[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 68 (Monday, April 28, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3426-S3433]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FAA REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2007--MOTION TO PROCEED
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume the motion to proceed to H.R. 2881, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A motion to proceed to the bill (H.R. 2881) to amend title
49, United States Code, to authorize appropriations for the
Federal Aviation Administration for fiscal years 2008 through
2011, to improve aviation safety and capacity, to provide
stable funding for the national aviation system, and for
other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, at 5:30 this afternoon, the Senate will
vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the
reauthorization of the airport and airway trust fund, also known as the
aviation trust fund. I urge my colleagues to support getting to this
important bill.
Before getting to the specifics of the bill, however, I would like to
give some perspective on our current aviation system. And I will start
with the story of Sir Robert Watson-Watt.
Robert Watson-Watt was born in Scotland in 1892. He was a descendant
of the steam-engine pioneer James Watt. Robert was a student of
science, with a fascination for radio waves and how they might be used
to transmit information. After finishing school, he got a job as a
meteorologist at the Royal Aircraft Factory, not far from London. He
worked on developing methods of using radio waves to help British
airmen locate and avoid thunderstorms.
After years of work, in 1935, Watson-Watt produced a report called
``The Detection of Aircraft by Radio Methods.'' The report suggested a
new idea. The idea was that people could use shortwave radio to detect
not only bad weather, but also aircraft, including bombers.
Watson-Watt's superiors tested his theory, and it worked. They called
his new gizmo RADAR, an acronym for radio detection and ranging.
By the time that World War II broke out in September 1939, the
British Government had installed radar all along the English Channel
and the North Sea coasts. That gave the British advance warning of
Hitler's bombers. Acclaimed historian A.J.P. Taylor said he doubted
that Britain could have survived the Second World War without Watson-
Watt's invention.
Next, radar was ready for commercial application. All civil aviation
needed for dramatic growth was a faster set of planes. That happened
with advent of the jet engine in the 1950s and 1960s.
In 1952, what is now British Airways introduced the de Havilland
Comets. Those were 36-seat British-made jets that could fly as fast as
500 miles an hour. Six years later, the Boeing 707 entered commercial
service. Pan Am flew it from New York to Paris in just under 9 hours--
twice as fast as a propeller plane.
It took Charles Lindberg 33 hours--almost four times longer.
Seven years after that, in February 1969, the world's first wide-body
jet--the Boeing 747--made its inaugural flight. With seating for up to
450 passengers, the 747 was 80 percent bigger than the largest jet of
that time. The era of mass aviation was in full swing.
But as air travel flourished, growing pains ensued. And by the late
1960s, public concern over air-traffic had spilled into the headlines:
Here's a news story from 1967.
Thicket in the Skies. . . . When a passenger hops a
commercial plane to get from here to there quickly, he soon
discovers that man does not live by one means of
transportation alone. The Labor Day weekend congestion and
peril underscores the point. . . .
[[Page S3427]]
And here's another story, from May 1969:
FAA Predicts Summer Air Jam. . . . [The FAA] forecast
yesterday that, despite Federal restrictions that would limit
flights at five major airports beginning June 1, air
travelers might have another summer of frustrating delays.
In short, the air transport system had grown beyond anyone's
expectations. Change was needed. Congress responded by passing
groundbreaking legislation.
In May 1970, Congress passed the aviation trust fund. Congress built
on a Nixon administration proposal to adopt a law in which users of the
aviation system paid for its upkeep. The new law imposed taxes on
tickets, fuel, cargo, and the like. And the law established the
aviation trust fund to provide a stable source of funding for our
Nation's aviation needs.
Despite some ups and downs over the last 38 years--including a lapse
of the Trust Fund in the early 1980s--this system of funding air
traffic has by and large succeeded. The rates of the taxes have
changed. And some--like those on aircraft tires--have been phased out.
But generally, this Trust Fund has managed to finance the needs of the
air-traveling public.
Not anymore. Our system needs modernization, to improve efficiency
and safety. Our 2008 trust fund, born in the 1970s, is paying for 1930s
technology. That will change with passage of this bill. That will
change with the adoption of NextGen.
And that brings us to the bill in connection with which we will vote
this afternoon--the reauthorization of the airport and airway trust
fund, also known as the aviation trust fund. The trust fund finances
the U.S. aviation system, with about $12 billion per year in user-based
taxes. The Senate substitute amendment would provide an additional $800
million to the trust fund over the next 3 years. The bill would provide
needed funds to modernize our aviation system.
The Senate substitute amendment is a compromise product. It
represents months of work on the part of the Finance and Commerce
Committees. Its passage promises improvements in safety and efficiency
for air travelers.
Key to that improvement is NextGen. NextGen is the Federal Aviation
Administration's plan to modernize the Nation's air-traffic system.
NextGen would address the effect of air traffic growth. It would
increase air-traffic capacity and efficiency. And it would improve
safety and reduce the effect of air travel on the environment.
Generally speaking, NextGen involves the use of satellite-based
technology. This includes items like Automatic Dependent Surveillance
Broadcast. ADS-B would allow aircraft to continuously transmit
location, speed, and altitude to other planes, pilots, and controllers.
And that would improve the efficiency and safety of air traffic.
Instead of using Watson-Watt's radar to tell where they are, planes
equipped with ADS-B get their exact location from Global Positioning
System satellites. They then broadcast their flight number, speed, and
heading--automatically and continuously--to ground control and other
planes within 150 miles. This is a sea change in air-traffic
technology. And we need to invest in it now.
So how do we pay for NextGen? The Finance Committee passed a bill to
pay for NextGen this way:
First, we set the tax for General Aviation jet fuel at 36 cents a
gallon. That is up from the current 21.9 cents a gallon. This proposal
was agreed to by the General Aviation community. And it will raise
about $240 million a year in additional funds for NextGen. Note that
this proposal does not affect those who fly planes using ``avgas,''
such as a propeller-powered Cessna.
Second, we moved partially owned planes--known as ``fractional''
aircraft--from the commercial taxation regime to that of General
Aviation. Fractional owners expressed concern that without this change,
their ability to fly and land in Europe would be hampered. The European
Union has strict rules governing which airports commercial flights can
use. And this change should allow fractional aircraft to be considered
as general aviation not commercial aviation. This change comes with a
cost to the fractional users.
The Senate substitute amendment drops a proposed increase on the tax
on international departures and arrivals. The Finance Committee bill
proposed raising that rate--currently at $15.40--by $1.55 each way.
That is just over $3 roundtrip. We argued that if someone had the
wherewithal to travel overseas, then the cost of a Starbucks at the
airport was a reasonable price to pay for contributing to a modernized
air traffic system.
But given the state of the commercial airline industry, Senator
Rockefeller and I agreed to drop this provision. In the face of
dramatically higher fuel prices and mounting financial losses, we
agreed that this was not the time to raise extra funds from the
commercial industry.
All told, the package in the Senate substitute amendment raises an
additional $800 million over the next 3 years. More may be needed,
especially given the rapid state of technological change. I know that
both the Finance Committee and Commerce Committee plan to monitor
NextGen's implementation. And since this is just a 3-year
reauthorization, we will be back at this again before long.
Finally, I will note that this bill is not just about aviation. The
Finance Committee package also contains other critical infrastructure
items, including a direly needed fix to the highway trust fund. The
highway trust fund will run a deficit in 2009, unless Congress acts to
repair that deficit.
In a time when our surface transportation suffers as much as--if not
more so--than our air transport system, it is imperative that Congress
act to restore needed monies to the highway trust fund. We need to
finance construction and repair of our Nation's roads and bridges.
Taxes on gasoline, diesel, and heavy trucks finance the highway trust
fund. The highway trust fund is thus sensitive to changes in the use of
these items. As Americans drive less, and as vehicle fuel-efficiency
increases, the highway trust fund's balance has taken a significant
hit.
A highway trust fund deficit is projected for 2009. And even worse
projections are expected for 2010 and beyond. As we get nearer to the
next highway bill, it's important that we at least make the highway
trust fund whole going into 2009. The Senate substitute amendment would
do that. And I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. President, we'll have a vigorous debate this week. And I look
forward to it.
But before that debate begins in earnest, I want to thank my
colleagues--particularly Senators Rockefeller and Inouye--for their
willingness to seek common ground. I think that the Senate substitute
amendment is a good package.
So let us help to bring air travel from Robert Watson-Watt's 1935
idea into the 21st century. Let us adopt NextGen to improve safety and
efficiency in the skies. And let us vote to move to this bill this
afternoon.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous
consent that the time during the quorum call be equally divided between
the two sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
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
[[Page S3428]]
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.
[[Page S3429]]
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). The distinguished Senator from
Iowa.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I ask the distinguished Senator how
long his presentation is?
Mr. GRASSLEY. As I told the Senator, I have to be upstairs in 5
minutes.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
recognized immediately following the Senator from Iowa.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, transportation is an important part of
the American economy. It is vital to all rural and urban communities
that people are able to travel in a timely, safe, and cost efficient
manner. Whether it is the businesswoman traveling to meet her clients
or visit her company's plants, the tourist who wants to experience the
beauty and uniqueness of our country, or the grandparents visiting
their grandchildren; efficient, affordable, and safe travel is
imperative.
For several years we have been working on reauthorizing the aviation
bill. While this process has not always been easy, I am pleased that we
reached a bipartisan agreement and have a good bill before the Senate.
All of us have a vested interest in ensuring a stable, dependable,
and predictable revenue flow to the airport and airways trust fund.
Aviation has changed since the last time Congress considered aviation
legislation. This bill reshapes our system to better reflect today's
realities. It provides more funding to further modernize our air
traffic control systems, airports, and facilities. It also provides for
more efficient and safe travel to reduce delays and ease congestion in
our skies.
While the United States has one of the best records for aviation
safety, we need to continue to do better. We are back to the level of
air traffic that we saw before 9/11 and we will likely see this number
grow tremendously.
In light of these capacity issues and the 1950s equipment being used
to manage our skies, our Nation needs to move as quickly and prudently
towards the next generation of air traffic control systems. This bill
provides more funding towards this project. Now is the right time to
replace the old radar technology with real time GPS technology. The
American people deserve our investment in this new system.
This bill also takes an honest look at the diversity of our airport
system. It structures funding for the safety and fairness of every
airport in America.
Rural States, like Iowa, have many communities that rely on our
elaborate air transportation system. People who live near hub airports
have the opportunity to take advantage of air travel somewhat
efficiently and at a reasonable price. However, those in rural areas
have more difficulties. This challenge has become even more difficult
after 9/11 when most small communities were reduced to one air carrier
with less frequent flights. Commercial carriers only fly into
approximately 500 airports, although that is a business choice and
there are other airports they could serve. It is more expensive to do
business in rural America. This bill will continue the vital programs
that our rural communities rely on to keep competitive in the worldwide
marketplace.
Over the past decade, a new prong has developed in the aviation
industry. Traditionally, the focus has been on just two main
categories, commercial aviation and the private airplanes for
individual or corporate use. Today, we have a growing new class of
business aviation, which includes the new dynamic of fractional jet
ownerships. The new business class is anticipated to grow at a faster
rate than other segments of the industry. This new prong is providing
valuable opportunities for businesses to enhance efficiencies and
productivity, and is also a potential way for rural areas to have more
transportation opportunities.
While business aviation is good for and may be a saving grace for
struggling rural economies, the growth of business aviation is creating
more stress on our national air traffic system. This bill provides more
equity by having the business sector contribute more to the funding of
our aviation system.
This bill not only addresses important aviation policy, it also
provides the needed funding for Congress to meet the funding
commitments made in the 2005 highway bill.
Currently, we fund highway infrastructure through fuel and other
excise taxes. With record high gas prices and more fuel efficient
vehicles, the highway trust fund has not had the receipts that were
anticipated in 2005. Therefore, a shortfall is anticipated for fiscal
year 2009 and for future years.
It is vital that the highway trust fund is kept whole through the
life of the current authorization, SAFETEA-LU, so Congress can look to
long-term financing solutions to meet our surface transportation needs.
We need to have an important national dialogue in the next year so
Congress can act in a prudent and expeditious manner on the next
highway bill.
Provisions included in this bill will fill the funding shortfall for
fiscal year 2009. Offsets are provided so this funding will not add to
the overall budget deficit. Our States need to have the certainty that
this funding will be in place so they can continue with vital projects
to improve safety on our Nation's bridges and roadways.
In conclusion, I want to thank my colleagues on the Senate Finance
and Commerce Committees in working together to bring this important
bill to the Senate floor. This bill is good for Iowa and the Nation.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I come to the floor today as the
ranking member of the Senate Aviation Subcommittee. I am going to
encourage my colleagues to support cloture on the motion to proceed to
consideration of the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization
bill.
I have been working with my colleagues on the Commerce Committee and
the Finance Committee to develop a bill that we can all agree on. On
the main parts of the Commerce Committee bill, and the main parts of
the Finance Committee bill, we have come to agreement. There is one
major part that was put in at the last minute that I think will bring
everything down if we are not able to negotiate it. I am going to
discuss that in a minute.
But I believe we have been able, in the main Commerce committee bill,
of which Senator Rockefeller is the chairman, I am the ranking member
of the Aviation Subcommittee that put together the package, and in the
main part of that bill, we have struck a balance that would finance the
modernization of the FAA airport development, rural air service that is
so important in our country, and the labor-related provision.
If we want a final bill, I tell my colleagues that we must keep that
balance. We cannot load up this bill with controversial provisions,
many of which are in the House bill, which is the bill we are going to
go to cloture on, after which there will be the substitute on with the
Commerce bill.
The House FAA bill already has a veto threat against it, and the
prospects of a multiyear reauthorization for the FAA will diminish
quickly if we do not resist the temptation to make this a political
document. We have the opportunity to pass critical funding increases
for the modernization projects, timely improvements for the safety
programs at FAA, improvements to small community air service, and
consumer and passenger protections.
Senator Boxer and I have worked on the passenger protections,
especially when an airplane is sitting on the runway unable to take
off. In the bill we have before us, which we will talk more about when
the substitute is put forward, there is a 3-hour limit on how long an
airplane can stay on the ground without letting passengers off. We
think this is a major step in the right direction.
What I am going to be looking at, as we go through the week, is that
we cannot do further harm to the aviation industry in this country.
Rising fuel prices, tight credit markets, and the slowing economy are
wreaking havoc on our U.S. carriers. There is not one that is saying:
We are doing well.
As we move forward, I hope we will keep that in mind, rather than
adding burdens that cannot be maintained. If this bill is going to
throw any one of our airlines into a bankruptcy position, we will have
failed.
Now, I am very concerned about the pension provision that was put in
at
[[Page S3430]]
the last, I guess in the last couple of days, that would take away a
careful balance that was passed by this Congress last year. We worked
very hard to make sure that the airlines that have kept their defined
benefit plans, meaning they give full pensions to their members, are
not held in a position that would be detrimental versus carriers that
have gone to a defined contribution or 401(k) plan.
The new pension provision that was put in the Finance section of the
FAA reauthorization bill does create an inequity for carriers trying to
maintain their defined benefit plan. The language would create a
disincentive for the airlines to fully fund their pension liabilities,
because the new proposal would disallow past excess contributions being
carried forward in future years as currently allowed.
To put this in perspective, for instance, American Airlines currently
has about a 93-percent funding level in their defined benefit plan.
However, the required level of funding for their plan is 80 percent. So
they have a significantly higher level of funding than is required.
In difficult times, which everyone should see all of the airlines are
in, they would be allowed, under present law, to use the excess funding
level to meet their ongoing obligations like a downpayment.
Unfortunately, the language that was put in the Finance Committee
bill strips that ability to use these excess contributions and instead
forces them to fully fund their ongoing obligations at 100 percent. So
rather than owing roughly $80 million for their annual contribution,
they would instead owe $350 million. Over 3 years, that would be almost
about $1 billion, even though they are 93 percent funded on their
obligations.
This penalizes companies for having done the right thing in providing
significant prior funding for their pensions, and it changes the rules
of a carefully balanced congressional directive.
I hope we can work this out before we come to the point at which we
are trying to put the Finance Committee portion of this bill with the
Commerce Committee portion. I very much hope our members will become
very educated on this issue, because if we are going to do this kind of
harm, we should not be passing an authorization bill at all and instead
do a long-term extension of the FAA authorization bill, and try to work
these issues out so that no airline will be harmed or put in a
significantly disadvantaged position relative to their competitors.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
permitted to speak for 2 minutes in favor of bringing this bill
forward.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. I am very pleased that Senator Rockefeller, Senator
Baucus, and their ranking members of the subcommittees and the full
committee, the Chairs of Finance and Commerce have worked together to
bring us to this moment where we can reauthorize the FAA bill. It has
reached the time.
I was very pleased that Senator Hutchison mentioned the Passenger
Bill of Rights that I was so pleased to author along with Senator
Olympia Snowe. I was so pleased to have the support of so many on the
committee. I wanted to remind everyone, it is important that we move
forward on this bill.
There are so many things we have to consider now. We see what is
happening with our air service. When it works right, it is terrific.
Myself, today, it all worked right. I had to take two planes to get
here all the way from California. It was smooth. But there are times
when it is not smooth. We all know that.
But what we want to make sure of is that passengers are treated
fairly, and without the heavy-handed Federal Government in everything.
We make sure that the system works. That led me to author the Passenger
Bill of Rights.
Kate Hanni was one of the people who got trapped on a plane for, I do
not remember if it was 8 or 10 hours with her two little boys. There
was no food for them. There were overflowing restrooms. It was a
nightmare. People could not access their medicines. They were not
allowed to, and certainly people did not have an option to get off the
plane. And this happened over and over again.
I think we have all had experiences like that or we know someone who
did. There is no excuse for this. People have to have adequate water,
adequate food, and be able to use a clean restroom and get access to
their medicines.
It seems to me that ought to be a basic rule of the airlines. It is
not. And that is why we wrote this Passenger Bill of Rights, and the
committee supported it in the underlying bill, and people will be
granted those what I consider very minimum rights.
We think we are going to offer a perfecting amendment, because at
this point what happens is, we put in there a 3-hour rule. That is the
maximum time on the runway, with certain exceptions: safety, weather,
other things. But we say: If an airline does not agree to a 3-hour
rule, 3 hours of people trapped in the aircraft on a runway, that they
have to submit an alternative to the FAA; but we do not require that
the FAA sign off on it.
So we may want to strengthen that. I would alert colleagues. I hope
they support us. I know I have no time remaining. I hope we will give
this a strong ``yea'' vote.
I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. The time is now 5:30.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule
XXII, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 383, H.R. 2881, the FAA
reauthorization bill.
Harry Reid, Daniel K. Inouye, Barbara Boxer, Patty
Murray, Byron L. Dorgan, Edward M. Kennedy, Christopher
J. Dodd, Daniel K. Akaka, Benjamin L. Cardin, Patrick
J. Leahy, Bernard Sanders, Sherrod Brown, Amy
Klobuchar, Richard Durbin, Ken Salazar, Sheldon
Whitehouse, Max Baucus.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is: Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to proceed to H.R. 2881, the FAA reauthorization bill, shall be
brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are required under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut
(Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily
absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from North Carolina (Mrs. Dole), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr.
Gregg), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel), the Senator from Florida
(Mr. Martinez), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs.
Dole) would have voted ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 88, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 114 Leg.]
YEAS--88
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Byrd
[[Page S3431]]
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johnson
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NOT VOTING--12
Biden
Clinton
Dodd
Dole
Gregg
Hagel
Kennedy
Kerry
Lautenberg
Martinez
McCain
Obama
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 88, the nays are 0.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10
minutes, to be followed for 10 minutes by Senator Klobuchar, as in
morning business and for it to count postcloture.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
America's Workforce
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, America's workforce is facing immense
challenges. Our country has lost 230,000 jobs in the first 3 months of
2008. Many of those jobs are in the Presiding Officer's State of
Michigan and my State of Ohio. The national unemployment rate has gone
to 5.1 percent. In Ohio, unemployment hovers around 6 percent. Early
this year, Congress passed an economic stimulus package--a necessary
step but only a small step and a first step.
Wall Street projects an unemployment rate of 6.5 percent by the end
of 2009. It will likely be higher in my State. We have not acted on
extending unemployment insurance. The Republicans filibustered
extending unemployment insurance when we passed the stimulus package
earlier this year. The Republicans again have stopped our efforts and
have refused to extend unemployment benefits.
Over 2.6 million Americans--35 percent of all unemployed workers--
have already exhausted their unemployment benefits over the past 12
months. These are people who want to work, who have tried to find other
jobs, who simply have been unsuccessful in finding decent jobs.
Workers have paid into the unemployment system for years and deserve
protection now. Again, these are workers who have paid into this fund.
This is an insurance fund. It is not a welfare fund. These workers
deserve the compensation to help during their difficult times as they
search for jobs. I urge my colleagues to end their filibuster and to
work on extending unemployment insurance.
The President continues to push for a Colombia trade deal. We have
not even acted on trade adjustment assistance which provides vital
assistance to workers who lose their jobs because of trade. The
President has actually threatened to veto the House trade adjustment
assistance package.
Whether we have another trade deal, one thing is certain. Trade
assistance needs to be reformed, and it needs to be expanded to workers
who cannot, in every case, prove they lost their jobs because of trade,
even though they probably did. It should be expanded to service workers
who have lost their jobs.
Last week, Senate Republicans staged a filibuster to prevent even
having a debate on giving a woman a day in court when she faces
discrimination in the workplace. Today, women and victims of
discrimination, based on race or age or disability or religion, are
denied a remedy when they are denied equal pay for equal work. It
should not be a partisan issue, but the Republicans have made it one.
Today is Workers Memorial Day--a day set aside every year to honor
workers killed and hurt on the job. Trade unionists around the world
mark April 28 as an International Day of Mourning.
The most recent data shows that in the United States, there were
5,840 fatal workplace injuries in 2006. Over 5,800 Americans were
killed on the job in 2006, over 100 more than in 2005. This includes
196 workers in my State of Ohio.
Under this administration, workplace inspections have declined. The
Occupational Safety and Health Administration has not vigorously
enforced current laws and regulations on the books. It has not set any
standards except by court order. It continues to rely on ``voluntary''
compliance to protect workers in many of the most dangerous
occupations.
OSHA has dragged its feet on the butter flavoring chemical in popcorn
that has caused a fatal lung disease known as popcorn lung disease.
That is too late for Keith Campbell in Caledonia, OH, who is 50 years
old but has the lungs of an 80-year-old because of exposure to the
chemical at the popcorn plant in Marion, OH.
The point is, it has taken decades of struggle by workers and unions
to improve conditions in the mines, in the meatpacking plants, and in
the metal stamping shops--in all kinds of plants where workers get all
kinds of occupational injuries and illnesses.
This progress has been slowly, and sometimes not so slowly, unraveled
by the Bush administration.
Through budget cuts and a shift in emphasis to voluntary employer
programs, the administration is essentially telling workers they are on
their own. It hearkens back to an era when workers were treated like
disposable goods.
In election years, some candidates give drive-by speeches in towns
that are hit hard by unfair trade deals and tell them the ownership
society is working. In some sense, it is true. More and more, workers
``own'' responsibility for their own safety, their own retirement, and
their own health care.
We hear some candidates sometimes talk about how if only taxes on the
wealthiest Americans were lower, companies would not outsource
production to China or Mexico or to any other country. I don't think
that argument is passing the straight-face test these days.
Middle-class families aren't buying it because they see perfectly
well what is happening around them. The message of the ownership
society coming from the White House is that every man and woman is
responsible for himself or herself. But the result of the policies
pursued under that banner of the ownership society is the greatest
concentration of ownership in the hands of a few that we have seen
since the Great Depression. It is ownership all right but only for
those in high society.
Over the past 8 years, we have seen an administration that neither
values nor rewards hard work. We have seen an administration that
simply doesn't value manufacturing. Manufacturing changed the face of
America and created a middle class that used its strength and power to
change the course of society.
The progress in labor rights, women's suffrage, antitrust laws,
conservation, and the social safety net would not have happened without
manufacturing and would not have happened without rewarding our work.
When the Bush administration fails to value these manufacturing jobs
in the first place, why should we not be surprised when it doesn't
value safety in industries such as construction, mining,
transportation, and manufacturing?
Our Nation is struggling. We struggle because of the Federal
Government's wrongheaded tax policy, and because our trade policy all
too often encourages investors to move jobs overseas.
In the last 14 months, I have traveled my State extensively and held
roundtables with community leaders, workers, activists, teachers,
farmers, and veterans in almost 100 different places in 62 of Ohio's 88
counties. It is clear to me that Ohio workers are fighting back to
build a decent standard of living for themselves and for others to
provide opportunities for their children and to construct a more
prosperous State, one where smart and hard work is rewarded.
[[Page S3432]]
I listened to a woman, Dee Dee, who sat in negotiations representing
1,200 janitors in Cincinnati--1,200 men and women who work hard, raise
their children, and who contribute to their community; and in this case
they are not earning much more than the minimum wage.
Joined by several others at the bargaining table, Dee Dee helped
reach an agreement with Cincinnati's office building owners. Over the
next 3 years, 1,200 janitors will get between a $2- and $3-an-hour
raise, health benefits, and they will get a small pension.
In northwest Ohio, in the farmland of Henry County, Mark Schwiebert,
a very productive farmer in an increasingly competitive environment,
told me his story. He is proud of his farm, to be sure, but he also
takes his role seriously as an American citizen. He is an advocate for
family farmers and for fair trade, understanding that the prosperity of
Ohio depends on a vibrant rural Ohio where young people want to stay
and work in their communities.
Ohioans and workers across the country are fighting back. They did
not go away after this Chamber voted down the Fair Pay Act, again a
victim of Republican filibuster. They did not go away last year when
Republicans mounted yet another filibuster to prevent the Senate from
considering legislation to level the playing field for unions trying to
represent new groups of workers. They would not go away just because
this administration has ignored worker safety and is forcing more
families to mourn loved ones on Workers Memorial Day.
We need an ownership society, but it needs to be one in which workers
own a greater share of the profits from their productivity, and the
Government and employers own a greater share of responsibility for
their safety and their well-being.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The Senator from Minnesota is
recognized.
Energy Policy
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, Spring is finally arriving in
Minnesota, even though we had snow last week. Spring does get to our
State a little later than in Washington. This is the time of year when
people start thinking about putting their boats in the water and start
thinking about making a trip to their cabins. We call it the lake
season. It is also the time of year when farmers are preparing to put
their crops in the ground.
But this year is going to be different. The average price of gas just
hit $3.45 a gallon in Minnesota, and it is $3.56 per gallon nationally.
The price of diesel fuel is at $4.14 per gallon nationally. Of course,
the price of crude oil is at an unbelievable $118 per barrel.
People cannot afford to do the things they used to do. I don't think
people usually think of going up to a small lake cabin as a luxury, but
it becomes one when gas is this expensive.
I have heard from constituents who are having to cancel their family
road trips or their summer vacations up north because they cannot
afford the gas they need to get there. I have heard from farmers who
are having a hard time making ends meet, even in spite of the high
commodity prices, because the cost of their inputs--diesel fuel for
farm equipment and fertilizer made from natural gas--has spiraled out
of control. Of course, it is particularly hard on middle-class and low-
income families because when they have less disposable income and gas
goes up to these levels, it is very difficult for them to get by.
The high price of energy has inflated the price of everything from
groceries to transportation to home heating, as the occupant of the
chair knows, as he is from Vermont. It has impacted every sector of our
economy, from manufacturing, to forestry, to farms and small
businesses.
In cold northern States such as Minnesota, Spring is when a lot of
people--especially senior citizens living on their own--are trying to
pay off their natural gas bill from the winter. They are too afraid to
think about how they are going to pay their heating bills next winter,
if this trend continues.
Middle-class families are struggling with the high cost of health
care and a college education already, and they cannot afford this
increase in the price of gas. I just heard an expert a few weeks ago
talk about, if you look at the past 8 to 10 years, a regular, average
middle-class family--their costs for everything from daycare, to home
heating, to gas has gone up about $8,000 to $10,000 a year. But their
wages have not gone up. They don't have a choice, Mr. President, about
how they are going to get to work. In my State, many don't have a
choice. They have to drive. They have to get to work, get to school,
and they have to get to the doctor. Any wage increase they may have
gotten last year goes straight into their gas tanks. And more often
than not, there haven't even been any wage increases.
Not a day goes by when I don't hear about the struggle from my
constituents in Minnesota. So it is hard for me to understand how
recently the President seems taken aback when someone asked him about
$4 gas. The President said--remember, this was February 28. The
President said:
You're predicting $4 a gallon gasoline? That's interesting.
I hadn't heard that.
To the people in my State, $4 a gallon for gas isn't ``interesting.''
It is a budget-buster for many middle-class families in our State.
The fact is, this administration has failed to provide Americans with
a meaningful energy policy that would provide relief from high gas and
energy prices.
This country needs a bold energy policy for the future, a policy that
will stabilize prices and give consumers more alternatives, reduce our
dependence on foreign oil, and provide us with the next generation of
home-grown biofuels.
Brazil has already achieved this energy security. They have
leapfrogged in front of our country. They can do it with sugarcane. We
don't have that much sugarcane here, and we have to go to the next
generation of biofuels, cellulosic, switch grass--many different
things. But we have to put the reserve and incentives into place. We
can do this, but we need the will, and we need to pursue a forward-
looking energy policy with the same sense of urgency we used to put a
man on the Moon nearly 40 years ago.
In the long term, this is going to mean strategic investments in
research on hybrid electric cars, new solar technology, cellulosic
ethanol, and other forms of energy from biomass.
We should be investing not in the oil cartels of the Middle East but
in the farmers and workers of the Midwest. We need better fuel
efficiency standards in our cars. We already have a start on that with
the Energy bill and the 10-mile-per-gallon increase in fuel efficiency
standards. We need to do more. We also need a renewable energy
electricity standard, a portfolio standard for the Nation, like we have
in Minnesota where the requirement is 25 percent of our electricity
will come from renewables by 2025. It has spurred investment in wind.
We are third in the country in wind now because we have been willing to
take that step.
There is also much that we need to do in the short term, Mr.
President. We can put a stop to oil company giveaways by ending the
giveaways and tax breaks going to the oil companies and putting them
into a futuristic energy policy focused on renewables. We tried to do
that in the Energy bill, and we were one vote short of blocking the
filibuster. I still believe we can do it.
We also have to look at the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We can stop
diverting 50,000 barrels of oil every day into that Strategic Petroleum
Reserve. Of course, we need to have a petroleum reserve to protect our
country in times of emergency. But the time to fill it is not when oil
prices are at record highs.
Here is what the staff at the Strategic Petroleum Reserve had to say
on the subject 6 years ago, in 2002:
Commercial inventories are low, retail prices are high, and
economic growth is slow. The Government should avoid
acquiring oil for the reserve under these circumstances.
If this was true in 2002, it is doubly true today. Maybe I should say
it is triply true because gas prices are more than triple what they
were then. That is why I was proud to join with my colleague, Senator
Dorgan of North Dakota, and others in sending a letter to the President
asking him to halt inputs into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to
provide some relief for consumers.
Next, OPEC. Another area where we can take immediate action is in our
dealings with the OPEC nations. OPEC
[[Page S3433]]
is a cartel of oil-producing countries that meets and decides how much
oil to produce and thereby control prices. They make no pretense of
having a free market system. They don't obey the laws of supply and
demand. They gather together and set production, which determines
prices.
As a former prosecutor, I call that kind of behavior ``collusion.''
It is illegal in our country. But the members of OPEC are foreign
governments and so far they have gotten away with it.
As oil exporting nations, the members of OPEC could provide us with
some relief. They have the spare capacity to increase production of oil
and ease the pain being felt by American consumers and businesses. But
OPEC recently met, as you know, and decided not to increase production,
at least until the fall, after the summer driving season.
Not only that, Saudi Arabia has actually decreased production since
2005. So I have joined with my colleagues, Senators Schumer, Dorgan,
and you, Mr. President, in calling on the President to demand that OPEC
nations increase their oil production to provide American consumers and
businesses with much needed relief.
Think about it: This country spends $600,000 every minute on imported
oil. That is money leaving the pockets of American drivers going into
the coffers of foreign countries. By refusing to step up production,
OPEC nations are saying we don't think prices are too high yet; we want
them to go even higher.
I don't think that is right. It is time this administration stepped
up and did something about it. If we are going to be doing business
with Saudi Arabia and some of these countries, this administration
should have the leverage to push for more oil from OPEC.
Another short-term solution: Current prices are simply not justified
by supply and demand. The administration likes to tell us nothing can
be done, that it is a case of supply and demand. But that answer does
not hold true any longer. Listen to what the oil company executives
themselves have to say about this matter.
On October 30, 2007, the CEO of Marathon Oil said:
$100 oil isn't justified by the physical demand in the
market.
That is exactly what he said:
$100 oil isn't justified by the physical demand in the
market.
Let's look at what another CEO said. Here we have the CEO of Royal
Dutch Shell. The CEO of Royal Dutch Shell said:
The oil fundamentals are no problem. They are the same as
they were when oil was selling for $60 a barrel.
On April 1, a senior vice president of ExxonMobil testified before
the House that the price of oil should be about $50 to $55 per barrel.
He said:
The price of oil should be about $50 to $55 per barrel.
That was April 1, 2008. I note that is April Fool's Day, but he did
say the price of oil should be about $50 to $55 per barrel. Why is it
trading at $118? If supply and demand doesn't explain the high price,
what does?
According to the experts, there is a frenzy of unregulated market
speculation in the oil futures market that is driving prices up to
record highs. I would like to share a quote from an energy market
analyst with Oppenheimer who was recently named by Bloomberg as the
top-ranked energy analyst in the country. He said:
I'm absolutely convinced that oil prices shouldn't be a
dime above $55 a barrel . . . Oil speculators include the
largest financial institutions in the world. I call it the
world's largest gambling hall . . . It's open 24/7 . . . It's
totally unregulated. . . . This is like a highway with no
cops and no speed limit, and everybody's going 120 miles per
hour.
That makes you feel good. It makes the people filling up their gas
tanks paying that nearly 4 bucks a gallon feel good, like a gambling
hall.
Why are these trades in a commodity as vital as oil unregulated? Back
in 2000, a provision was inserted into the Commodity Futures
Modernization Act that exempted electronic energy trades from Federal
regulation. In the absence of oversight, what was once a small niche
market became a booming industry, attracting rampant speculation from
hedge funds and investment banks. Oil and natural gas prices became
volatile. The provision has become known as the Enron loophole because
it made possible the many abuses that triggered the Western energy
crisis and cost the economy $35 billion and nearly 600,000 jobs.
The Federal Government has a critical role to play in conducting
aggressive oversight of changing energy markets. History has shown us
that when enforcement is lax, consumers ultimately pay the price.
Simply put, we need to close the Enron loophole and strengthen
Federal oversight of energy trading. I am pleased to say my colleagues,
Senators Feinstein and Levin, have succeeded in including this
provision in the farm bill. It is another reason we need to get the
farm bill done.
I commend my colleagues, Representative Collin Peterson, from
Minnesota, and Senator Harkin and Senator Conrad for getting this
provision done.
A final short-term solution. After the collapse of Enron, the
President formed a Corporate Fraud Task Force at the Department of
Justice. The task force has since produced more than 1,000 convictions
by aggressively pursuing corporate fraud under existing law. What this
shows us is good laws in and of themselves are not enough. We need
enforcement. We need a cop on the beat. Any prosecutor can tell you
that. That is why I joined my colleague, Senator Cantwell, in calling
on the President to establish a new division of the Corporate Fraud
Task Force specifically to apply to energy markets. This new Oil and
Gas Market Fraud Task Force would allow us to focus combined efforts of
the Department of Justice, FTC, SEC, and the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission.
In conclusion, the cost of energy is hurting Americans from all walks
of life and businesses. I don't think we need one silver bullet. As we
say in my State, we need a silver buckshot. We need a bold energy
policy, first of all, in the short term, that focuses on temporarily
suspending deliveries of oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, that
pressures OPEC nations to increase oil production, that closes the
Enron loophole to eliminate that speculation, and to establish the DOJ
Oil and Gas Market Fraud Task Force.
Then we need for the long term--Mr. President, you know this well we
need to increase vehicle fuel efficiency, make a national commitment to
generate electricity from renewables and invest in research in cutting-
edge technologies for alternative fuel vehicles and renewable energy
sources. This is what we need to do.
The time is now for Congress to take strong steps toward creating
that bold energy policy. Americans are depending on us.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Klobuchar for her
comments. I agree with so much of what she had to say. When you go out
and talk to real people and see the impact on their lives of these huge
prices, you begin to analyze where we are.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask the Senator if he will withhold.
I think the plan is that I am to end the session and he is to speak.
Mr. SESSIONS. That sounds fine to me. I did not hear that. I yield
the floor, before I complete bragging on the Senator's comments.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his kind
words.
____________________