[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 29, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3475-S3484]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           FAA REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2007--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending business.
  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. Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Gasoline Prices

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, today I rise to speak about the price of 
gasoline and the price of diesel fuel, which is affecting every driver 
in America. My principal message is that Washington policies should not 
drive up the prices at the pump. At an absolute minimum, Federal 
practices should not be making prices any worse.
  According to the American Automobile Association, the average retail 
price for regular unleaded gasoline is $3.60 a gallon. The average 
price of diesel fuel is $4.24 a gallon. This is before this summer's 
driving season has even started.
  Consumers all across America are hurt by the inflationary pressures 
at the pump. My constituents in Wyoming know firsthand the huge impact 
that $110 or $120 per barrel of oil has on their wallets. I visit with 
them every weekend. The price at the pump in Casper, WY, just 3 weeks 
ago was $2.91. This past weekend, it was $3.31. Wyoming ranks at the 
top of all States in terms of vehicle miles traveled on a per capita 
basis. Because of my State's sparse population and great distances, 
that means it is not uncommon to commute 20, 50, or even 100 miles 
round trip to work, to school, or just to buy groceries.
  Today's current oil prices are primarily due to supply and demand 
fundamentals. At close examination, there

[[Page S3476]]

are really several different underlying contributors to today's high 
prices: rising world demand, especially in India and China; 
geopolitical tensions in the Middle East, in Venezuela, in Nigeria; 
limited options for acquiring additional supply; the weakness of the 
U.S. dollar; environmental regulations; and perhaps even excessive 
market speculation and manipulation. Recognizing this, Federal 
Government practices should not--should not--drive prices even higher. 
That is why I am announcing legislation today, S. 2927, that provides 
for a temporary suspension of Federal oil purchases for the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve.
  This Strategic Petroleum Reserve was initially created in the mid-
1970s. It was set up to protect the Nation from oil supply disruptions 
that followed the Arab oil embargo. I support the goal of protecting 
America's energy security. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve has served 
our Nation well. This legislation, though, says enough is enough. At 
today's high prices, this legislation tells the Government to stop 
putting any more oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve--to stop 
doing it whenever the average price of gasoline is over $2.50 a gallon. 
This chart clearly shows when we went above the red line, above $2.50, 
and when it has come below and when it is above. This has been in the 
last 3 years. This legislation also tells the Government to stop 
putting oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve when the price of 
diesel fuel exceeds $2.75 a gallon.
  Currently, the United States is buying about 70,000 barrels, 70,000 
barrels of oil each and every day to save and inject underground. The 
Government keeps buying it every day, regardless of price. When the 
prices of fuel go up, people try to use less. They carpool, they use 
public transportation. Not the U.S. Government--70,000 barrels every 
day regardless of need, regardless of price. The Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve already contains 700 million barrels of oil.
  The Administrator of the Energy Information Administration recently 
testified to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. He said 
taking this much oil out of the market every day does drive up the 
price for American drivers. He wasn't sure of the amount. He estimated 
it could be $2 per barrel of oil, maybe a nickel per gallon. A private 
analyst has argued that continuing to fill the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve could add as much as 10 percent to the price of gasoline--10 
percent. While there appears to be a disagreement on the magnitude, it 
is clear that when the Government is competing with the American 
driver, it does have an impact. Every day, the Government is pulling 
70,000 barrels of crude oil from the market. This is oil which could 
otherwise be used by airlines, by trucks, or by our neighbors.
  My bill would also impose fiscal responsibility on future oil 
purchases. When the Federal Government buys oil at today's prices, it 
is an expensive proposition for all taxpayers. At current prices, it 
will cost over $8 million a day for the Government to purchase these 
70,000 barrels of oil. Well, that equates to about $250 million a 
month, nearly $3 billion a year. The impact to the Treasury and to the 
American driver is real. Currently, the goal is to fill the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve with up to 1.5 billion--billion--barrels of oil. At 
the current rate of putting in 70,000 barrels a day, it will take 
another 30 years to achieve this level--70,000 barrels a day for 30 
years.
  I recognize that a temporary suspension by itself is not going to 
bring down the price of gasoline to $2.50 or even $3 a gallon 
overnight. But I made a commitment to the people of Wyoming. I made a 
commitment to do what I can to help when it comes to Washington 
policies that just don't seem to make sense. As a physician, I took an 
oath to do no harm. As a Senator, I am committed to a philosophy of 
Government accountability and fiscal responsibility.

  In addition to temporarily stopping the stockpiling of oil at these 
high prices, there is a second component to this bill: commonsense 
steps for fiscal responsibility. This legislation includes simple 
recommendations put forth by the Government Accountability Office.
  This bill would require dollar cost averaging when it comes to 
purchasing oil in the future. We could save taxpayers money if we just 
purchased the same dollar amount of oil each month rather than the same 
volume of oil each month. This means you end up buying more oil when 
the prices are low and less oil when the prices are high. The practice 
works for individual investors. It is what millions of Americans do 
every month with their retirement plans.
  There is an article in this week's Fortune magazine. It is entitled 
``Where to Put Your Money Now.'' The article says: With the markets 
giving off so many mixed signals, use dollar cost averaging. The 
Federal Government should operate with that same prudence. If the 
Department of Energy had used this approach in recent years, it could 
have saved American taxpayers over $590 million.
  The Federal Government could also save taxpayer dollars by storing 
heavier grades of crude oil. The Government Accountability Office has 
pointed out that such a strategy would be more cost-effective and 
provide more refiners with the kind of oil the refiners can actually 
use.
  These are two fundamental steps to improve Government accountability 
and fiscal responsibility. Many of us complain about Government waste. 
In this legislation, we have a chance to do something about it.
  I fully recognize that our energy problems are complex. This body 
recently adopted new corporate average fuel economy requirements to 
improve long-term efficiency in our cars and in our trucks. Increased 
energy efficiency and conservation must be an important part of any 
long-term energy solution. Other policies worthy of debate include 
expanded domestic production of energy, and we have also held hearings 
on excessive speculation and market manipulation. More recently, some 
have called for a holiday on the Federal gasoline tax. All of these 
efforts are worthy of debate. A temporary halt on adding more oil to 
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is really the low-hanging fruit. If we 
can't agree on these simple steps for fiscal responsibility, how will 
we come to an agreement on the more complex solutions to energy 
security?
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
legislation without delay. With gasoline prices at an alltime high, the 
American driver--the American driver--should not have to compete with 
Washington policies that are driving up the price at the pump.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I wish to take some time today to address a 
certain portion of H.R. 2881. Before I begin those remarks, I also wish 
to mention that there are a number of communities in Virginia that 
experienced some pretty devastating weather effects yesterday as a 
result of high winds and tornadoes. I want the people in those 
communities to know we have been in continuous contact from my office 
with the Governor's office and we have people from our office down in 
these communities, and we are committed to ensuring that appropriate 
governmental assistance be made available and remain available until 
the effects of this unfortunate weather occurrence are remedied.
  I wish to thank the chairman for bringing this bill to the floor, and 
in general, I support the bill. Our Nation's air traffic control 
systems are in serious need of modernization. We all know that. This 
bill in most ways is the right step in addressing those challenges. But 
I would like to take a few minutes today to talk about an issue that is 
vitally important to a lot of communities in and around Reagan National 
Airport in northern Virginia.
  I am deeply troubled by a provision in this bill that would add 20 
additional slots at Reagan National, including several potential 
amendments that could further harm that airport as well as Dulles 
International Airport and their neighboring communities.
  We should recall that in 1987, Congress created the Metropolitan 
Washington Airports Authority in order to run Reagan National and 
Washington Dulles International Airports. The creation of the Airports 
Authority established a professional organization to operate the 
airports efficiently and represented a commitment to the surrounding 
communities regarding aircraft noise and traffic. I think that

[[Page S3477]]

bears repeating. Congress made a commitment to the residents of 
Alexandria, Arlington, and Fairfax County on the operation of Reagan 
National Airport when it transferred authority on these issues over to 
the Airports Authority. Those commitments were codified by Congress in 
the so-called perimeter and slot rules. Changes to these rules threaten 
to seriously degrade service to the airports, and they break the 
promises that were made to these surrounding communities.
  In an ideal world, it sounds appealing to have more flights to Reagan 
National Airport, but the fact is that there are basic physical 
constraints to that airport that simply cannot be ignored. If anyone 
has ever tried to fly out of Reagan National during peak hours, they 
know that parking can be extraordinarily difficult, that ticket 
counters can be incredibly congested, and that the number of gates that 
park the jets is limited. I am told that an increase of just four 
airplane slots, for example, could result in an additional 400 to 500 
passengers going through this airport an hour.

  Nearly 10 years ago, the Airports Authority rebuilt much of Reagan 
National, transforming it into one of the most efficient airports in 
the Nation, as the facilities constructed were matched to the number of 
flights established by law. Any increase in the number of flights will 
overburden critical airport facilities and infrastructure, causing 
serious disruptions. New flights, obviously, would create greater 
demand for parking at a time when parking is difficult, affect gate 
access, and all these other areas I mentioned before.
  When the Airports Authority upgraded their facilities in the 1990s, 
it did so with these slot and perimeter restrictions in mind. These 
were carefully crafted rules that work in harmony to manage this 
airport's capacity. Adding more flights would quickly exceed the 
physical capacity of the airport.
  Importantly, the slot rules created an airport in balance with its 
surrounding neighborhoods. Because Reagan National is convenient to 
many air passengers, it is appreciated and well used. But this 
convenience comes at a heavy price for many of the airport neighbors in 
the form of aircraft noise and related traffic situations on the roads 
in these areas. Adding flights beyond what was agreed to in this 
legislation breaks the bond that was created with the neighbors of the 
airports. It unfairly burdens them for the sake of the convenience of 
others.
  I note that the city of Alexandria, Arlington County, the McLean 
Citizens Association, the Mount Vernon Citizens Association, the 
Washington Council of Governments, and Virginia Governor Tim Kaine all 
oppose these changes.
  I am particularly concerned that there is a tipping point with these 
matters. We have to be concerned about quality of life in these 
communities as we measure them against the convenience of using the 
airport.
  It strikes me that the desire to change the slot and perimeter rules 
at Reagan National is not being driven by market demand but rather by a 
few airlines seeking a competitive advantage over others. By allowing 
existing rules to be altered further for a select class of airlines, 
Congress would be allocating this scarce resource for the convenience 
of a few and, again, in contradiction to the larger community need.
  The bottom line question is, How many more additional aircraft and 
how much more noise should local citizenry have to endure before we 
have crossed this important threshold?
  Congress added 24 new slots in 2000 and another 22 slots in 2003. If 
we continue to allow more flights this year, how many more are we going 
to have to continue to allow the next time this bill comes up?
  The communities of Northern Virginia should not have to continually 
suffer for the convenience of a relative few.
  I close by saying that the Congress made a commitment to these 
Virginia communities when it ceded control to the Airports Authority. 
It should honor those commitments. Let's allow the Airports Authority 
to run Washington's airports. I urge my colleagues to reject any 
changes to the slot and perimeter rules at Reagan National.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAIG. 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. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my 
remarks, Senator Schumer from New York be allowed to speak for 10 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, before us is H.R. 2081, which is the 
reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration and, of course, 
that is the authority tied directly to America's airlines and the body 
of public policy under which they operate. It comes at a time when all 
of us are frustrated by what was once a great American industry, and 
that, of course, is the airline industry. We set the records, we 
established the world standards in all respects to aviation, and now 
our industry is in great trouble. It is in great trouble for a lot of 
reasons, but one of the underlying reasons today is the substantial 
cost in aviation fuel that all of these large carriers must acquire on 
a daily basis and the inability to simply pass it through to the 
consumer.
  Of course, that is exactly what is going on in nearly every industry 
in America today. We are experiencing an energy shock to our 
pocketbook--whether it be my private pocketbook or an Idahoan's private 
pocketbook or a corporate private pocketbook--in a way that leaves us 
with no ability to assume it, to consume it in a way that does not 
damage our choices on staying alive as a major air carrier or our 
choice as a consumer where we put our money--with what few 
discretionary dollars we have left.
  In that context, it is so easy to blame somebody else for a problem 
that largely this Congress has observed, talked about, and denied 
action on for nearly 20 years. Those of us on energy committees in the 
Congress who said the answer to a looming problem was going to be 
conservation, new technology, increased development, and production of 
existing energy sources over the last two decades--and we have largely 
denied ourselves those options--are now today wringing our hands in 
frustration about the phenomenal cost of energy to the American 
consumer.
  So what do we do? We reach out to blame someone when we cannot find 
it easy to blame ourselves. So to whom do we turn? We say it has to be 
ExxonMobile's fault; look at all of their profits. Or it has to be 
Chevron's fault or it has to be Marathon's fault or, if you read in the 
paper today, British Petroleum has record profits, a 12-percent 
increase in return on investment. Gosh, we have to blame those big oil 
companies because surely they are in control of the market, surely they 
demand the price, and it seems it has to be their fault.
  I have brought before us today a chart that might change our minds 
just a little bit. When we talk about ExxonMobile as it relates to 
their position in the world, well, my goodness, they don't control the 
oil supply of the world. They have a very small piece of it. Chevron, 
oh, my goodness, they don't control the oil supply of the world. They 
have a very small piece of it.
  Who owns the oil of the world today from which we buy? Not U.S. 
companies but world countries--Saudi Arabia, Saudi Armco, the largest 
producer by a magnitude of three or four times. Then walk right on down 
to 11, 12 of the leading major producers are not companies, they are 
countries, and it does not happen to be the United States of America 
that is in that top 12 group. We should be, but we are not because we 
have denied ourselves the ability to develop our oil reserves in 
Alaska, offshore United States, offshore west coast, offshore east 
coast, oh, all in the name of the environment even though it is our 
technology today that is the world-class, environmentally proven and 
sound technology for deep sea oil development. So then we blame 
corporate America for our own fault. Now our consumers are angry. And 
listen to the speeches given

[[Page S3478]]

on the floor of this body accusing or blaming someone else for the 
problem we, in large part, created.
  What are we experiencing today? I believe we are experiencing 
something that is simply called petronationalism. The Saudis have it 
figured out. They got the oil, we got the bucks; they sell us their 
oil, they get our bucks. That is pretty simple, isn't it? Sixty-four 
percent of the energy consumed out of the pump at the local gas 
stations on the corners of America today comes from somewhere else in 
the world, not the United States. We are spending over $1 billion a day 
somewhere else in the world to buy their oil. And if Americans want to 
be mad, they ought to be mad at their politician or politicians who, 
for the last 20 years, have denied the reality of the marketplace, all 
in the name of being supergreen or all in the name of just not liking 
big corporations, and so we couldn't let the Exxons, the Chevrons, or 
the Marathons do something about it.
  Several years ago, I met with the president of American Oil before it 
merged. He was opining that they were never going to develop in the 
United States anymore because they could not afford to because of the 
regulations and the cost to produce a barrel of oil in the United 
States when they could go to the Caspian area of Central Europe or when 
they could go to Saudi Arabia or anywhere else in the Middle East. So 
today we suffer the reality of our own politics, and we ought to be 
able to do something about it.
  Some of you who might have been listening a few moments ago heard the 
Senator from Wyoming making good common sense that we ought to quit 
buying oil out of this current market and putting it in our Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve. We have enough there for the time being in case 
something happened in the Middle East that created a crisis. It would 
not last very long because we would suck it out of the ground and put 
it in our pumps to avoid an oil shock. But the reality is quite simple. 
When you have a world with a growing demand for the consumption of oil 
and its products and you are not producing more, the price is going to 
go up.

  Ten years ago the Chinese were not in the market. Ten years ago the 
Indians were not in the market. They are in the market today and they 
are increasing their demand out of the world's supply at a rate of 8 or 
9 percent per year.
  Is the world's supply increasing? No, it is not. Is the world's 
refining capacity increasing? Very little. So Americans are competing 
against the Chinese and the Indians and everybody else for their gallon 
of gas. That is the reality of the market today.
  Oil is not a national commodity. It is a world commodity. As the 
dependency went up 60 percent over the last three decades, the overall 
consumer demand went up. Do ExxonMobil and Chevron and every other 
American company control it? No, they do not. Foreign nations control 
it and they are getting wealthy off of American's great ability to 
create wealth. If we do not get this under control as quickly as 
possible, we will simply spend ourselves broke and the rest of the 
world will have all of our money and then--guess what. They are now 
coming to the great banks of our country and saying: We see you have a 
financial problem. We would like to buy an interest in your bank and 
give you a big chunk of cash that we got by selling you oil.
  They no longer own their oil because they sold it to us and we burned 
it. But they have our money and they are now coming back and buying our 
financial institutions. Isn't that an interesting cycle? The wealth we 
once sent overseas to Saudi Aramco and to all of these other national 
companies is now coming back to the United States in the form of them 
owning our financial institutions. Does that make good sense?
  Right now we are going to look for any amount of cash we can get to 
bolster our financial institutions that are in trouble--possibly 
because of the housing industry or some other kind of large investment. 
So you might say that is a pretty good deal. I suggest the bad deal 
started 20 years ago when we began to progressively deny our country 
and its companies the right to produce and supply the marketplace. That 
is what we have done. Today we are paying the price.
  I am going to be spending a good deal of time over the next several 
months talking about every segment of the energy portfolio of our 
country, not only gas and oil but electricity in all other forms and 
conservations and photovoltaics, wind, and cellulosic. All of that is 
going to be terribly important for the American consumer in the years 
ahead.
  The bad news is what we have to say to the American consumer today is 
none of it is going to be ready for 4 or 5 or 6 or 8 or 10 years. In 
the meantime, your energy bill is going to become an ever larger part 
of your overall cost of living and your family budget. There is not 
much a politician can do about it because they have already damaged the 
marketplace in which you have to live.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the Senator from New 
York is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Before I get into the substance of my remarks on 
Medicaid regulation, I compliment my colleague on his speech. I do not 
agree with all of it; I agree with some. I note one of the reasons he 
pointed out on his chart is it was foreign countries that owned most of 
our oil supply. That is true. I would note and commend to him to look 
at the Saudis, who have the largest number of oil fields and are the 
largest producer. Actually at a time of increasing demand, as my 
colleague from Idaho well knows, Saudi Arabia has cut back on 
production. It was higher in 2005 than it was in 2006, and it was 
higher in 2006 than it was in 2007. I will be coming to the floor, 
either later today or, more likely, tomorrow, to talk about that.
  The Saudis are, No. 1, the short-term answer. We can talk about 
increasing production here, whether it is alternative energy or fossil 
fuels. We can talk about increasing conservation. They are vital, 
necessary, and cannot be avoided. They are long-term answers. But the 
quickest short-term answer to the problem would be for the Saudis to 
increase production.
  They have cut back. They talk a good game. We see pictures of 
President Bush arm in arm with the Saudi leader, the Saudi King, yet we 
get nothing in return. Yet we are considering selling them some of the 
most advanced weapons we have. So stay tuned tomorrow, where some of us 
are going to be talking about that and augmenting in a certain way what 
the Senator from Idaho was talking about.


                   Moratorium on Medicaid Regulations

  Mr. President, today I rise to speak about the moratorium on Medicaid 
regulations. Last week the House passed a bipartisan bill with 
overwhelming support to block the ill-advised Medicaid cuts the Bush 
administration has proposed. The House bill introduced by Chairman John 
Dingell passed by a vote of 349 to 62. By definition, that had to have 
a majority of both parties--128 Republicans and every Democrat voted 
for this bill. It was an incredible victory--at least a first step 
toward a victory for American patients who are served by hospitals, for 
hardworking physicians and other health providers as well as case 
managers and social workers who do so much to help those in need. It 
would extend all the way to those who work in hospitals at 2 a.m., 
sweeping the floors, mopping, to make sure the hospital is spick and 
span for the next morning.
  Later today Majority Leader Harry Reid will ask for unanimous consent 
that H.R. 5613, protecting the Medicaid Safety Net Act--the same bill 
as passed the House--be approved. I hope my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle will go along with this vitally needed piece of 
legislation. The bill is now on the Senate calendar, thanks to the 
majority leader and Chairman Baucus. Many of us on this side and I 
believe many on the other side hope we will have a chance to take it up 
this afternoon. These proposed Medicaid rules the administration 
proposed could not come at a worse time. State budgets are already 
worsening due to the weakening of the economy, and few States can 
absorb these massive and unvetted cuts. The administration did not look 
here or look there at specific places where they might save. Oh, no, it 
was a meat-ax, an almost across-the-board cut at a time when our 
hospitals, our economy, and most of all our people who are sick cannot 
take it.
  If the Congress does not act, the States will face terrible choices--
to cut

[[Page S3479]]

their Medicaid Programs or cut other programs to free up more funds for 
Medicaid. In a sense it will undo much of the stimulus package, putting 
money in the hands of people so they can spend it and then requiring 
the States to cut back.
  We need a moratorium so the next administration can make things 
right. We need a moratorium so this administration will not be able to 
succeed in its meat-ax approach to health care and to Medicaid in 
particular.
  Let me tell you a little more about the eight Medicaid regulations 
this administration has proposed. I am sure many of my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle have heard from their hospitals, their 
Governors, and constituents, that these rules are a disaster for our 
health care system.
  The expiration of moratoria on two regulations, GME--that stands for 
graduate medical education--and the IGT, intergovernmental transfers, 
is fast approaching. It reaches us on May 25, 2008. That is a little 
less than a month away.
  We have two additional moratoria that are expiring on June 30: the 
``rehabilitation'' and ``school-based health'' rules. Then, if that is 
not enough, there are at least four other rules that have no moratoria, 
and they go into effect shortly, piling on the people and an industry 
that at this point is in bad enough shape.
  What would happen if we didn't pass H.R. 5613 is that our States, our 
hospitals, our public providers who do so much important work for 
American patients would be devastated. Right now they are in a terrible 
state of panic--and that is not an exaggeration--over these proposed 
changes that will cost billions more dollars.
  Like so many of my colleagues, I believe the integrity of the 
Medicaid Program is extremely important, but I think a large majority 
of the Senate agrees these rules go way too far and will end up hurting 
patients and the very system that serves them. With close to 50 million 
Americans uninsured in my own State of New York, the estimate is there 
are over 2 million adults and kids who do not have health insurance. We 
are penny wise and pound foolish to allow reductions in the critical 
safety net funding that currently exists.
  The Medicaid GME, or graduate medical education rule, is one I am 
particularly worried about. This proposal represents a major shift in 
administration policy. By proposing not just to cut but to eliminate 
Medicaid GME, the Government is essentially forcing the Medicaid 
Program to shirk its responsibility to cover its share of training 
physicians. The GME regulation would pull the Federal rug out from 
underneath the Medicaid support for training physicians at a time when 
across the country, in rural and urban areas alike, we are experiencing 
a shortage of physicians in every specialty and in primary care.
  For example, a community in New York State's southern tier, the area 
that borders Pennsylvania, experienced a 20-percent decline in general 
surgeons from 2002 to 2006. In 6 rural counties in the Mohawk Valley, 
there was a 33-percent loss in general surgeons over that same time 
period.
  The impact of the GME proposal is estimated to be a $3 billion loss 
over 5 years to New York State teaching hospitals alone. The public 
hospitals in New York State have told me how devastating the cuts would 
be if these rules are implemented.
  For instance, Coney Island Hospital, a hospital that tends to the 
poor, tells me they would no longer be able to offer smoking cessation 
programs for pregnant mothers. What a terrible shame. What a 
wrongheaded approach. These hospitals are using these funds in a cost-
effective way that will improve health, but this administration is 
saying no to them and no to patients.
  We talked about the sacredness of life, and we know a baby in vitro 
should be given, if not a head start, at least an equal chance. But if 
that baby's mother is smoking, the health of that child is impaired.
  ``Smoking cessation programs work. Let's cut them out.''
  No rationale, no discussion saying they do not work, just cut them. 
That is wrong. Prevention is important. Yet these rules make prevention 
efforts, such as smoking cessation programs, impossible.
  They also hurt medical and dental residents. I recently heard from a 
dentist trainee, a dentist who was training in a New York public 
hospital, who said the wait for an appointment is already way too long. 
With these unwise regulations, that wait increases tenfold, and what 
was originally a minor dental treatment could end up a huge problem and 
end up costing the Federal Government and the State government more.
  This dental trainee said these rules will increase emergency visits 
for situations that could have been prevented. It will increase 
unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions and reduce our ability to reach 
out and educate the community about dental care.
  One of the hallmarks, and why the European systems are more cost 
efficient, is they focus more on education and prevention. We are 
cutting it out here. Instead of moving it forward and becoming more 
cost efficient by focusing on prevention, we are saying, Prevent it? 
Why would we want to do that?
  We should be expanding prevention and expanding dental care in the 
early phase, not rolling it back.
  With health care costs rising and health care reform the No. 1 issue 
on our constituents' minds, how can we allow these rules to go forward 
and make things so much worse? We need to vote on this legislation. We 
need to take this important step for health care.
  I urge my colleague, the minority leader, to let this bill move 
forward. I urge all of my colleagues to do what the House did, a broad, 
bipartisan vote in favor.
  We need to take this important step for health care. The list of 
supporters of the bill H.R. 5613 is a virtual who's who of health care: 
the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, 
the National Governors Association, the National Association of Mental 
Illness, the American Federation of Teachers, the National PTA, and the 
list goes on and on. More than 2,000 national and local groups have 
called for passage.
  I urge all Members of the Senate to join the list of supporters when 
Senator Reid asks for unanimous consent later this afternoon to allow 
us to move to H.R. 5613. I hope that will be met by unanimous accord on 
the other side. Our health care system demands no less.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Energy Incentives

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, there has been a fair amount of discussion 
here on the floor today about what to do with respect to rising costs 
of gasoline and a discussion about what we should do in response to 
this runup of prices. I heard the Presiding Officer speak earlier 
today--I thought with passion and with wisdom--on an appropriate course 
of action. I wish to mention a few things that I think we ought to do.
  No. 1, we should be investing tax dollars in basic research and 
development to make a reality the lithium ion battery that is going to 
provide power for a flex-fuel plug-in hybrid vehicle called the 
Chevrolet Volt over the next 24 months or so, a vehicle that will run 
for 40 miles on a charge of its battery and use auxiliary power on 
board the vehicle to raise fuel efficiency well beyond that, maybe as 
high as 70, 80 miles per gallon. That is what we ought to be doing, and 
we are.
  Another thing we ought to be doing is using the Government's 
purchasing power to help commercialize the new technologies. Whether it 
is flex-fuel plug-in hybrids, whether it is very low emission diesels, 
whether it is fuel cell-powered vehicles, we should be using the 
Government's purchasing power to bring them to the marketplace. And we 
are doing that too. This year, there is a requirement that 70 percent 
of the cars, trucks, and vans the Federal Government purchases, both on 
the civilian side and on the military side, have to be advanced-
technology vehicles.

[[Page S3480]]

That includes vehicles purchased by the Postal Service.
  We also ought to be providing tax credits to encourage consumers to 
buy highly energy efficient hybrid vehicles, highly efficient, low-
emission, diesel-powered vehicles when those are produced and when they 
come to the marketplace. And we are doing that. That is part of our 
law. We provide a tax credit for folks who buy highly energy efficient 
hybrids and very low emission diesels, a tax credit that is worth up to 
close to $3,500 per vehicle. When the Chevrolet Volt or other flex-fuel 
vehicles, plug-in hybrids come on the marketplace in the next couple of 
years, we should provide an even greater tax credit to encourage 
American consumers to purchase those.
  Several years ago, we voted here in this Chamber to create a 
commission. We create a lot of commissions around here. But this was an 
infrastructure commission, a transportation infrastructure commission. 
It was part of our major 5-year, 6-year bill that we pass every so 
often on transportation projects, a lot of it roads, highways, and so 
forth, but transit is included in there too.
  When we passed the last bill, several years ago we said we want to 
create this commission, and we want the commission to go out and look 
at our infrastructure needs, transportation infrastructure needs across 
the country, quantify those for us and tell us what you think it is 
going to cost to bring our roads, highways, bridges, and transit 
systems to a state of good repair, and tell us how you think we ought 
to pay for those improvements. That commission was formed, worked hard 
for a year or so, and then came back to report back to us earlier this 
year as to how bad the situation is and what it is going to cost to fix 
it. They came back and said: We need to spend, to bring us out of the 
20th century and into the 21st century, something like $225 billion a 
year--$225 billion a year; I think that is what they suggested--over 50 
years, over the next 50 years. They called for actually increasing the 
gasoline tax by I think a nickel a year for 5 years, 6 years, something 
like that.

  We have seen suggested to us a number of ideas for providing for a 
holiday for the gasoline tax, to suspend collecting the gasoline tax in 
this country, maybe for the summer. Now we are hearing from people: 
Let's extend it not for 3 months over the summer but for 3 months 
beyond that--which, ironically, would take us through the election, 
just past the election.
  Let's think about that. In a day and age when we know our roads, 
highways, bridges, and our transit systems are falling further and 
further out of a state of good repair, making our transportation system 
and our economy even less efficient, we know we are not raising enough 
money to begin to catch up with the backlog, much less to address the 
new needs. The notion of diminishing the revenues that are available to 
try to improve our transportation system suggests to me that we are 
focused more maybe on the election than we are on the needs of our 
country.
  A friend of mine used to say: Leadership is staying out of step when 
everybody else is marching to the wrong tune. Leadership is staying out 
of step when everyone else is marching to the wrong tune.
  I used to say, when I was Governor of Delaware: Things worth having, 
whether it is health care, whether it is education, whether it is 
transportation--roads, highways, bridges--if they are worth having, we 
ought to pay for them. If we are not willing to pay for them, we should 
not have as many of them.
  I mentioned a few minutes ago how we are providing tax credits to 
encourage consumers in this country to buy more energy-efficient 
vehicles. Wonder of wonders, the big three are beginning to produce 
them. After years of building these behemoths and the gas guzzlers, 
Ford and Chrysler are actually displaying and engineering and selling 
vehicles that Americans ought to be buying. The quality is vastly 
improved over what it was 10 or 20 years ago. I will mention a couple 
of them.
  GM sells hybrid vehicles, not just the big SUVs like the Tahoe and 
the Yukon but also midsized sedans like the Saturn Aura and the 
Chevrolet Malibu, both of which were actually ``Cars of the Year'' this 
year and last year. Ford has a number of hybrid products on the road as 
well, not just the Escape but another as well. Chrysler joins the 
parade this summer by launching the hybrid Dodge Durango and the hybrid 
Chrysler Aspen. I understand from a friend of mine who is driving the 
Chrysler Aspen that in the city it is getting about 22 miles a gallon 
and on the highway it is expected to get close to 30 miles a gallon. Is 
that where we want to be and need to be? No, but that is a huge 
difference over the vehicles it replaces. Chrysler is launching, this 
fall, in the 2009 model year, very low emission, highly energy 
efficient diesel-powered vehicles.
  We are, through our Tax Code, encouraging Americans not just to buy 
Toyota Priuses and Hondas but to buy hybrids, low-emission diesels that 
are manufactured by Ford, Chrysler, and GM. They are making them and we 
ought to buy them, and in doing that we begin to reduce the demand for 
oil that threatens to engulf us.
  I ride the train back and forth most days. I live in Delaware, and I 
go back and forth. As my colleague, the Presiding Officer, knows, I go 
back and forth almost every night to Delaware. A strange thing is going 
on with respect to passenger rail ridership in this country.
  I used to serve on the Amtrak board when I was Governor of Delaware, 
and every year we would see ridership go up by a couple of percentage 
points. We would struggle, try to raise money out of the fare box to 
pay for the system and the expansion of the system. Well, the first 
quarter of this fiscal year, ridership at Amtrak is up 15 percent. 
Revenues are up by 15 percent. People are starting to realize that 
maybe it makes sense to get out of our cars, trucks, and vans and take 
the train or take transit. Transit ridership is up again this fiscal 
year more dramatically than it has been in some time.
  Americans are beginning to literally buy homes in places that are 
closer to opportunities for transit--for rail, for bus, for subways, 
for the metro systems. As we have seen the drop in home prices across 
the country--in some cases, very dramatic--among the surprises, at 
least for me, is to see housing prices stable and in some cases 
actually going up in places where people can buy a home and live and 
get to work or wherever they need to go to shop without driving to get 
there.
  I don't know how gullible we think the American voters are to suggest 
to them that we are going to have this holiday on gas taxes, Federal 
gas taxes, for 3 months or for 6 months, maybe to get us through the 
next election, and then when the elections are over we will go ahead 
and reinstate the gasoline tax to what it has been even though in doing 
that we might be depleting further the money available for 
transportation improvements. I don't know how foolish we think the 
American voters are. They are a lot smarter than that. They are a lot 
smarter, maybe, than we give them credit for being.
  I think in this country people are crying out for leadership. They 
are calling out for Presidential leadership, whether it is from our 
side of the aisle or the Republican side. People want leaders who are 
willing to stay out of step when everybody else is marching to the 
wrong tune, and I would suggest that the wrong tune is to suspend the 
Federal gasoline tax and at the same time not replace the dollars that 
would otherwise go into the transportation trust fund to fix our 
dilapidated, our decaying transportation system. Voters in this country 
deserve better leadership from us. I am determined, I am committed to 
making sure we provide and pay for that.
  Before I close, there are a lot of good ideas for things we ought to 
do. I mentioned, tongue in cheek, that we ought to provide more R&D 
investment for a new generation of lithium batteries for plug-in hybrid 
vehicles. I say, tongue in cheek, we ought to use the Government 
purchasing power to commercialize advanced technology vehicles. We are 
doing that. I said with tongue in cheek we ought to provide tax credits 
to encourage people to buy highly efficient hybrid vehicles and very 
low diesel-powered vehicles that are efficient. We are doing that.
  There other things we need to do too. We need to invest in rail 
service. We can send from Washington, DC, to Boston, MA, a ton of 
freight by rail on 1

[[Page S3481]]

gallon of diesel fuel. I will say that again. We could send from 
Washington, DC, to Boston, MA, a ton of freight by rail on 1 gallon of 
diesel fuel. But we as a government choose not to invest in freight 
rail and, frankly, to invest very modestly in passenger rail. It is a 
highly energy-efficient way to move people and goods.
  One of my colleagues spoke a little bit ago and talked about why, as 
has Senator Dorgan, at a time when gasoline prices and fuel prices are 
so high, when the cost of a barrel of oil is 120 bucks a barrel, we are 
buying oil and putting it in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve when we 
are almost up to 100 percent capacity. That is a good question. It is 
foolish for us to continue to buy as much oil as we are right now to 
further drive up prices. We should stop filling the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve as long as prices are at this level. One of my colleagues 
raised the question of speculators. If you go back a year ago, almost a 
year ago from today, the cost of a barrel of oil was something akin to 
$60, $63 a barrel. The price today is about $53 more than that. We have 
seen an increase of probably 75 percent in the price of a barrel of oil 
from last year to this. As somebody who studied some economics when I 
was in school, I believe in the law of supply and demand. But the law 
of supply and demand is not driving up the price of a barrel of oil 
from roughly $65 a barrel a year ago to almost twice that today. 
Speculation is going on that I don't fully understand. Maybe others do, 
but I don't. But I know something beyond the law of supply and demand 
is driving these prices of oil through the roof.
  The investigative committees in this Congress, along with the 
Government Accountability Office and the administration, need to be all 
over that. Find out what is causing it and how we can stop it. It is 
difficult for the Congress. We write a lot of laws. I don't know how we 
can repeal the law of supply and demand, but more than the law of 
supply and demand is in effect in driving up oil prices.
  Some have said: Why don't we have a holiday for the gas tax for this 
summer or for 3 months or 6 months and replace that with some kind of 
windfall profit tax on the oil and gas industry. I would suggest, if we 
are going to take away some tax advantages enjoyed by the oil and gas 
industry, the smarter thing is for us to use the revenues that would be 
generated in that way to extend the soon-to-be-expiring tax credits for 
the production of electricity from wind, solar, geothermal. Those tax 
credits expire at the end of the year. Businesses, individuals who are 
thinking of putting in place systems, small and large, to provide for 
alternative energy need some certainty. They need to know what the Tax 
Code is going to be. The sooner the better. To be fiscally responsible, 
we can't extend the tax credits without paying for them. The extension 
of the tax credits reduces revenue to the Treasury and makes the 
deficit bigger. We need to pay for it. I would suggest, if we look 
carefully at some of the tax credits enjoyed by the oil and gas 
industry, we could probably find something there that is not fair or 
reasonable or productive. I suggest we use those revenues, not to 
offset the revenues that would be lost from suspending the Federal 
gasoline tax until after the election but to use those revenues to make 
sure we extend tax credits for renewable energy, wind, solar, 
geothermal, and so forth.
  I will have a chance to come back later in the week and talk about 
this some more. Sometimes we underestimate the wisdom of the voters. I 
think it was Thomas Jefferson who said: If you tell the American people 
the truth, they won't make a mistake. I will do my dead level best to 
make sure, during the course of the debate on this notion of waiving 
the gasoline tax or having a holiday on the gasoline tax until after 
the election, I am going to make sure, I hope with a number of my 
colleagues, the American people understand the truth and the full 
picture and that they will make the right decision. Hopefully, we will 
too.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. 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. SUNUNU. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Madam President, I rise this afternoon to speak for a few 
minutes on the bill before the Senate, the FAA modernization bill. It 
is an extremely important reauthorization. At the end of the day, as we 
pass this legislation, it will be the kind of bill that we look back on 
and wonder why we were not able to work out the differences a little 
bit faster, and get it signed into law a little bit more quickly 
because this is a bill that is of great importance to our 
transportation infrastructure, to those who rely on the aviation system 
every day for business travel, for family travel, and for their jobs, 
their livelihood.
  This is an important piece of legislation because it lays the 
foundation for modernization of our aviation infrastructure and the 
technology, the air traffic control systems that we depend on every day 
to keep our skies safe. Technology continues to evolve, that is a good 
thing. It improves efficiency, improves safety, and can really have a 
positive impact in the skies. But at the same time, we all understand 
that technology costs money. To purchase new systems, to install them, 
to train our traffic controllers to make sure they are in the strongest 
possible position to use that equipment costs money.
  There is no question that one of the debates that delayed this 
legislation was over how to fund the infrastructure improvements that 
are in the bill, not whether to fund, and I suppose that is good news. 
There was general consensus that there needed to be a strong and clear 
funding commitment, but there was some debate over the exact mechanism.
  I certainly want to give credit to Chairman Baucus and Chairman 
Inouye of the Finance and Commerce Committees; the Ranking Member 
Grassley and Vice Chairman Stevens; and, of course, Senator Hutchison 
and Senator Rockefeller for the work they did on the Aviation 
Subcommittee.
  There was a lot of disagreement as to whether we should create a new 
fee system, whether we should create a new bureaucracy for assessing 
fees on general aviation. I am pleased to see that we did not go that 
route. We have a system for collecting aviation taxes in place, taxes 
on aviation fuel and jet fuel. There was a recognition on all sides 
that that tax burden needed to be increased to keep pace with the needs 
of the aviation system. It is an efficient system. It is one that 
works. It is one that is well understood. I think it would have been a 
mistake to try to create a new bureaucracy when we have such a system 
in place.
  So this legislation will increase the taxes on general aviation jet 
fuel pretty significantly from about 22 cents a gallon to 36 cents a 
gallon, but there is a recognition that so long as that money stays in 
the aviation trust fund, so long as it is used to upgrade the aviation 
system, it will be well spent.
  This tax increase on general aviation jet fuel will provide nearly 
$290 million annually in additional funding for the NextGen air traffic 
system, and that is something to be commended. It addresses the impact 
of air traffic growth because it increases the system's capacity and, 
at the same time, improves the efficiency and, of course, our focus at 
all times has to be safety.
  One of the points that is most impressive about our aviation system, 
both on the commercial aviation and general aviation side, over the 
last couple of decades is the improvement in safety. The improvement in 
performance and safety per thousand miles flown or 100,000 miles flown 
has been significant, and everyone benefits from that improvement. 
Consumers benefit from a safer system and, of course, a safer system, a 
safer workplace, a safer environment is less costly and less expensive.
  This legislation also provides increases to the Aviation Improvement 
Program, AIP. That is a program that is important to airports, large 
and small, across the country. In New Hampshire, the Manchester Airport 
has undergone tremendous levels of growth during the past decade, and 
much of that improvement, infrastructure, and investment at Manchester 
has been

[[Page S3482]]

funded through the AIP, including the airport's noise reduction 
enhancements.
  Today in New Hampshire, everyone benefits from the improvement in 
that infrastructure, the expansion at Manchester. The improvement in 
efficiency, not just in New Hampshire but across northern New England, 
creates a different choice for consumers, for businesses, and for 
tourism as well. That makes a difference, a real difference, in our 
northern New England economy.
  This bill is not perfect. Rarely does anyone stand on the floor of 
the Senate and announce that a piece of legislation is perfect, but it 
is a good bipartisan effort. We will have opportunities to improve it, 
perhaps on the Senate floor during this debate, perhaps in conference, 
but it is important that we not bog down this legislation with 
amendments that will derail the bill, that will kill the bill, that 
will create a controversy that will make it difficult, if not 
impossible, to complete work on it in the coming weeks. It is a bill 
that needs to get done. It is a bill that needs to be sent to the 
President, not least of all so that the funding commitment for new 
technology can be implemented as quickly as possible.
  Madam President, I again commend the work of the Senator from Texas 
as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Aviation. I serve with her 
on the Commerce Committee, and I have really enjoyed working on this 
legislation. We had an exciting markup, to say the least, several 
months ago, but I am pleased to see we have been able to work through 
those differences and bring a very strong product to the floor.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I commend the Senator from New 
Hampshire. He was, indeed, a very important part of the negotiations on 
this bill. It is a complicated bill. He represents a State that has 
general aviation. It is very important to the service in his State. He 
spoke up for that service. In fact, in the bill, there are some very 
important components that are strong for general aviation, and also 
cities that have lost service in the past after deregulation we want to 
try to help get back in service with some incentives for service by 
smaller, maybe startup airlines.
  The Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Sununu, has been a very important 
part of helping us negotiate this bill that we have brought to the 
floor.
  I know my chairman, Senator Rockefeller, is going to be here soon. I 
hope we will be able to come to closure on the aviation part of this 
bill. I have very strong concerns about some of the provisions in the 
Finance Committee part that is going to be put into this bill. I hope 
the Finance Committee will work with us to take away some of the 
extraneous tax provisions that have nothing to do with aviation so that 
we can pass a good, solid bill that addresses aviation safety, which 
every consumer is interested in doing, that addresses the need for 
better service to our smaller communities, that increases the 
modernization of our air traffic control system, and that assures that 
passengers are taken care of when there are inordinate delays, and 
especially when they are on an airplane, maybe sitting on a runway for 
several hours at a time, and there are some very important parts of the 
bill that address the rights of passengers and the needs of passengers.
  I hope we can get an aviation bill passed. I hope we can move out the 
extraneous provisions out and let the Finance Committee do those 
separately, which they certainly have the capability to do. But I do 
not want to hold up this good consumer bill.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues, Senator Rockefeller, 
Senator Inouye, and Senator Stevens on the committee, and Senator 
Sununu who just spoke, to get a good bill on which we can then go to 
conference with the House.
  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. GREGG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Federal Deficit

  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I rise to speak briefly about where we 
are headed as a government and specifically what we are passing on to 
our children, which is regrettably a lot more debt than they deserve. 
This year the Federal deficit is projected to be close to $400 billion. 
That is up from last year, where it was under $200 billion. That is not 
a good trend, to be driving up the deficit.
  It is also not a good trend to be putting on the books program after 
program which will end up costing our children a lot of money, and 
which we borrow from our children to pay for.
  This bill, which is brought forward today, has in it, unfortunately, 
a couple of items--at least one specifically--actually a couple that 
are questionable, in which we are spending money which could much 
better be used to reduce the debt on our children. As I said, this year 
alone we are going to add $400 billion of debt to our children's backs. 
Probably the most significant in this account is something that has 
nothing to do with air transportation. You can call it the train to 
nowhere or the fast track to waste. It is the train they are proposing 
to build somewhere in New York to go somewhere in New York which is 
going to cost $1.7 billion.
  Clearly this is not the right bill for that proposal. But even if it 
were the right bill, this would be not an appropriate proposal. This is 
a situation where folks from New York, who are good and decent people, 
have decided to raid the Federal Treasury to get some money to pay for 
something--in a very questionable way, by the way; by basically waiving 
FICA taxes, which they are not paying to begin with, for town 
employees--State employees. They have decided to raid the Federal 
Treasury for the purposes of building this train to nowhere.
  We have seen this before, these specific projects, which benefit a 
specific place, which are not defensible. This certainly falls into 
that category. But in the broader context it becomes even less 
defensible because we are facing such a large deficit. We are not only 
facing this very significant deficit of almost $400 billion, we are 
constantly adding to that deficit. There are now, within the framework 
of the walls of this Capitol building--there are not four walls, there 
are lots of different walls in this Capitol building, but within this 
Capitol there is a series of ideas which is being promoted, which is 
also on a fast track, regrettably, a fast track of spending, which is 
also going to end up ballooning that deficit further than $400 billion.
  There is, for example, a proposal being floated which has merit in 
concept but, when it comes to paying for it, nobody is willing do that, 
which will cost close to $60 billion. That is a proposal to 
dramatically expand the GI bill, as it is known. There is a proposal to 
expand unemployment insurance, even in States where unemployment has 
not hit numbers where it represents an immediate problem. 
Traditionally, unemployment under 6 percent or 5.5 percent is deemed to 
be full employment. In much of this country today, many States have 
their unemployment rates under 5.5 percent. But there is a proposal to 
expand the number of weeks a person can claim unemployment, even in 
States where there is essentially a number that represents full 
employment and that is going to cost $15 billion.
  There are proposals in the farm bill, which has all sorts of gimmicks 
and all sorts of machinations to cover its costs and claim that it is 
paid for, which will cost billions and billions of dollars. The farm 
bill itself is a $285 billion bill. Huge expenditures are coming down 
the pike here, which are going to have to be paid for by our children.
  There are proposals for further relief for Katrina of $5 billion. 
There are food stamp proposals of billions of dollars. There are Byrne 
grants, competitiveness grants, county payments, Bureau of Prisons--all 
of these ideas are floating around this Capitol as ideas on which we 
should spend more money. Most of them have good and reasonable 
arguments behind them. But the problem is they also, almost in every 
case, end up passing more debt on to our children.

[[Page S3483]]

  In many instances, especially the train to nowhere in New York, you 
cannot justify it. It is wasteful spending at the expense of our 
children and it is inappropriate because this debt is building up and 
up. As a result, paying off this debt is going to mean the taxes on our 
children are going to have to go up and up as they move into their 
earning years.
  The practical effect of that is that the next generation, our kids 
and our children's children, are not going to be able to afford as high 
quality a lifestyle as our generation has because they will have to be 
paying so much to support the Federal Government and the debts of the 
Federal Government. They will not be able to afford to send their kids 
to college, assuming college is even affordable at that time. They will 
not be able to buy that first home. They will not be able to live the 
high quality of lifestyle that has become the nature and character of 
American life, because the cost of the government, which we have 
incurred today, will have to be paid for by them tomorrow.
  It is not fair. It is not right. It used to be around here people 
talked about the deficit a lot. They used to point to it as a failure 
of our Government and there used to be genuine efforts to try to reduce 
the deficit--on the spending side of the ledger from our side of the 
aisle and on the other side of the aisle by raising taxes. But that 
discussion has waned. There is no focus right now on the deficit, I 
suspect in large part because we now have a Democratic Congress and 
deficit spending is justifiable if it meets an interest group's claims 
that they have a right to this money or they believe should have a 
program, such as the train to nowhere in New York, which is promoted by 
our colleagues from the other side of the aisle who represent New York.
  In the end, if we do not return to the basic concept that every 
family in America has to confront, which is you need to pay your bills 
as they come in and you cannot put too much money on the credit card 
because that means down the road you are not going to be able to pay 
that credit card and you are going to have to suffer significant 
contraction as a family--if we do not face up to that real fact of day-
to-day existence that most Americans must realize, as far as how their 
spending meets their income, or if we do not as a government face up to 
that, we are going to fundamentally undermine our Nation. We are 
certainly going to do significant damage to our children and their 
future.
  We talk a lot now about the weakness of the dollar and how that has 
caused the price of gasoline to jump dramatically, which it has. The 
weak dollar has caused energy costs and costs of commodities which are 
not produced in the United States to be driven up in large part because 
the dollar has weakened so much. One of the drivers of the weak dollar 
is a belief in the international community that we are not going to put 
our fiscal house in order, that we are going to continue to run 
deficits that are excessive, and that is what we are doing as a 
Congress.
  We have some responsibility here. You can't make great progress 
unless you begin somewhere. A good place to begin might be to take this 
$1.7 billion that is proposed in this bill to spend for the train to 
nowhere, or the fast track to waste, and eliminate that program and 
take the revenues that are alleged to be used to offset that program 
and use them to reduce the debt on our children's heads. Reduce that 
debt by $1.7 billion. That is progress. Granted, in the overall scheme 
of things it is not a huge amount of money compared to the total debt 
that is being incurred, even this year, the $400 billion, but you have 
to start somewhere. This would be a good place to start.
  Let's stop the wasteful spending which is adding to the Federal debt, 
which inevitably will undermine the quality of life of this Nation and 
especially pass on to our children obligations which there is no reason 
we should ask them to bear.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, when the Senate considers the Federal 
Aviation Administration Authorization Act, I will offer a bipartisan 
amendment to strike section 808 of the substitute to this bill. The 
section I wish to strike would impose a significant competitive 
disadvantage on airlines that have done the most to protect their 
employees and provide for the secure retirement of those employees and 
current retirees. It would increase the pension obligations of these 
airlines above what is required of the airlines they compete with. It 
is fundamentally unfair. Such a move would undermine the ability of 
these airlines to maintain their commitments to their workers, 
particularly in today's struggling economy.
  In 2006, with several airlines facing the prospect of bankruptcy, the 
Pension Protection Act adjusted how struggling airlines that had frozen 
their defined benefit pension plans could calculate their pension 
obligations. Those airlines were allowed to devote significantly less 
funding than their competitors toward payments to their pension plans. 
Understand, airlines facing bankruptcy that were on the cusp of losing 
defined benefit retirement plans were given better treatment under the 
Tax Code than those that didn't file bankruptcy and tried to keep their 
word to their employees under their defined benefit plans. Airlines 
that maintained their pension plans weren't given this benefit. As a 
result, American, Continental, Hawaiian, Alaskan, and US Airways were 
placed at a significant competitive disadvantage, only because they 
continued to offer their workers defined benefits for retirement. Those 
are the benefit plans, incidentally, that workers like the most. They 
are the ones that guarantee what you will receive when you retire, as 
opposed to a defined contribution plan, for example, that says a 
certain amount of money will be set aside, and maybe it will earn a lot 
before you retire, maybe it will not. The defined benefit plans--which, 
incidentally, Federal employees and Members of Congress have--are the 
best. These airlines that had similar plans for their employees and 
retirees and avoided bankruptcy were put at a disadvantage. The 
airlines facing bankruptcy, throwing away their pension plans, and 
changing them, were given a better break under the Tax Code than those 
that continued in business, avoiding bankruptcy and keeping their word 
to their employees and retirees.
  In 2007, I joined with Senator Harry Reid, adding language to the 
Iraq supplemental that tried to address this unfairness and inequity. 
Under the 2006 law, airlines that had prohibited new workers from 
participating in their defined benefit plan were allowed to assume a 
rate of return of 8.85 percent on their pension investments. The 2007 
law allowed the other airlines, those that had maintained the previous 
defined benefit commitment, to assume an 8.25-percent return. I know 
these numbers probably in the course of the speech don't impress you, 
but they should. It makes a significant difference of how much money an 
airline has to put in the pension plan, and the Tax Code, the law of 
our land, requires it. Airlines that had frozen their plans were 
allowed to amortize their plan shortfalls over 17 years; in other 
words, those that were facing bankruptcy and walking away from many 
aspects of their pension plans were able to take a longer period of 
time to pay out what was necessary to bring their plans up to solvency. 
The 2007 law gave airlines with defined benefit plans only 10 years, 
not 17. Therefore, airlines that are offering their workers defined 
benefits retirement face a competitive disadvantage.
  The 2007 law I mentioned earlier partially closed the gap. Section 
808 of this FAA reauthorization bill would tilt the playing field away 
from the airlines that already face this competitive disadvantage 
because they offer the very best pension benefits to their employees.
  What it comes down to is this: Airlines are declaring bankruptcy in 
every direction. Some are reporting record losses. Last week, American 
Airlines reported a loss of $328 million in the first quarter, 
virtually all of it attributable to increases in jet fuel. A few days 
later, United Airlines, another

[[Page S3484]]

major airline based in my home State of Illinois, announced first 
quarter losses, if I am not mistaken, of nearly $500 million and the 
need to lay off some 1,000 employees. Now comes this FAA 
reauthorization bill, and it includes a provision that will create an 
economic burden and hardship on some of these airlines that are 
struggling to survive. Could this Senate pick a worse time to hammer 
away at these airlines, when they are struggling to deal with jet fuel 
costs that are going through the roof and an uncertain economy facing a 
recession? If there was ever a bad idea, this is it.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Will the Senator yield for 15 seconds?
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Senator.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all postcloture time be 
yielded back and that the motion to proceed be agreed to and the motion 
to reconsider laid upon the table; that once the bill is reported, the 
Senator who is now speaking be recognized to offer a substitute 
amendment; that upon reporting of that amendment, no further amendments 
be in order during today's session and that there be debate only today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, will the Senator from Illinois 
further yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I want to say I am in complete agreement with what 
the Senator from Illinois has said. I know he is going to finish his 
statement, but he is making exactly the point I think needs to be made 
in this debate.
  We will have an amendment tomorrow. Senator Durbin and I are going to 
cosponsor an amendment that would fix the issue about which he is 
speaking. The idea that we would pass an FAA reauthorization that would 
modernize our facilities, that would put more safety precautions in 
place, that would give passengers more rights and, oh, by the way, 
would also bankrupt some of our airlines in the meantime is ridiculous.
  The bill will be so good. Senator Rockefeller has done a great job. 
We have compromised. We have worked on a bipartisan basis. Then, all of 
a sudden, we see this pension issue rise up that would put one, maybe 
two airlines into bankruptcy, and then we have taken away all the 
advantages of this very good bill.
  I commend the Senator from Illinois. I look forward to working with 
him tomorrow on an amendment--or whenever we are designated to put our 
amendment in place--and hope the balance we had is restored in the 
pension issues so that airlines that are offering defined benefit 
plans--which are so rare these days--will still be able to offer 
employees that, even at a greater cost.
  I look forward to working with my colleague from West Virginia to 
make sure this very good bill goes forward without the bad tax 
provisions and the pension provision that was added, not by our 
committee, but by the Finance Committee.
  I thank the Senator for yielding. I look forward to working with the 
Senator to fix this pension issue.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Texas for 
joining me in offering this amendment. This is a bipartisan amendment. 
We urge our colleagues: Take a close look at this. At the end of the 
day, if we pass this FAA modernization bill and force more airlines 
into bankruptcy because of this provision, is that our goal?
  We have lost so many airlines already, and now a major airline, such 
as American Airlines, which avoided bankruptcy and managed to keep its 
promise to its employees and retirees, and has provided significant 
funding for its pension, is going to be penalized by this bill.
  Ask the people whose pensions are affected, those members of unions 
who are supporting our efforts to stop this change in the law. I cannot 
understand the motivation behind this change.
  When this was originally considered a few years back, there was 
another group in charge in Congress and a chairman of the House Ways 
and Means Committee who singled out several airlines that were not 
facing bankruptcy and created a disadvantage for them. We tried to 
remedy it last year, and we got a temporary fix in there. And here they 
come again: this group that wants to keep changing this law, penalizing 
these airlines--at absolutely the worst possible moment. Wouldn't it be 
ironic if this were passed and the airlines that worked the hardest to 
avoid bankruptcy, the airlines that worked the hardest to keep the 
defined benefit plans--absolutely the gold standard when it comes to 
retirement--wouldn't it be ironic if the language of this bill ended up 
capsizing these airlines at this precarious moment in our economic 
history.
  I am going to urge my colleagues: Take a close look at this. Ask 
yourselves: If the beneficiaries of these retirement plans oppose this 
change, if the airlines oppose this change, if there is no argument to 
be made as to why you would treat these airlines differently than those 
that have faced massive changes in their pension plans, why in the 
world would we want to pass this amendment?
  At the end of the day, I want to make sure we have FAA modernization. 
But I also want to make sure there are airlines still serving America 
in every corner of America so our people have a chance to travel for 
business, for leisure, whatever it might be.
  I urge my colleagues: Please take a close look at this. I hope they 
will consider supporting the Durbin-Hutchison amendment when it is 
offered tomorrow morning. It will be the first item of business. I hope 
we can entertain a debate and move to its consideration at an early 
time.
  There is no reason to delay this. The sooner we remove this cloud 
from these airlines that have worked so hard to stay in business and 
avoid bankruptcy the better.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all postcloture time 
is yielded back.
  The motion to proceed is agreed to, and the motion to reconsider is 
laid on the table.
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Illinois 
for allowing himself to be interrupted twice, and I wish him a good 
evening.
  Madam President, I wish to talk, with your permission, for about 25 
to 30 minutes on what I consider to be the core problem we face; and it 
is the real condition that people need to know about the American 
aviation industry.

                          ____________________