wheeling, WV has served thousands of teen mothers and their children as the State's only maternity home--one that is nationally recognized for its unique gender-responsive program. In recognition of its continuing contribution to the State, the State Journal recently named this innovative agency one of the ``55 Good Things About West Virginia.'' The honor is well deserved.

In 1895, Florence Crittenton Services Inc. first opened its doors to provide shelter and support for ``wayward'' women in crisis. Over the past century, it has evolved from being a group home and adoption agency to a nationally-accredited and respected therapeutic residential program that serves abused, neglected, and behaviorally-challenged girls.

Among its many forward-thinking programs is Wellspring Family Services, a comprehensive, community-based behavioral health, parenting support and education service provider. Cradles to Crayons, a child care program for young mothers in care, provides a structured and safe environment for children while their parents complete their education and participate in therapeutic programming. This child care program continues today and serves the child care needs of Crittenton residents and community members.

Grounded in its original mission to help children and families in need achieve self-sufficiency, all of the agency's programs pay close attention to the underlying challenges that keep young women from succeeding, including addiction, domestic violence, and sexual abuse.

Throughout its history, Florence Crittenton Services, Inc. has maintained a unique cooperative relationship with The National Crittenton Foundation. This partnership is based on founder Charles Crittenton's and Dr. Kate Waller Barrett's belief that the most effective way to address compelling national social issues was through a network of affiliated independent, local organizations supported by a national body.

More than a century after Charles Crittenton founded his first home, the National Crittenton Foundation is re-emerging as an active force for social change. The foundation and its agencies continue their work to break the cycles of intergenerational issues like teen pregnancy, violence and substance abuse through a mix of strength-based gender and culturally-specific services tailored to meet the needs of young girls in local communities. For years, I have worked to improve services and support of needy children and families, and I have been proud to work with the Florence Crittenton Society in Wheeling.

As the National Crittenton Foundation and West Virginia's Florence Crittenton Services, Inc. come to Capitol Hill to celebrate 125 years of service to young women at risk and their children, I ask you to help me congratulate them on their achievements and thank them for their profound commitment to our children and our communities.

Mr. President, today I honor a courageous and dedicated young West Virginian: Ms. Amy Stout.

Before Amy even graduated high school, she joined the National Guard to help finance her college education. Shortly after Amy started her freshman year at Wesleyan, pursuing a degree in psychology, the events of September 11 took place. Within hours of that terrible event, Amy found herself guarding the wreckage of United Flight 93, near Shanksville, PA.

Amy remained activated with the National Guard for a year, serving Stateside in the Pocono Mountains of Pennsylvania while working to complete her first semester of school. Then, in the fall of 2002, Amy was once again activated, but this time she was sent to Camp Anaconda, north of Baghdad.

At a time when her fellow Wesleyan students were enjoying college life, Amy was serving her country as a gunner, providing security for 300-mile convoys. After her 12-month deployment, Amy returned to Wesleyan, determined to help people in as direct a way as possible. She changed her major to nursing.

Amy continued to pursue her nursing degree until, once again, the military called and Amy was sent back to Iraq, this time for 18 months. Amy's tour of duty ended on September 10, 2007, and she was back at Wesleyan the very next day, September 11, exactly 6 years after she was first activated by the National Guard.

In May 2008, Amy Stout will graduate with her nursing degree. She is a testament to the incredible bravery of our soldiers who sacrifice so much to protect this country. Her determination is an inspiration to her fellow students and her fellow West Virginians. She has served this nation with great honor and dignity and soon she will be a tremendous asset to the nursing profession.

It is with great pride that I congratulate her on her upcoming graduation and thank her for her service to this Nation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation designed to fix the personnel laws that cover the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, health care professionals, including registered nurses, physicians, physician assistants, dentists, podiatrists, optometrists, and dental assistants. I am proud to have the support of my colleagues, Senators Webb, Brown and Mikulski. This legislation is the companion bill to the pending House bill sponsored by House Veterans' Affairs Chairman, Congressman Bob Filner.

Our goal is to support the VA health care professionals who work hard to provide quality care to our veterans. The bill seeks to return to the partnership agreement of the 1990s between VA management and workforce. Flexible scheduling and basic fairness from management are key issues to recruit and retain a strong workforce.

Almost 22,000 of the registered nurse caring for our veterans will be eligible to retire by 2010. Even more stunning is that 77 percent of all resignations of nurses occur within the first 5 years. This is a clear signal that more must be done to retain VA nurses and quality health care staff. Anyone involved in health care understands the important role that nurses play in the quality of care and patient satisfaction.

The VA has several options. VA could invest more of its precious, limited funding on contract care--or, as we recommend, support this legislation and restore the partnership that will encourage our nurses and other health care professionals to stay in the VA system to care for our Nation's heroes.

West Virginia has four VA Medical Centers, each with a dedicated team of health care professionals. I have met with the nurses and other professionals to hear their requests for flexible scheduling. I believe that we should restore the management partnership and work hard to retain our dedicated team of health professionals for our aging veterans, and those newly returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with both physical and mental wounds of war that deserved experienced VA care.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation designed to fix the personnel laws that cover the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, health care professionals, including registered nurses, physicians, physician assistants, dentists, podiatrists, optometrists, and dental assistants. I am proud to have the support of my colleagues, Senators Webb, Brown and Mikulski. This legislation is the companion bill to the pending House bill sponsored by House Veterans' Affairs Chairman, Congressman Bob Filner.

Our goal is to support the VA health care professionals who work hard to provide quality care to our veterans. The bill seeks to return to the partnership agreement of the 1990s between VA management and workforce. Flexible scheduling and basic fairness from management are key issues to recruit and retain a strong workforce.

Almost 22,000 of the registered nurse caring for our veterans will be eligible to retire by 2010. Even more stunning is that 77 percent of all resignations of nurses occur within the first 5 years. This is a clear signal that more must be done to retain VA nurses and quality health care staff. Anyone involved in health care understands the important role that nurses play in the quality of care and patient satisfaction.

The VA has several options. VA could invest more of its precious, limited funding on contract care--or, as we recommend, support this legislation and restore the partnership that will encourage our nurses and other health care professionals to stay in the VA system to care for our Nation's heroes.

West Virginia has four VA Medical Centers, each with a dedicated team of health care professionals. I have met with the nurses and other professionals to hear their requests for flexible scheduling. I believe that we should restore the management partnership and work hard to retain our dedicated team of health professionals for our aging veterans, and those newly returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with both physical and mental wounds of war that deserved experienced VA care.

Mr. President, I rise today with my esteemed colleagues--Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine and Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts--to introduce a timely and vital piece of legislation, the Economic Recovery in Health Care Act of 2008. This bill will preserve access to health care for our most vulnerable citizens during this time of economic uncertainty.

Earlier this week, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke confirmed what we have all long-suspected--that the U.S. economy could be headed for a protracted recession. The tell-tale warning signs of recession have been visible in the states for at least a full quarter now. According to the National Governors Association, the recent economic downturn has left 18 States with budget shortfalls totaling $14 million in 2008, and 21 States project shortfalls totaling more than $32 million in 2009. If the current downturn follows the path of most recessions, between 35 and 40 States will face severe budget shortfalls in 2009.

As a former Governor, who survived the tough times of the 1980s, I can attest to the enormous budget pressures States face when the economy slows. State revenues often evaporate rapidly during an economic downturn. Unlike the Federal Government, States cannot borrow infinite amounts of debt from China and other countries. By law, 49 States--including West Virginia--are required to balance their budgets and, in times of economic downturn, this task becomes significantly more difficult.

Some of my colleagues may be wondering why health care is such a big deal when we have all these other problems to worry about--the mortgage crisis, the credit crunch, and a weak dollar. Well, I would say to my colleagues that we don't have to look very far for an answer to this very question. As we saw during the economic downturn of 2001-2003, decreased access to health care coverage was a huge crisis for working families.

There was a huge loss in private health care coverage. Data from the Center for Studying Health System Change indicates that the proportion of the under-65 population with employer-sponsored coverage fell from 67 percent in 2001 to 63.4 percent in 2003. After adjusting for population growth, this means that nearly 9 million fewer people were covered by employer-sponsored health insurance during the recession than would have been the case if coverage rates remained unchanged.

Medicaid also didn't fare very well during the last recession. It is consistently the first program slated for cuts during a state budget squeeze. According to the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, between fiscal years 2002 and 2005, the loss of revenue led all 50 States to reduce Medicaid provider payment rates and implement prescription drug cost controls, 38 States to reduce Medicaid eligibility and 34 States to reduce benefits.

These cuts placed a huge burden on Medicaid providers and the working families who depend on Medicaid to meet their health care needs. While Congress did ultimately respond to the last economic downturn by providing $20 billion in State fiscal relief in 2003, and this relief went a long way to preserve health care coverage for millions of working families, we cannot discount the fact that one million low- income people had already lost Medicaid coverage because we waited two years into the recession to act.

In response to this current downturn, state legislatures are already beginning to limit access to Medicaid and CHIP in preparation for the harsh economic times ahead. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, at least 10 states have implemented or are considering budget cuts that will reduce access to Medicaid or CHIP for working families. For example, Nevada has capped the State's CHIP program

at its approximate current number of enrollees. As a result, hundreds of children will be denied coverage. California has proposed increasing co-payments and premiums for children enrolled in CHIP and reducing CHIP dental services. I want to remind my colleagues that it was only 1 year ago that millions across the country mourned the death of 12-year- old Deamonte Driver, whose lack of dental care led to fatal brain infection.

At least four States are cutting or proposing to cut Medicaid services for the elderly or disabled, or significantly increasing the cost of these services. For example, Maine has proposed cuts that will remove 7,000 mentally ill and poor adults from Medicaid; and Rhode Island is requiring low-income elderly people to pay more for adult daycare.

Several States have proposed reductions in or delayed payments to providers. For example, New Jersey has proposed a reduction in funding for hospital charity of 15 percent, which will impact hospitals' ability to care for some of the State's most vulnerable residents.

There is no question that our States are in economic peril. However, children don't stop getting sick just because the economy slows. Seniors don't suddenly stop needing long-term care services simply because the economy slows. Instead, the need for access to Medicaid and CHIP grows during times of economic uncertainty, and we must act to ensure that Medicaid and CHIP coverage is available when families need it the most.

The Economic Recovery in Health Care Act provides the timely, targeted, and temporary Federal response necessary to avoid a health care crisis during this current economic slowdown. Our legislation accomplishes this objective in two ways.

First, our bill responds to the Medicaid administrative regulations recently proposed by the administration, which, if allowed to go into effect, would further aggravate the impact of the economic downturn on States and working families. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that these regulations would reduce Federal Medicaid matching payments by approximately $18 billion over 5 years and $42 billion over 10 years. However, State reports to the House Oversight Committee indicate that the cost shift to States could be far greater.

Now is a time when States need greater financial support from the Federal Government, not less financial support and more restrictions that make providing quality care to those most in need nearly impossible.

Our bill will preserve access to Medicaid for seniors, pregnant women, individuals with disabilities, and children during the economic downturn by temporarily extending--through April 1, 2009--the Medicaid moratoria on payments to public providers, graduate medical education, school-based services, and rehabilitative services that Congress has already enacted. The Economic Recovery in Health Care Act would also preserve access to Medicaid by delaying--through April 1, 2009-- implementation of the following additional Medicaid regulations, which are already in effect or scheduled to go into effect in the near future: targeted case management, allowable provider taxes, outpatient clinic and hospital services, and the Departmental Appeals Board rule. Our bill would also preserve access to CHIP for low-income children by implementing a 1-year moratorium on the August 17 CHIP guidance.

The second major component of our legislation is targeted State fiscal relief. Leading economists have found that targeted State aid would generate increased economic activity of $1.36 for each dollar of cost. Our legislation provides approximately $12 billion in targeted State fiscal relief, equally divided between an increase in Federal Medicaid matching payments and targeted grants to States.

Unlike the State fiscal relief provided in 2003 and previous fiscal relief proposals offered this year, each State must meet certain criteria in order to qualify for an increase in federal matching payments and the targeted grants. The criteria would be based on the average of State ranks in unemployment, food stamp participation, and foreclosures. These three economic indicators closely align with State budget deficits and would allow us to more appropriately target State fiscal relief to the States with the most need.

I urge my colleagues to strongly support this important legislation. Medicaid is a Federal-State partnership, and the Federal Government bears the primary responsibility for ensuring that the Federal guarantee of health benefits is not denied to eligible working families, particularly during an economic downturn. With all the worries that working American families are currently facing, they should not have to add health care to their growing list of concerns.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the bipartisan reauthorization and expansion for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, Supplemental Grants with my colleague, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

The TANF Supplemental Grants will expire this year without action. Currently 17 States depend on these grants, but our legislation would expand and improve on the grants. Welfare reform was passed in 1996, and since then neither the basic TANF Block Grant nor the TANF Supplemental Grant has been increased. This means that the value of the TANF funding in constant dollars has declined by almost 20 percent.

In 2010, Congress will need to review the entire TANF program, but between now and then our legislation seeks to provide modest help for States that are struggling to serve vulnerable children in needy families. Our legislation would provide a modest increase for any State which spends less than the national average per underprivileged child on TANF activities of Federal and State resources. This would help States that cannot meet the average ``catch up,'' and provide more services to underprivileged children. To be reasonable, the increase is capped at $10 million or 10 percent of their existing TANF grant for States that have never received a TANF Supplemental Grant. For States that are receiving a TANF Supplemental Grant, they could qualify for up to $2.5 million in additional funding or 2.5 percent of their existing TANF grant.

This is a modest but important effort to help every state provide for vulnerable children who are receiving less

than that national average for an underprivileged child. This proposal should help the most vulnerable at a time when the economic slowdown is creating more obstacles for families to make a successful transition from welfare to work.

In West Virginia, our neediest children are not even receiving the average amount spent on America's underprivileged children, and that is true in too many States. Our children and families are struggling to meet the bold goals of welfare reform with fewer resources and tougher standards. This reauthorization is a chance to help those States that are struggling to achieve the national average for funding. It would be base funding for underprivileged children rather than population growth. It will target resources to vulnerable children.

Mr. President, I rise today with my esteemed colleagues--Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine and Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts--to introduce a timely and vital piece of legislation, the Economic Recovery in Health Care Act of 2008. This bill will preserve access to health care for our most vulnerable citizens during this time of economic uncertainty.

Earlier this week, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke confirmed what we have all long-suspected--that the U.S. economy could be headed for a protracted recession. The tell-tale warning signs of recession have been visible in the states for at least a full quarter now. According to the National Governors Association, the recent economic downturn has left 18 States with budget shortfalls totaling $14 million in 2008, and 21 States project shortfalls totaling more than $32 million in 2009. If the current downturn follows the path of most recessions, between 35 and 40 States will face severe budget shortfalls in 2009.

As a former Governor, who survived the tough times of the 1980s, I can attest to the enormous budget pressures States face when the economy slows. State revenues often evaporate rapidly during an economic downturn. Unlike the Federal Government, States cannot borrow infinite amounts of debt from China and other countries. By law, 49 States--including West Virginia--are required to balance their budgets and, in times of economic downturn, this task becomes significantly more difficult.

Some of my colleagues may be wondering why health care is such a big deal when we have all these other problems to worry about--the mortgage crisis, the credit crunch, and a weak dollar. Well, I would say to my colleagues that we don't have to look very far for an answer to this very question. As we saw during the economic downturn of 2001-2003, decreased access to health care coverage was a huge crisis for working families.

There was a huge loss in private health care coverage. Data from the Center for Studying Health System Change indicates that the proportion of the under-65 population with employer-sponsored coverage fell from 67 percent in 2001 to 63.4 percent in 2003. After adjusting for population growth, this means that nearly 9 million fewer people were covered by employer-sponsored health insurance during the recession than would have been the case if coverage rates remained unchanged.

Medicaid also didn't fare very well during the last recession. It is consistently the first program slated for cuts during a state budget squeeze. According to the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, between fiscal years 2002 and 2005, the loss of revenue led all 50 States to reduce Medicaid provider payment rates and implement prescription drug cost controls, 38 States to reduce Medicaid eligibility and 34 States to reduce benefits.

These cuts placed a huge burden on Medicaid providers and the working families who depend on Medicaid to meet their health care needs. While Congress did ultimately respond to the last economic downturn by providing $20 billion in State fiscal relief in 2003, and this relief went a long way to preserve health care coverage for millions of working families, we cannot discount the fact that one million low- income people had already lost Medicaid coverage because we waited two years into the recession to act.

In response to this current downturn, state legislatures are already beginning to limit access to Medicaid and CHIP in preparation for the harsh economic times ahead. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, at least 10 states have implemented or are considering budget cuts that will reduce access to Medicaid or CHIP for working families. For example, Nevada has capped the State's CHIP program

at its approximate current number of enrollees. As a result, hundreds of children will be denied coverage. California has proposed increasing co-payments and premiums for children enrolled in CHIP and reducing CHIP dental services. I want to remind my colleagues that it was only 1 year ago that millions across the country mourned the death of 12-year- old Deamonte Driver, whose lack of dental care led to fatal brain infection.

At least four States are cutting or proposing to cut Medicaid services for the elderly or disabled, or significantly increasing the cost of these services. For example, Maine has proposed cuts that will remove 7,000 mentally ill and poor adults from Medicaid; and Rhode Island is requiring low-income elderly people to pay more for adult daycare.

Several States have proposed reductions in or delayed payments to providers. For example, New Jersey has proposed a reduction in funding for hospital charity of 15 percent, which will impact hospitals' ability to care for some of the State's most vulnerable residents.

There is no question that our States are in economic peril. However, children don't stop getting sick just because the economy slows. Seniors don't suddenly stop needing long-term care services simply because the economy slows. Instead, the need for access to Medicaid and CHIP grows during times of economic uncertainty, and we must act to ensure that Medicaid and CHIP coverage is available when families need it the most.

The Economic Recovery in Health Care Act provides the timely, targeted, and temporary Federal response necessary to avoid a health care crisis during this current economic slowdown. Our legislation accomplishes this objective in two ways.

First, our bill responds to the Medicaid administrative regulations recently proposed by the administration, which, if allowed to go into effect, would further aggravate the impact of the economic downturn on States and working families. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that these regulations would reduce Federal Medicaid matching payments by approximately $18 billion over 5 years and $42 billion over 10 years. However, State reports to the House Oversight Committee indicate that the cost shift to States could be far greater.

Now is a time when States need greater financial support from the Federal Government, not less financial support and more restrictions that make providing quality care to those most in need nearly impossible.

Our bill will preserve access to Medicaid for seniors, pregnant women, individuals with disabilities, and children during the economic downturn by temporarily extending--through April 1, 2009--the Medicaid moratoria on payments to public providers, graduate medical education, school-based services, and rehabilitative services that Congress has already enacted. The Economic Recovery in Health Care Act would also preserve access to Medicaid by delaying--through April 1, 2009-- implementation of the following additional Medicaid regulations, which are already in effect or scheduled to go into effect in the near future: targeted case management, allowable provider taxes, outpatient clinic and hospital services, and the Departmental Appeals Board rule. Our bill would also preserve access to CHIP for low-income children by implementing a 1-year moratorium on the August 17 CHIP guidance.

The second major component of our legislation is targeted State fiscal relief. Leading economists have found that targeted State aid would generate increased economic activity of $1.36 for each dollar of cost. Our legislation provides approximately $12 billion in targeted State fiscal relief, equally divided between an increase in Federal Medicaid matching payments and targeted grants to States.

Unlike the State fiscal relief provided in 2003 and previous fiscal relief proposals offered this year, each State must meet certain criteria in order to qualify for an increase in federal matching payments and the targeted grants. The criteria would be based on the average of State ranks in unemployment, food stamp participation, and foreclosures. These three economic indicators closely align with State budget deficits and would allow us to more appropriately target State fiscal relief to the States with the most need.

I urge my colleagues to strongly support this important legislation. Medicaid is a Federal-State partnership, and the Federal Government bears the primary responsibility for ensuring that the Federal guarantee of health benefits is not denied to eligible working families, particularly during an economic downturn. With all the worries that working American families are currently facing, they should not have to add health care to their growing list of concerns.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the bipartisan reauthorization and expansion for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, Supplemental Grants with my colleague, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

The TANF Supplemental Grants will expire this year without action. Currently 17 States depend on these grants, but our legislation would expand and improve on the grants. Welfare reform was passed in 1996, and since then neither the basic TANF Block Grant nor the TANF Supplemental Grant has been increased. This means that the value of the TANF funding in constant dollars has declined by almost 20 percent.

In 2010, Congress will need to review the entire TANF program, but between now and then our legislation seeks to provide modest help for States that are struggling to serve vulnerable children in needy families. Our legislation would provide a modest increase for any State which spends less than the national average per underprivileged child on TANF activities of Federal and State resources. This would help States that cannot meet the average ``catch up,'' and provide more services to underprivileged children. To be reasonable, the increase is capped at $10 million or 10 percent of their existing TANF grant for States that have never received a TANF Supplemental Grant. For States that are receiving a TANF Supplemental Grant, they could qualify for up to $2.5 million in additional funding or 2.5 percent of their existing TANF grant.

This is a modest but important effort to help every state provide for vulnerable children who are receiving less

than that national average for an underprivileged child. This proposal should help the most vulnerable at a time when the economic slowdown is creating more obstacles for families to make a successful transition from welfare to work.

In West Virginia, our neediest children are not even receiving the average amount spent on America's underprivileged children, and that is true in too many States. Our children and families are struggling to meet the bold goals of welfare reform with fewer resources and tougher standards. This reauthorization is a chance to help those States that are struggling to achieve the national average for funding. It would be base funding for underprivileged children rather than population growth. It will target resources to vulnerable children.

Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to express my complete support for H.R. 4040, the Consumer Product Safety Commission Reform Act, which passed the Senate yesterday with an overwhelming bipartisan majority. Regrettably, I was unable to vote on final passage of H.R. 4040, as I had a previous commitment that prevented me from being there. However, I believe so strongly in the Government's responsibility to maintain the highest level of product safety that I wanted the Congressional Record to reflect how pleased I am that the Senate passed H.R. 4040, after substituting the text of S. 2663 as amended, and to extend my congratulations to the bill's principal

sponsors, Senator Mark Pryor and Senator Ted Stevens.

Throughout the past few years, our Nation has experienced an unfortunately large number of recalls on products that have been imported into our country. Of particular concern to me, and to many of my colleagues, as well as to parents and all citizens across the country are the millions of children's toys that were recalled due to dangerous levels of lead and other toxins or dangerously defective product design or manufacture. These recalls left many parents wondering whether any of the toys they purchased for their children were safe. It was time for the Senate to work together to protect America's consumers and children, and with the passage of H.R. 4040, we have done that and, I believe, done it well.

Much blame has been placed on the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, CPSC, for failing to adequately protect consumers from dangerous products entering the United States. Whether this was being too lax with regard to negligible product safety standards for toys and other items produced abroad, or ineffective and often toothless oversight of the manufacturing and design process wherever the toys were made, there is more than enough blame to spread around. While I certainly recognize the important contributions of the dedicated career employees at the CPSC, it is clear that the CPSC lacks the adequate resources, and political will, to combat this growing problem.

With the passage of H.R. 4040, the Senate has taken a very good step toward addressing many of the problems we have seen in recent years by increasing funding for the CPSC, increasing penalties for manufacturers that violate consumer protection laws, reducing the levels of lead in children's products, requiring labeling so that parents can know when their children's toys have been recalled, and allowing State attorneys general to help enforce Federal consumer protection laws for the benefit of citizens throughout West Virginia and across the Nation.

Mr. President, again I would like to express my support for H.R. 4040, as amended by the remark on March 6, 2008, and thank my colleagues for all of their hard work to pass legislation that will better protect consumers and children from dangerous products.