[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 23 (Monday, February 14, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S653-S664]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    FAA AIR TRANSPORTATION MODERNIZATION AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. 223, which the clerk will 
report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 223) to modernize the air traffic control 
     system, improve the safety, reliability, and availability of 
     transportation by air in the United States, provide for 
     modernization of the air traffic control system, reauthorize 
     the Federal Aviation Administration, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Wicker modified amendment No. 14, to exclude employees of 
     the Transportation Security Administration from the 
     collective bargaining rights of Federal employees and provide 
     employment rights and an employee engagement mechanism for 
     passenger and property screeners.
       Blunt amendment No. 5, to require the Under Secretary of 
     Transportation for Security to approve applications from 
     airports to authorize passenger and property screening to be 
     carried out by a qualified private screening company.
       Paul amendment No. 21, to reduce the total amount 
     authorized to be appropriated for the Federal Aviation 
     Administration for fiscal year 2011 to the total amount 
     authorized to be appropriated for the administration for 
     fiscal year 2008.
       Rockefeller (for Wyden) amendment No. 27, to increase the 
     number of test sites in the National Airspace System used for 
     unmanned aerial vehicles and to require one of those test 
     sites to include a significant portion of public lands.
       Inhofe amendment No. 6, to provide liability protection to 
     volunteer pilot nonprofit organizations that fly for public 
     benefit and to the pilots and staff of such nonprofit 
     organizations.
       Inhofe amendment No. 7, to require the Administrator of the 
     Federal Aviation Administration to initiate a new rulemaking 
     proceeding with respect to the flight time limitations and 
     rest requirements for supplemental operations before any of 
     such limitations or requirements be altered.
       Rockefeller (for Ensign) amendment No. 32, to improve 
     provisions relating to certification and flight standards for 
     military remotely piloted aerial systems in the National 
     Airspace System.
       McCain amendment No. 4, to repeal the Essential Air Service 
     Program.
       Rockefeller (for Leahy) amendment No. 50, to amend title 1 
     of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 
     include nonprofit and volunteer ground and air ambulance crew 
     members and first responders for certain benefits and to 
     clarify the liability protection for volunteer pilots that 
     fly for public benefit.
       Reid amendment No. 54, to allow airports that receive 
     airport improvement grants for the purchase of land to lease 
     the land and develop the land in a manner compatible with 
     noise buffering purposes.
       Reid amendment No. 55, to require the Secretary of the 
     Interior to convey certain Federal land to the city of 
     Mesquite, NV.
       Udall (NM)/Bingaman amendment No. 49, to authorize Dona Ana 
     County, NM, to exchange certain land conveyed to the county 
     for airport purposes.
       Udall (NM) amendment No. 51, to require that all advanced 
     imaging technology used as a primary screening method for 
     passengers be equipped with automatic target recognition 
     software.
       Nelson (NE) amendment No. 58, to impose a criminal penalty 
     for unauthorized recording or distribution of images produced 
     using advanced imaging technology during screenings of 
     individuals at airports and upon entry to Federal buildings.
       Paul amendment No. 18, to strike the provisions relating to 
     clarifying a memorandum of understanding between the Federal 
     Aviation Administration and the Occupational Safety and 
     Health Administration.

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, my cochair, Senator Hutchison, is on 
the floor, and I know she wishes to speak.
  It occurs to me we are back on the Federal aviation bill. We have 
been on this bill for several years. There is an interesting sort of 
dilemma which has developed. If one listens to the conversation on the 
floor and around in the hallways, everything has to do with slots--how 
many flights in and out of National Airport, what are we going to do 
about the west coast, Seattle, and all the rest of them. Actually, that 
is a very small part of the overall bill, reflecting on the overall 
health and progress of the Federal Aviation Administration, compared to 
things such as NextGen, the new air traffic control system entirely, 
and a variety of other things which are already in the bill which the 
Senate passed last year 93 to nothing. So I am losing my patience a 
little bit with slots.
  Kay Bailey Hutchison and I agree on most things in our work, and we 
have an amendment. Other people seem to be going back and forth--they 
are amenable, then they are not amenable--and we are running out of 
time. I think the leader, with that in mind, is going to ask for 
cloture on this to sort of force everybody's hand.
  What I am really suggesting is that those who are working on slots 
try to come to an agreement during the course of the rest of this day 
because I think we are talking only about that, and perhaps a little 
bit of tomorrow morning. Then I think the Senate just kind of--and I 
know the leader on our side--has to do the bill. We have been debating 
these slots for 6\1/2\ months this year. We did it for a whole bunch of 
months last year. Progress is made, progress is unmade; people agree, 
people don't agree. Senator Hutchison and I are getting a little bit 
frustrated by that. We think we have a good amendment, but let's see.
  So we have some pending amendments. I am hopeful we will be able to 
work through them this evening and the remainder of the week. I think 
we have made reasonable progress on some matters, but on the question 
of the bill itself and the substance of the bill and those amendments 
which are germane to the substance of the bill, I think we have made a 
lot of progress. A lot of that progress actually comes from last year 
on our unanimous vote to approve this issue. So I believe we can and 
must finish this bill this week. I think my cochair agrees with me on 
that. If not, we risk further extensions of the FAA and a less stable 
agency.
  Again, I would point out that I think we are on our 18th extension of 
this massive bill keep all of our planes in the air and everybody at 
work and includes safety and all kinds of things. We need a very swift 
resolution. So I urge the Senate to promptly move forward on the 
passage of the FAA reauthorization act.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am fully in support of what the 
chairman has said. We have been on this bill now for over a week of 
actual Senate time. It is an important bill for our country because we 
are trying to set in place the next generation of air traffic control. 
America has over 50 percent of the air traffic in the world. We need to 
be the leader of the next generation of

[[Page S654]]

air traffic control systems. We are trying to transfer from the ground-
based radar system to a satellite-based system. It will be more 
efficient. It will open many more opportunities for airspace. We need 
to be able to move forward so that more planes can use the airspace we 
have. Yet we are finding a reluctance to vote on amendments. There are 
several amendments that are pending. We need to have votes on those 
amendments. There are safety measures; there are consumer protection 
measures in this bill.
  The chairman and I have worked together on making progress because we 
both want to pass this bill. It is a good bill. The sticking point is 
the slots at Reagan National Airport. Honestly, the chairman's staff 
and my staff have worked with all of the affected airlines and States 
and constituents to try to come to a fair opening of Washington 
National Airport to people who live west of St. Louis, MO. Basically, 
west of St. Louis, there are very few straight flights from Washington 
National. Most of them have to stop. So we are trying to gradually add 
to the capabilities for people who live out West to come into 
Washington National Airport, but we are also trying to keep the people 
who live around the airport from having undue noise or undue traffic or 
congestion at the airport. So we are trying to come up with a fair 
system. But, to be honest, the sides are not giving. There is a western 
Senator position. There is a Virginia Senator position. There is a far-
Alaska, far-west position. And nobody is giving an inch. Well, it is 
kind of hard to negotiate when you keep putting things out there, which 
the chairman and I are doing, and we get no response but ``I want 
everything my way.'' Well, ``everything my way'' is not going to work.
  We are facing a deadline now where possibly we won't be able to get a 
vote. I think that would be very bad for the western half of the United 
States because I think they are being unfairly kept out of access to 
the convenience of the airport to the Capitol and to downtown 
Washington. So I hope the sides will meet and come together with 
something that accommodates all of the needs and concerns, and I hope 
we can pass this bill this week. I think both the majority leader and 
the Republican leader are in support of the bill going forward. So we 
need to get our amendments up, get them voted on, and let's try to make 
progress.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, let me add to what my distinguished 
colleague said. People who are working on slot amendments should 
remember that in the bill that was passed and therefore the pending 
legislation, S. 233, there are no slot amendments. So they have to be 
under the discipline of understanding that slot amendments at this 
point are nongermane, and that will change as circumstances change in 
the next day or they won't.
  At this point, with the indulgence of Senator Hutchison, I know 
Senator Murkowski from Alaska is going to give a speech, with whom I 
know I am going to fully agree.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge the chairman and 
the ranking member on the Commerce Committee. I know they have been 
working diligently throughout this process not only with this 
particular reauthorization, but they have been great leaders on this 
issue over the years, and I appreciate that. We are working on some 
difficult issues, some contentious issues, including the issue of the 
slots which the chairman just discussed. It is one that is critically 
important to a person such as myself who represents the farthest of the 
West, along with Hawaii, so we look at how we are able to gain access 
through our airways and to travel. So the issues in front of us are 
incredibly important, but I don't want to speak to the issue of the 
perimeter slots today.
  I wish to address an amendment that was raised exactly a week ago by 
my colleague from Arizona, and this is regarding the importance of the 
Essential Air Service to my State of Alaska. I think the Members of 
this body have heard very often not only from myself but from Senator 
Begich and, prior to the two of us, the Alaskan Senators who for years 
stood on this floor and said: Alaska is different.
  When we are talking about the Essential Air Service and what it 
allows and what it provides, I repeat, Alaska is different. It is 
unique from anywhere in the lower 48, and the necessity to maintain the 
Essential Air Service is yet one more example.
  It was last week that the Senator from Arizona referred to a figure 
from the FAA that stated ``99.95 percent of all Americans live within 
120 miles of a public airport that has more than 10,000 takeoffs and 
landings annually.'' That statement clearly does not refer to Alaska.
  When the Essential Air Service was created in 1978, after the airline 
industry was deregulated, Congress correctly determined that air 
carriers that supported our rural locations would need a financial 
subsidy to ensure their passengers could receive not only a price but 
quantity of flights and quality of service that was necessary to 
provide for effective transportation and movement of goods.
  At the creation of the EAS Program, nearly every community in the 
State of Alaska was affected by the deregulation of the airlines 
industry. There were about 130 communities that were put on that list 
in 1978. Today we have 44 communities in Alaska that are receiving EAS.
  Let me tell you some things about Alaska that do make it unique, and 
when we refer to Essential Air Service one can see that title is 
actually a very apt description of what is provided in my State.
  I have a map of the State of Alaska. The red lines that look like 
little arteries represent our road system. We have just short of 11,000 
miles of a road system in the State of Alaska. I said that seems like a 
lot of roads. To put it in context, California has 2.3 million miles of 
roads.
  Our road system is one--if you look at it--that is up and down. We do 
not have much in southeastern Alaska. We do not have a thing along the 
Aleutian chain. We do not have anything in the southwestern and 
northern part of Alaska. We have just a few roads around the Seward 
Peninsula. Eighty percent of communities in the State of Alaska are not 
connected by a road. How do you get there? If you happen to be in the 
southeast, you get there by boat.
  The bottom line is we fly. This is not a luxury; this is a necessity. 
We have to fly. We are the most flown State in the country. About 80 
percent of our communities are nonaccessible by road while in the rest 
of the country, if you want to get in your car, if you have an 
emergency, you need to get to the hospital, you hop in and drive. If 
you want to go for a spring break, you get in your car and drive 4 or 5 
hours and you are at the beach. If you want to get somewhere--
anywhere--you pretty much have an opportunity to do so.
  We do not have that opportunity in Alaska. Given what we face with a 
limited road system--the weather and terrain issues--we in the State of 
Alaska treat airplanes or helicopters like most Americans would treat 
their minivan. Aircraft in Alaska are not just a nice thing to have. 
They are a lifeline for survival, for subsistence, for travel, for 
recreation. They are truly an essential part of our everyday lives.
  The city administrator of Atka--Atka is all the way at the end of the 
Aleutian Islands--the city administrator of Atka, Julie Dirks, sent a 
letter to the Alaska delegation explaining how the loss of EAS 
subsidies would negatively impact the city of Atka and other rural 
communities in the State. In the letter, she writes:

       Loss of this program would be devastating to remote rural 
     communities such as Atka and others in our region. Atka is 
     not on a road system connecting the communities to other 
     places nor is there any type of marine ferry service 
     connecting Atka to other islands or mainland Alaska.

  Even though there is a lot of water out there, you cannot get there 
by boat.

       Air transportation presently is the only method available 
     providing access in and out of Atka. Costs of service are 
     already high even with the subsidy. Without the subsidy 
     service would be too expensive or even non-existent.

  I ask unanimous consent to have printed the letter from the city 
administrator of Atka.

[[Page S655]]

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 February 7, 2011.
     Re Essential Air Service Program.

     Alaska Delegation,
     Senator Mark Begich,
     Senator Lisa Murkowski,
     Congressman Don Young,
     Washington, DC.
       It is my understanding Senator John McCain has introduced 
     legislation to the FAA Reauthorization Bill that, if passed, 
     would repeal the Essential Air Services Program. I am writing 
     on behalf of the remote Aleutian community of Atka, Alaska to 
     protest the elimination of the program.
       Without the federal government subsidy provided by the 
     Essential Air Service program remote communities in Alaska 
     like Atka are unlikely to have any air service at all and 
     could cease to exist. Regular scheduled transportation 
     service is important to the sustainability of the community 
     and to support economic activity of the local seafood 
     processing plant owned jointly by local residents and the 
     regional CDQ organization.
       Loss of this program would be devastating to remote rural 
     communities such as Atka and others in our region. Atka is 
     not on a road system connecting the communities to other 
     places nor is there any type of marine ferry service 
     connecting Atka to other islands or mainland Alaska. Air 
     transportation presently is the only method available 
     providing access in and out of Atka. Costs of service are 
     already high even with the subsidy. Without the subsidy 
     service would be too expensive or even non-existent.
       Your efforts to keep this important program funded will be 
     appreciated by Atka residents.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Julie Dirks,
                                               City Administrator.

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we have 44 communities in the State of 
Alaska that receive an EAS subsidy. Thirty eight of those communities 
are not connected in any way to this road system so they are forced to 
use air travel as their primary means of travel. Then one has to say: 
OK, that means you have six that are on a road. Why can't they use the 
road? Why do we have to provide EAS for these six communities?
  Let's look at some of these communities. McCarthy does not have any 
road maintenance during the winter months. Pretty much between October 
and April we are looking at a situation where this community is shut 
off. That means no mail. That means no emergency services. That means 
no ability to get food supplies. They basically have to wait it out 
until the road thaws in the spring. If we do not have air service in a 
community such as McCarthy, even though there is technically a road, 
for about 7 months they are without.
  Another of the communities, Gulkana, is on a two-lane paved road, but 
it is over 210 miles to the nearest medium-hub airport. The other four 
communities, which are Circle, Central, Minto, and Manley Hot Springs, 
are all located on two-lane gravel roads. They require driving 
distances of at least 125 miles to the nearest hub airport.
  Again, we need to remember what kind of roads they are driving on. 
This is not like jumping on to I-95 or I-10. These are, for the most 
part, single-lane roads during most of the year. They are snow covered, 
with limited visibility. They have tough temperatures they are dealing 
with in the interior. It is pretty dark during this time of year. It is 
not a road about which one says: Let's drive to town.
  It has been noted by some of the opponents of the Essential Air 
Service Program that the spending in Alaska is just out of whack, that 
it is too much. Let's look at the facts as they relate to Alaska.
  There are currently 153 communities that are receiving subsidies, 
according to the USDOT. The Department of Transportation says there are 
44 communities in Alaska and 109 communities combined for the lower 48, 
Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. Critics say it looks as if Alaska has almost 
half as many EAS communities as the rest of the United States.
  OK, that may be true. We will grant that. But what they ignore, what 
they forget is how we compare in Alaska in conjunction with the rest of 
the country. I know people get tired of looking at these maps about how 
big we are. The fact is, we do not make this up. We do not just 
superimpose Alaska on a map of the country and say: Isn't this a nice 
shape? We put it on the map of the lower 48 States to show the size. We 
are not that little State that is down in the water next to Hawaii or 
off California, despite some of the maps that are still out there on 
people's walls. We are this big.
  We have over 47,000 miles of shoreline, going all the way out to the 
Aleutians and coming all the way up--47,000 miles, more than all of the 
other 49 States combined. We cover an area of over 586,000 miles. We go 
from California to Florida, beyond the Great Lakes and into Canada.
  The comment was made that if I want to go from Adak, which is one of 
the EAS communities, to Anchorage, which is the largest city in our 
State, it is a $1,400 round-trip airfare--with EAS subsidies, I might 
add. But it is almost 1,200 miles. That just gets you from Adak into 
Anchorage. It does not get you down to the rest of the lower 48.
  Put that in context and that is like going from Kansas City to Boston 
where, I might add, their round-trip airfare is $571. It helps to put 
things in context when people are saying that Alaska is getting too 
much of a share of this program. Monetarily, Alaska gets about $12.6 
million in EAS subsidies. The rest of the Nation gets over $163 million 
in EAS subsidies. In Alaska, we have over 700 registered airports, 
1,200 airstrips, and over 10,000 registered aircraft.
  When we look at how our 44 communities that receive the subsidies 
receive less than 10 percent of the subsidies of the lower 48, to 
suggest somehow they are getting something that is not equitable, 
again, is important to put into context. There are no roads to most of 
these communities.
  It was commented by my colleague from Arizona that there was a 2009 
GAO report on the Essential Air Service Program. It was indicated that 
the GAO thought the Essential Air Service Program might have outlived 
its usefulness. But there is a section of that report that was left 
out. I think it is important to note that the writers of that report 
stated:

       [The] review focuses on communities within the continental 
     United States that have received EAS subsidized service. We 
     focused our review on these communities because the 
     requirements for communities in Alaska are different than for 
     communities in other States, and airports outside the 
     contiguous States are not representative of the program in 
     the rest of the country.

  It is critically important that we look to what that full GAO report 
said and how it recognized that the circumstances in Alaska are 
entirely different and are not representative of what we see in the 
lower 48.
  When we look to that GAO report, we need to put that into context 
again. Another thing that must be kept in mind when we are talking 
about Essential Air Service is that--what we are all talking about on 
the Senate floor--is jobs, what is going on with jobs. The number of 
jobs that would be lost, the economic impact that would result from the 
repeal of this program in Alaska would be consequential.
  Aviation in our State provides $3.5 billion to the economy. It 
represents 8 percent of the gross State product. It is the fifth 
largest employer in the State, employing about 10 percent of our total 
workforce. And it is not just the jobs that would be lost, these folks 
who handle and sort the mail, load the packages into the aircraft would 
likely lose their jobs. The commercial fishermen, the workers at the 
fish processing plants would be impacted. Emergency medical 
professionals, the tourist industry, recreational professionals--they 
would all feel the negative impact of the repeal of EAS in Alaska. All 
of these vital industries and services are connected to the everyday 
Alaskan by one common thread, and that is aviation.
  Many of us look forward to the wild fresh salmon that comes out of 
the Copper River in May. That comes from a community in Prince William 
Sound, Cordova. Mr. President, 2,200 people live there. They receive 
Essential Air Service. The fact that they are able to fly into this 
community that does not have access to a road allows those fishermen to 
receive a price for their product that maintains and sustains them. The 
repeal of EAS means hundreds of my constituents would be forced to 
purchase expensive airline tickets just so they would have access to 
the most basic and yet very essential things.
  Kodiak Island is the recipient of a lot of our EAS communities. 
Island Air is an airline that services these 12 communities. Eleven of 
these communities

[[Page S656]]

are served by float planes because there is no runway. So we don't even 
have the basic runway. You are flying in on a seaplane. Two of the 
communities Island Air supports are Karluk and Alitak. Round-trip 
airfare from Karluk to Kodiak, which is sitting right in here, is $254 
a person, to Alitak it is $346 a person. Flights to these locations 
occur only three times a week. So if you are going to fly into Kodiak, 
you have to assume you are going to have a couple nights of hotel 
costs--lodging expenses--so this brings the price of your trip to about 
over $500. But if the EAS Program is repealed, the cost per person to 
get to these locations jumps to over $1,800, and that is just to get 
from the little village to Kodiak. This is not getting you to 
Anchorage, where you can get medical services. It is not getting you to 
where you can get to the shopping you and your family might need. These 
expenses are also just for the airfare and not for the lodging. It 
doesn't allow for the purchase of supplies, mail, tourism or any of the 
other activities that members and visitors to these communities might 
engage in. So I think it is fair to say if we repeal EAS, Island Air 
will no longer be able to serve these communities. They would be forced 
to lay off their employees. But you don't have service to these areas.

  I can't speak for every location in the United States that receives 
funding from EAS and tell you how each would be impacted by the McCain 
amendment, but I can say, without any reservation, that this amendment 
would create an economic and a transportation disaster for Alaska, 
including the loss of jobs, livelihoods, and would potentially impact 
health and medical situations. The complete elimination of the EAS 
Program could destabilize many of our rural communities, could 
negatively impact the integrity of Alaska's interconnected aviation 
system, and severely reduce air services to essential parts of the 
State. EAS has been and will continue to be a critical and instrumental 
component of Alaska's aviation transportation system network, while 
providing important jobs and allowing necessary and critical access to 
rural and isolated communities within our State and across the Nation.
  I have consumed the time I was allotted this morning, but I cannot 
repeat enough, I cannot reiterate enough the importance of a program 
such as Essential Air Service to a remote and rural State such as 
Alaska. It truly is essential. When this amendment comes before the 
body, I would urge defeat of the McCain amendment.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am only going to comment for a 
minute, but what the Senator from Alaska has just said is completely 
true. It also points out the overall philosophical question of what are 
we doing with this bill: Are we going to pass it or fight over all 
these slots? I am for passing the bill and leaving slots for conference 
or whatever, unless we can work something out. Nobody wants to agree. 
Everybody thinks they have the leverage. Maybe they do, maybe they do 
not. But in the meantime, this bill, which has been languishing for all 
these months, in fact, solves one of the problems of Alaska in its 
entirety because of the NextGen system, which I have been talking 
about--and which I could talk about more but not today--which is a 
global satellite network. It will provide the safety and capacity that 
is needed for safe flight in tricky weather, where weather changes very 
quickly, and, in fact, it is now in place in Alaska.
  So that doesn't, in any way, take away from the Essential Air Service 
problems which the Senator from Alaska is talking about. I totally 
agree with her on that. But it just shows that if we hold up this bill 
and make ourselves slaves to working out slots agreements, which 
probably can't be worked out on this floor--maybe they can, I hope so, 
but I doubt it--we are depriving her State and others--but hers in 
particular since hers is a test State which has this system in place 
because of the changing weather, because of the unpredictability of 
virtually everything when you are flying. It is in effect there and in 
four other States. We are trying to get it to all States. This will 
change the whole future of aviation.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.


                         The President's Budget

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today, the President released his budget 
for fiscal year 2012. If this is his idea of a Valentine's gift to 
America and to the American people, he has an odd way of showing his 
affection. It is the equivalent of taking your fiancee to dinner, 
asking her to marry you, and then leaving her to take care of the 
check, your maxed out credit cards, your underwater mortgage, and the 
bill for the ring.
  This budget is, quite simply, an abdication of adult responsibility, 
and it is a particular abdication of the responsibility of the 
President of the United States, who takes an oath to protect and defend 
our Constitution. Our economy is dealing with the hangover from the 
2008 economic collapse, the greatest fiscal crisis I have seen and that 
we have seen in several generations. Our recovery has been sluggish, 
and it is not being helped by this administration's regulatory overload 
and ObamaCare, which is set to kill 800,000 jobs.
  We can already see a still larger crisis approaching. This is nothing 
short of an existential challenge. Continued deficits and accumulated 
debt are a genuine threat to individual liberty, continued prosperity, 
and national security. Absent immediate action--and let me stress this 
needs to be immediate action--we face a future where our union is not 
more perfect and where government will stand in the way of enterprising 
businesses and citizens whose only wish is the opportunity to thrive. 
Yet the President's response to this impending disaster is to vote 
present. His response is to pass the buck.
  With due respect, the budget released today is a sorry joke. I would 
hate to be the White House staffers forced to spin this budget as a 
step in the right direction. The United States is demanding a 
``Churchill'' on the issue of deficits and debt, but the administration 
has delivered us a ``Chamberlain.''
  Let me break this down. The administration is going to reduce the 
deficit by $1.1 trillion over 10 years. That sounds like a mighty big 
number, and I am sure the White House has some consultants who have 
told them the American people can be duped into thinking this 
represents meaningful deficit reduction or change. Let me be clear. 
This is not meaningful deficit reduction. The administration wants to 
reduce the deficit by $1.1 trillion over 10 years. What does the 
administration project the deficit to be for this fiscal year--$1.65 
trillion. At 10.9 percent of the gross domestic product, this is the 
largest deficit as a share of the economy since World War II. 
Unbelievable.
  But it is consistent with the way Democrats have behaved since taking 
over Washington. In 2010, the deficit was $1.3 trillion and in 2009 
$1.4 trillion. So let us put this in perspective. The administration is 
out there touting today its fiscal responsibility. Yet its 10-year 
total deficit reduction is smaller than this year's deficit.
  The President's much touted 5-year freeze on discretionary spending, 
which will save $400 billion, is smaller than the Congressional Budget 
Office's recent upward revision of the 2011 deficit. Spinning this 
budget as the fiscally responsible thing to do betrays a profound lack 
of respect for the intelligence of the American citizens.
  This budget contains $53 billion for construction of high-speed rail 
in Florida, California, and several other States. If there is a bigger 
government boondoggle out there, I am not aware of it. But the Vice 
President, in promoting this spending spree, tells Americans they need 
to get a grip. With due respect, the American people's grip on the 
situation is fine. They understand something that apparently has eluded 
the best and brightest over on Pennsylvania Avenue--we are out of 
money.
  The well that has been financing the New Deal, and the New Frontier, 
and the Great Society, and the stimulus, and ObamaCare has finally run 
dry. It is past time that we stop playing politics with the deficit and 
debt and make the tough choices necessary to put America's finances 
back on solid ground. Yet there is no effort in this budget to take 
care of our long-term fiscal problems--none at all.

[[Page S657]]

  Not even the Washington Post is able to spin this one. This is a $3.7 
trillion budget. What is the future of our deficit and debt? This is 
what the Post had to say. After next year, the deficit will begin to 
fall, ``settling around $600 billion a year through 2018, when it would 
once again begin to climb as a growing number of retirees tapped into 
Social Security and Medicare.''
  The new normal under this budget is one of permanent budget deficits, 
long after President Obama has returned to private life. He will be out 
working on his Presidential library while Americans are left holding 
the bag for his big spending policies. He may not want to admit it, but 
the most fitting volume for his Presidential library might be ``The 
Road to Serfdom.''
  How exactly does the administration propose to pay for Social 
Security and Medicare and national defense under this budget? The 
bottom line: It doesn't. This budget amounts to gross negligence. Even 
the progressive blogger, Ezra Klein, concludes that when reading this 
budget, it is almost like the fiscal commission never happened.
  Remember that? The President's fiscal commission? It issued a report 
recommending over $4 trillion in cuts, including adjustments to 
entitlements. It offered controversial but appropriately bold proposals 
to get our Nation back on track. The President and his team looked at 
those proposals and bravely decided to leave this problem to the next 
administration and future generations.
  Clearly, I am not a fan. But there is one useful item to consider in 
this budget. It is what progressives might call a teachable moment.
  To achieve these paltry deficit reduction numbers, the administration 
had to resort to massive tax increases.
  As the Post concludes, the tax hikes in this bill will be around $1.6 
trillion over 10 years.
  Here is the point that people need to be reminded of.
  Even with possibly more than $1.6 trillion in job killing tax 
increases in this budget, it still comes nowhere close to reining in 
our deficits and debt.
  For years we have heard Democrats say that if the rich people and 
businesses paid their fair share in taxes, we could balance the budget 
and reduce the debt.
  Well, they sure tested it out in this budget.
  They soak the so-called rich and American business with a fire hose, 
and yet we are still facing trillions in debt and hundreds of billions 
in deficits.
  After the much maligned Bush tax cuts expire and undermine small 
business job creation, according to the President's own numbers we will 
still have to borrow an additional $7.2 trillion through 2021 to pay 
the bills that are coming due from the Obama administration's spending 
policies.
  This budget should be a turning point in our debate about deficit and 
debt reduction.
  Tax increases simply cannot get us there.
  Unfortunately, the message that tax increases lead to deficit 
reduction is the Democrats' good word.
  Over the past decade, I have participated in many discussions about 
spending and tax policy.
  As my colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, has noted, Democrats 
basically have two talking points.
  First, all of the good fiscal history of the 1990s was derived from 
the partisan tax increase bill of 1993.
  And second, all of the bad fiscal history taking place within the 
past 10 years is owing to the bipartisan tax relief plans originally 
enacted during the last administration and continued under the present 
administration.
  The Democrats' platform does have the virtue of simplicity: higher 
taxes--good; lower taxes--bad.
  This record needs to be corrected. Regular viewers of C-SPAN 2 have 
probably heard others on my side do so before.
  But it bears repeating, particularly in light of today's budget, that 
higher taxes will not right our fiscal ship.
  The myth that higher taxes lead to lower deficits is a persistent 
one.
  This is the mainstream account of the Clinton tax hikes.
  According to this theory, the positive fiscal history of the 1990s 
resulted from the 1993 tax increases.
  It is a simple enough argument.
  According to the other side, by raising taxes and taking more money 
out of the economy, the government successfully reduced the deficit.
  Yet, as you can see from this chart, the Clinton administration's own 
Office of Management and Budget concluded that the 1993 tax increase 
accounted for only 13 percent of deficit reduction between 1990 and 
2000.
  As a percentage of deficit reduction, the 1993 tax increase ranks 
behind other factors such as defense cuts--and interest savings.
  The message here is simple.
  Tax increases did not drive deficit reduction.
  It may seem counterintuitive, but raising taxes does not necessarily 
mean that revenues collected by the government, as a percentage of GDP, 
will increase.
  Consider this chart, which compares changes in Federal revenues as a 
percentage of GDP for two key 4-year periods. Each of these 4-year 
periods was preceded by a major tax policy change.
  The first 4-year period occurred after the 1993 tax increase was 
enacted.
  The second 4-year period occurred after the Jobs and Growth Tax 
Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 was enacted.
  The Jobs and Growth Reconciliation Act was the second of the major 
tax relief bills enacted during the last administration. It featured 
reductions on tax rates of capital gains and dividends.
  Let's take a look at the first of those 4-year periods in each case.
  One year after the 1993 hike, we do see increased revenues.
  One year after the 2003 tax cut, revenues drop.
  But take a look at the second through fourth years following the 
adoption of each bill.
  You will see that the trend of the first year reverses itself in the 
second year after the tax hike.
  As the policies in both bills had time to take effect, the revenue 
patterns are clear. The positive change in revenue was generally 
greater after the tax cut bill than it was after the tax increase bill.
  There is no doubt that our deficits are a serious issue. They 
threaten the future of our Nation. It is irresponsible, however, to say 
that our dire fiscal situation is the result of the government not 
extracting enough money from the people who actually earn it.
  The President's budget, with its massive new tax increases and 
permanent deficits, demonstrates yet again that our problem is 
spending.
  Our budget deficits are being driven by spending.
  Spending has not grown arithmetically.
  Spending has not grown geometrically.
  Spending has grown exponentially.
  Over the past few years, while Democrats exercised complete control 
over Washington, non-defense discretionary spending has grown by 24 
percent. As I have said before, that figure does not even include the 
bloated stimulus bill, enacted in early 2009.
  Yet these deficits continue to grow in spite of increased revenues.
  On January 26, CBO published its Budget and Economic Outlook for 
Fiscal Years 2011 through 2021. I am going to quote from that report. 
By CB0's estimates, Federal revenues in 2011 will be $123 billion--or 6 
percent--more than total revenues recorded two years ago, in 2009.
  This increase in Federal revenues for 2011 includes the net effect 
from a 1-year across-the-board reduction in payroll taxes.
  The important fact here is that revenues have increased over the past 
2 years, and the deficit has still increased. Our deficit and debt 
problems are not being driven by tax relief.
  Despite this evidence, many of my friends on the other side still see 
raising taxes as the best and only solution.
  They want to fund out-of-control spending by taking even more money 
from the people who actually earn it.
  Proponents of this approach know that the confiscation of what has 
been lawfully earned can be a hard sell.
  That is the reason they resort to clever rhetoric, telling us that 
paying taxes is inherently patriotic.
  Or we hear talking points about some people not paying their fair 
share.
  These sound bites might sound good to the base, but they are not 
grounded in reality.
  CBO has published a booklet entitled ``The Long-Term Budget 
Outlook.'' In

[[Page S658]]

its most recent version CBO confirmed that Federal revenues have 
fluctuated between 15 percent and 21 percent of GDP over the past 40 
years, averaging about 18 percent.
  Because of the recession, revenues dipped to around 15 percent 
recently. But that should not deceive us into thinking taxes are 
abnormally low. Using current-law assumptions, CBO projected revenues 
to reach 23 percent of GDP by 2035.
  Arguably, those current-law assumptions are unrealistic, since they 
assumed the bipartisan tax relief enacted in 2001 and 2003 would expire 
along with relief from the alternative minimum tax, at the end of last 
year.
  Yet CBO evaluated an alternative, more realistic, fiscal scenario. In 
that scenario, CBO assumed that most of the tax relief enacted in 2001 
and 2003 would be extended through 2020. It still assumed that tax 
relief would expire for so-called high-income taxpayers. But CBO did 
anticipate that AMT relief would continue, along with other deviations 
from current law.
  Even using this alternative fiscal scenario, CBO found that revenues 
as a percentage of GDP would increase to just over 19 percent in 2020 
and stay at that level for several years.
  That is to say, in this scenario, the level of taxation would still 
be above the 40-year historical average of about 18 percent of GDP.
  I want to briefly return to the January CBO analysis that I referred 
to earlier.
  That analysis, which assumes that most of the components of the tax 
package enacted at the end of 2010 will continue to be extended, along 
with the modified estate and gift provisions also in that same 
legislation, calculates that annual government revenues will steadily 
increase going forward, but will still average about 18 percent of GDP 
through 2021.
  I have spent the past few minutes discussing CBO projections of 
various policy scenarios.
  I am sure this presentation has made for some very gripping 
television.
  But the point I am trying to convey is a critical one.
  The fiscal reality is that taxes are not abnormally low.
  Continuing current tax policy yields Federal revenues at about the 
historical average of GDP for the past 40 years.
  Increasing taxes on anyone, even so called high-earners, will push 
government revenues above the 40 years' historical average, as a 
percentage of GDP.
  I know there are many who would still support raising taxes above 
this historical level.
  The President made clear today that he certainly does.
  But it is important to heed the words of the CBO before we raise 
taxes.
  In its Long-Term Budget Outlook, CBO had this to say about a scenario 
where the bipartisan tax relief of 2001 and 2003 expired, along with 
AMT relief.
  According to CBO:

       Marginal tax rates on income from labor and capital would 
     rise considerably under the extended-baseline scenario. The 
     increase in the marginal tax rate on labor would reduce 
     people's incentive to work, and the increase in the marginal 
     tax rate on capital would reduce their incentive to save.

  The basic point I am making is that tax hikes are not like finding a 
pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. That money comes from somewhere, 
and there will be consequences to redistributing it.
  Moreover, as we saw in the budget released today, even spiking taxes 
by over $1.6 trillion will not help us to balance our books.
  Abnormally high spending drove the deficits of the past. It is 
driving the deficits of today. And it will drive the deficits of the 
future.
  Some folks, in response to the question of whether the President is 
triangulating after the drubbing Democrats took in November, have 
answered no. He's just being himself.
  You can say that again. He supported big government as a community 
organizer. He supported it as a Senator, on this floor and in 
committees.
  He supported it as a presidential candidate, and he supports it 
today.
  But the stakes are higher now.
  He is the Nation's chief executive, and ultimately the President is 
responsible for guiding our Nation through the treacherous waters of an 
impending fiscal crisis. These are not easy shoals to navigate yet the 
statesman cannot shirk his duty.
  As Senator Henry Clay once put it, ``I would rather be right than be 
President.''
  Some things are bigger than the next election, and getting our 
deficits under control is one of those things.
  The American people know that President Obama's budget is not right.
  The present administration is spending almost 25 percent of our GDP, 
historically high except during and shortly after World War II. The 
last time we had that kind of expenditure was in 1950. That is why I am 
so strongly for a balanced budget constitutional amendment. I wish we 
did not have to go to that, but I don't see any other way we will get 
spending under control because I think Congress has been 
institutionally incapable of bringing down spending.
  One reason is that with the help of the mainstream media, Members of 
Congress actually believe they will be kept in office by spending, and 
up to now that has been pretty true. But the American people are 
starting to wake up, they are starting to realize that, as sincere as 
my colleagues are on the other side, their economic policies are 
corrupt--maybe ``corrupt'' is too strong word, but it is wrong, 
definitely wrong.
  We know the American people are not going to stop demanding real 
leadership on this issue. I feel badly because I know I personally like 
the President. There is no question about it. I showed him great 
friendship when he was here. I have shown him friendship since he was 
elected.
  We all know that in order to resolve these problems we have to get 
entitlements under control. As good as some here in Congress are, we 
can't do it without Presidential leadership. We just can't.
  I have a suggestion for the President. He would go down in history as 
one of the truly great Presidents if he would work with us, work 
together, bringing bipartisan people together and work to resolve these 
conflicts. You cannot do it with just 15 percent of the budget and you 
cannot do it with just tax increases. You cannot do it with an ever-
expanding Federal Government. You cannot do it with an ever-expanding 
set of Federal employees. You cannot do it with ever-expanding 
regulations--although some of them are important. All of these things 
may be important, but you can't do it with those concepts. The only way 
you can do it is to get in and take the whole budget and work with both 
sides and see what we can do to bring people together and see if we 
have the courage to resolve these problems, not only for today but for 
our kids and grandkids, and, in my case, great-grandkids as well, 
hereafter.
  I don't want the President to fail, but I have to point these things 
out. Let's face it, he is getting some very poor advice. Even when he 
wants to come to the center he gets rapped hard on the knuckles by the 
far left of his party, most of whom are far left, as least those here 
on the floor.
  There are very few moderates on the Democratic side. I found most of 
the people who are moderates are moderate when their vote doesn't 
count. I think if you go back and look at the record you will find that 
to be true. The vast majority of our friends on the other side believe 
we should keep spending, keep taxing, and that will keep them in power. 
But all the power in the world doesn't count if we are wrecking the 
greatest country in the world.
  I think our side has to wake up a little bit, too. We can't just do 
it with tax cuts either. On the other hand, I would rather have tax 
cuts that spur on the economy and create small business jobs than 
continue to spend us into oblivion.
  Nevertheless, we are all going to have to work together if we are 
ever to get this problem solved. The only way I know to solve it is 
through Presidential leadership combined with courage on the part of 
Members of Congress.
  But what they are pursuing with this budget is pathetic. There are so 
many budgetary gimmicks in this bill that it is plain pathetic. I will 
repeat what I said earlier; that is, the little over a trillion 
dollars, $1.1 trillion, in deficit reduction this budget will achieve 
over 10 years is barely $100 billion a year.

[[Page S659]]

The total proposed deficit reduction is not even as much as our deficit 
for this year alone. During those 10 years, there will be hundreds of 
billions, if not trillions, of dollars of additional deficits until we 
reach a point, in about 2022, where we will be around $22 trillion in 
debt.
  I do not know about you, Mr. President, or anybody else in this 
Chamber, but I think it is time for us to start standing up. I think it 
is time for the President to lead. I think the Democrats who have 
control of the bureaucracy ought to start working with us on to get 
that bureaucracy trimmed down. Let's consider the one aspect of 
constitutional politics that has worked; that is, allowing 50 States to 
participate, and through 50 State laboratories we can pick and choose 
the things that work best. Had we done that with health care, we would 
not be in the mess health care is today, and the oblivion it is headed 
for.
  We cannot fix this deficit problem with tax increases. Frankly, my 
experience has been that tax increases do not work. What does work is 
giving the small business sector incentives, real incentives, not 
``investments'' but real incentives to keep creating the 70 percent of 
jobs that only the small business sector can do.
  If we increase those taxes, we are going to be in a mess. I can tell 
you, the budgeteers at OMB and CBO, as sincere and dedicated as they 
may be--I like Mr. Lew very much, and I think Mr. Elmendorf is a very 
fine budgeteer and economist--are always low in their estimates of 
deficits. It could be much worse than what we know right now. I hope we 
will have the guts, I hope the President will have the guts to lead, 
and I hope we would have the guts to follow that lead, and hopefully 
turn this ship of state around.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I want to talk on Essential Air Service, 
but I do want to make a couple of comments after hearing my colleague 
from the other side talk about the budget. I want to assure him, there 
are some moderates over here who understand the value and the managing 
of the budget. If someone comes from Alaska, you know we support gun 
rights, oil and gas drilling, we support a lot of things as Democrats 
that the Senator may not be aware of.
  But the other thing is, leadership is about all of us working 
together. I look for the President's budget, but that does not mean we 
are going to sit here and wait for him to make all of the decisions. We 
have a responsibility here. I know last year, I sat here and voted for 
the Sessions-McCaskill amendment that would have reduced some of the 
spending, controlled some of the spending. We could not get all of the 
votes on the other side to make it happen.
  I supported every dime that came back from the TARP repayment to go 
to pay off the deficit, which now we are close to 80 percent or better 
of that money coming back, maybe as much as 90 percent. I supported the 
Gregg and Wyden legislation, a bipartisan effort to deal with tax 
reform to get corporate rates from the second highest in the world back 
to about midstream; lowering the six individual rates down to three 
rates; making it simplified so people can fill out their taxes on one 
form, and getting rid of a bunch of loopholes.
  It is the combination of all of us that will create leadership. It is 
not one person; it is not one President. It is Republicans and 
Democrats and Independents sitting on the floor making tough decisions, 
not a bunch of political speeches. Let me end there and get to the 
topic I wanted to talk about. At some point I will come down here and 
talk about the budget as it is rolled out. I know on the Budget 
Committee we will have plenty of presentations on that.
  I came down here to talk about Essential Air Service. I want to thank 
Chairman Rockefeller and Senator Hutchison for their leadership on this 
very important bill. They have worked tirelessly to pass this bill in 
the 111th Congress, and they are again putting in long hours on it this 
year.
  The bill before the Senate is an incredibly important piece of 
legislation. The FAA bill is about creating jobs. It puts Americans to 
work rebuilding our Nation's deteriorating airport infrastructure. It 
modernizes our air traffic control system to reduce congestion in the 
skies, and it makes our Nation's air space safer and more efficient.
  There are so many important reasons why we should succeed in passing 
this legislation, which passed the Senate 93 to 0 last year. Even in a 
year that was marked with contentious and partisan battles, this FAA 
bill was truly a bipartisan piece of legislation, and this can largely 
be credited to the hard work of Chairman Rockefeller, Senator 
Hutchison, and their staffs.
  This bill has been delayed far too long. We are currently on the 17th 
short-term extension since the last comprehensive FAA bill expired in 
2007. We owe it to the American people to help reduce airport delays, 
put Americans back to work, and provide the 21st century air space our 
Nation needs to facilitate commerce and compete in a world economy.
  This bill is especially important for States such as mine. Aviation 
is the lifeblood of Alaska. It is truly our highway in the sky. We have 
six times more pilots and 16 times more planes per capita than the rest 
of the country. In Alaska small planes are the equivalent of minivans 
in the lower 48. They are how Alaskans get around.
  I wish to talk briefly about the Essential Air Service Program, which 
is vital to my constituents. My friend from Arizona has introduced an 
amendment which would repeal the Essential Air Service Program. I truly 
have grave concerns for what this would mean, not only for my rural 
Alaskans but for rural Americans as a whole.
  The Essential Air Service Program originated at the same time as 
airline deregulation in 1978. When airline deregulation passed, it gave 
airlines almost total freedom to determine which markets to serve 
domestically and what fares to charge for that service. This is not a 
bad thing. Some good things came out of airline deregulation. It 
fostered competition among airlines. It brought down ticket prices for 
many air routes between large urban centers.
  But when Congress passed airline deregulation, it also recognized 
that something needed to be done to protect rural communities. They 
were not the most profitable routes for air carriers, so the idea was 
to maintain a minimum level of service. That is where the Essential Air 
Service Program came in. The program provided modest subsidies to air 
carriers to provide service to communities that would have otherwise 
lost all air service through deregulation. Since 1978, the Essential 
Air Service Program has successfully guaranteed small communities that 
were served by certified air carriers before deregulation that this 
would maintain a minimum level of scheduled air service. The program 
has been a vital link for rural America.
  There are very real consequences to eliminating this program for my 
constituents, especially in the 44 communities served by the EAS 
Program. Let me show you this poster. This poster shows Alaska's 
limited road infrastructure. Eighty-two percent of Alaska's communities 
are not on the road system and rely on aviation as a primary means of 
transportation, for goods, people, mail. It all has to come by 
aircraft. Let me not confuse those who are watching. We did not 
oversize the State of Alaska. Alaska does not sit down here by 
California or in a little box somewhere. This is actually the size of 
Alaska in comparison to the lower 48.
  The red lines show the road network. You can imagine the road network 
that would be shown in the lower 48. But this is all of the road 
network we have. So for the rest of the State it is by air or boat. 
People in communities face some of the highest costs of living in the 
country. Rural Alaskans cannot drive to a Safeway when they need 
something. There are no roads, and there are no Safeways. If you 
eliminate the EAS Program, it is going to drive these prices even 
higher in rural Alaska.
  Gary Williams, from the village of Kake, sent me a letter about what 
the McCain amendment would mean for his community. By the way, the EAS 
ensures Kake receives at least three weekly flights from a small Cessna 
208 aircraft during the winter. Again, this is not a jetliner. Maybe in 
Alaska we think a Cessna 208 is a jetliner, but that is a very small 
plane.

[[Page S660]]

  Gary Williams in Kake says:

       I frankly cannot imagine being without service. It would 
     isolate and cripple us on many levels.

  In addition to eliminating the only source of transportation for many 
communities, Senator McCain's amendment would actually put people out 
of work. It would hurt small businesses in Alaska and across this 
country. It is truly a job-killing amendment.
  I wish to read from a letter my office received from the owner of 
PenAir. PenAir is a family-owned business, started in 1955 by a young 
19-year-old teenager named Orin Seybert. When Orin started his business 
in 1955, he had a two-seat Taylorcraft and a four-seat Piper Tri-Pacer. 
Orin is a great example of the pioneering spirit that embodies Alaska. 
Over the years Orin grew the business into a successful regional air 
carrier, serving communities throughout rural Alaska. PenAir is now run 
by Orin's son Danny. This is a letter from Danny Seybert, the president 
of PenAir:

       For many of these communities, PenAir is the only scheduled 
     passenger air service link to the rest of the world.

  He goes on to say if the McCain amendment is passed, it:

     would have a devastating effect on many remote communities in 
     Alaska, on many air carriers who provide those communities 
     with air transportation services, and on Alaska's economy.

  Here is an e-mail my office received from the Copper Valley Air 
Service. Copper Valley flies two EAS routes serving the communities of 
McCarthy and May Creek. The e-mails read:

       If this amendment is approved, it will put Copper Valley 
     Air Service out of business. It will cost eight jobs. This 
     cannot pass.

  This is an e-mail from Bruce Phillips, the chief pilot of Wings of 
Alaska: Repealing EAS would ``not only diminish jobs and raise costs, 
but also potentially abolish air service to some communities entirely. 
Villages in Southeast Alaska have no roads and limited, if any, ferry 
service making air service a lifeline. This is how they receive 
everything from medication to mail to groceries as well as how they 
travel for medical, personal and business.''
  I have got a stack of these letters that my office has received in 
the past few days from communities that would lose air service if the 
McCain amendment is adopted, from individuals in the communities who 
are terrified about what this would mean for the price of goods in 
their communities, from those worried about the cost of air travel if 
they get sick and they need to seek medical attention at a hospital, 
and from small air carriers worried that they will either have to lay 
off employees or go under altogether.
  I ask unanimous consent that some of these letters be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                              Norton Sound Health Corporation,

                                       Nome, AK, February 2, 2011.
     Senator Mark Begich,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Begich: We are extremely concerned and worried 
     by Senator McCain's efforts to repeal EAS in Alaska. We know 
     that these efforts will more than double ticket prices within 
     rural Alaska. Just for our Materials Management department 
     alone we spent over $46,000 in freight from October 2009 to 
     October 2010. Norton Sound Health Corporations expenditures 
     for freight, company-wide exceed $250,000 for that same time 
     period.
       We are asking you to please speak against the repeal of EAS 
     in Alaska. People in rural Alaska will be terribly affected 
     by the repeal if it passes. Recruitment and retention for 
     medical professional staff is dependent on our ability to fly 
     staff and household goods to our region. If passed, the 
     repeal will more than double the costs of transporting goods, 
     patients, critical service workers and will have an 
     insurmountable affect on an already challenged economic 
     situation in rural Alaska.
       At Norton Sound Health Corporation we rely completely on 
     travel to provide critical patient access to and from our 
     villages. Air transport is the only way to bring patients 
     into Nome, our regional hub, and to Anchorage, when needed, 
     for appointments. We rely entirely on the Essential Air 
     Services for keeping the cost of transporting medicine and 
     supplies to an already exorbitant minimum.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Carol J. Piscoya,
     President/CEO.
                                  ____



                              NANA Regional Corporation, Inc.,

                                                 February 2, 2011.
     Hon. Mark Begich,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Begich: I am writing you to express NANA 
     Regional Corporation's (NANA) opposition to Senate Amendment 
     4 to S. 223, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Air 
     Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act, 
     which proposes elimination of the Essential Air Service (EAS) 
     program. Dismantling the EAS program will create an 
     unreasonable burden on rural Alaskans; further increasing the 
     already high cost of living, further limiting rural 
     residents' access to basic services, and potentially 
     increasing rural Alaska's already high rate of unemployment.
       As you know, the majority of communities in Alaska are not 
     connected by any road system. Many of these communities are 
     surrounded by lands that are federally protected from basic 
     roadway transportation infrastructure or located in areas 
     where building bridges is not economically feasible. Weather 
     also limits transportation to many of these areas of the 
     state.
       Air transportation is the only year-round means of 
     accessing most rural Alaska communities. Air freight brings 
     essentials supplies like food, home heating fuel, 
     transportation fuel, construction materials, vehicles, 
     medical supplies and other goods and services to our 
     villages. Even with EAS in place, the cost of air 
     transportation affects all aspects of rural Alaskans' lives, 
     affecting the consumer price of most goods. Transportation 
     costs dramatically affect the cost of living in Kotzebue, the 
     NANA region's hub village, where the cost of living is 61 
     percent higher than Anchorage, Alaska's most urban city 
     located on a road system.
       In addition to living costs, the cost of air transportation 
     affects rural Alaskans' ability to access basic services that 
     are available to urban Americans or Americans connected to a 
     road system. Air transportation is often the only access that 
     rural Alaskan's have to critical medical care that cannot be 
     supplied locally. Public safety is also affected by access to 
     air transportation. Many communities do not have local public 
     safety officers and, in the event of an incident, public 
     safety officers have to be flown into communities.
       The EAS program exists to ensure rural communities have 
     access to air transportation services despite the fact that 
     they have a limited number of passengers to offer certain air 
     carriers. As you know, 45 communities in Alaska receive 
     financial support from the EAS program and with most of these 
     areas receiving guaranteed service, even if it is not 
     subsidized, because of the EAS program.
       The EAS program has a profound economic affect on our 
     region and all of rural Alaska, creating reliable air service 
     and making air transportation affordable for most rural 
     Alaskans. Eliminating this essential program would create 
     further barriers to the success of the most rural reaches of 
     our state. Organizations in Alaska, including NANA, are 
     working hard to create viable rural economies. Eradicating 
     the EAS program would strike a significant blow to the 
     progress these organizations have been able to make.
       It is important for citizens of the United States to have 
     reasonable access to the rest of the country. EAS guarantees 
     Alaskans, who are citizens of this great nation, the same 
     access afforded to Americans who live in areas of the country 
     where the federal government has spent trillions of dollars 
     to develop surface transportation alternatives. Preserving 
     the EAS program will ensure that our rural Alaska communities 
     are not forgotten as Congress and the federal government work 
     to improve our national economy. NANA supports the EAS 
     program and it is our hope that SA 4 to S. 223 will be 
     defeated.
           Taikuu,
                                                  Marie N. Greene,
     President/CEO.
                                  ____



                                          Calista Corporation,

                                  Anchorage, AK, February 1, 2011.
     Re SB 223 Repealing Essential Air Service.

     Senator Mark Begich,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Honorable Senator Begich: Senator McCain has introduced 
     amendments to bill S. 223, to modernize the air traffic 
     control system, improve safety, reliability, availability of 
     air transportation in the United States, provide air traffic 
     control modernization, reauthorize Federal Aviation 
     Administration, and repeal Essential Air Service subsidy 
     program (EAS). We strongly oppose any actions to repeal the 
     EAS program for the eligible communities for which it was 
     intended for.
       The essential in EAS is just that: ``Essential'' to the 
     access, survival, and economy of isolated and rural 
     communities throughout America, as well as Alaska which do 
     not have alternatives:
       The EAS program was intended for--and has successfully 
     kept--scheduled air service to those cities and rural Alaskan 
     communities that were served at the time of deregulation, 
     and, which would otherwise lose or have lost ALL air service 
     after the airline deregulation of 1978, and in any 
     anticipated subsequent and more recently poor market 
     conditions.
       EAS ensures small communities served by air carriers before 
     the deregulation, can maintain minimal service to retain 
     their

[[Page S661]]

     link to the national air transportation system. It guarantees 
     air service even during: low passenger volumes; low 
     profitability to air carriers; less than ideal operating 
     conditions (great distances and remote areas, weather, and 
     mountainous terrain); and periods where air carriers will 
     simply leave for better, easier, and more profitable market 
     areas.
       EAS provides and maintains stability to the National 
     Aviation Transportation System and network in America, by 
     ensuring the system is not overly modified or changed 
     suddenly, again simply due to carrier profitability in some 
     communities or areas at the expense of those smaller and less 
     profitable markets.
       EAS keeps ticket prices to MANY smaller rural communities 
     down. As an example, even with EAS subsidies, ticket costs to 
     some communities can be over $1,100, such as Adak, Alaska, 
     and other cities ranging in population from 35,000 to a few 
     hundred. Nearly every community in Southeast Alaska depends 
     on EAS to receive jet and even any scheduled air service in 
     that area. Without EAS, ticket prices would more than DOUBLE 
     costs of air travel to RURAL communities throughout Alaska; 
     as well as in many cities throughout the U.S.
       In Alaska, EAS provides funding subsidies to 44 of 300+ 
     communities, with 38 of those relying on aircraft as the 
     primary access and transport mode because there is NO other 
     transportation access alternative--they are completely 
     isolated from any roads.
       The EAS program provides an average $285,559 community 
     subsidy in Alaska, as compared to the average subsidy in 
     other U.S. communities of $1,495,505. Other U.S. communities 
     actually have roads and other transportation mode options and 
     backup.
       Unlike most parts of the U.S. with a long history of 
     infrastructure building and access to well established 
     National Transportation System roads, highways, railroads, 
     buses, ferries, and airports; Alaska is a new state and the 
     only state in the union where a majority (82 percent) of our 
     300+ remote communities are inaccessible and unlikely (due to 
     being largely or entirely surrounded by Federal wilderness, 
     preserves, park, and restricted lands) to ever become 
     accessible by roads! This problem was realized during the 
     original drafting, debates, and establishment of the EAS 
     program. Airports and airways in Alaska have had to by 
     necessity, had to serve as `highways' in order to provide 
     reliable, scheduled air service that would become essential 
     to the health, safety, economy, and literally survival of 
     people living in our state. We have 8 times the enplanements 
     and 39 times the freight per capita compared to the rest of 
     the U.S.; and aviation provides 1 in 10 jobs and is the 5th 
     largest employer in Alaska.
       Even the smallest of air carriers often provides a full or 
     part time job in most communities they serve assisting with 
     schedules, passengers, and cargo; while, each runway and 
     airport also has an employee to maintain and operate the 
     smallest of facilities. Airport, carrier, and related service 
     positions provide critical jobs that help support the economy 
     and rural communities.
       A better solution (rather than repeal an entire important 
     program such as EAS), would be updating the criteria utilized 
     for EAS eligibility; as well as, including consideration of 
     what nearby airports, carriers', and modes of transportation 
     communities have for access options to receive EAS program 
     funds.
       In summary, complete elimination of EAS could destabilize 
     some small communities, would have an extremely negative 
     impact on the integrity of Alaska's interconnected aviation 
     system, and seriously reduce air service. EAS has been and 
     will continue to be critical for the aviation transportation 
     system network, provides important jobs, and enables access 
     for rural isolated communities across America.
       Thank you for your attention and consideration to this 
     serious matter. Please do not hesitate to contact us with 
     questions, or if we can assist in defending this essential 
     program (907) 644-6309.
           Sincerely,
                                             Christine Klein, AAE,
     Executive Vice President & COO.
                                  ____



                                    Organized Village of Kake,

                                       Kake, AK, February 1, 2011.
     Re Essential Air Service to Rural Alaska.

     Senator Mark Begich,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
                                                   Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Begich: Our office received word late this 
     afternoon that was released by the Alaska Air Carriers 
     Association, reporting that a bill (or amendment to a bill) 
     is being introduced in the Senate for the repeal of the 
     Essential Air Service program. This program serves rural 
     areas throughout the U.S., including many areas in Alaska. 
     Further, we understand that you will be speaking tomorrow 
     against this bill; thus, we are providing this letter in the 
     hope that it can assist your efforts, and we are confident 
     similar efforts from Senator Murkowski and Congressman Young.
       As fellow Alaskans, we all know the need to retain the 
     Essential Air Service program for our rural areas. Loss of 
     the program would be crippling to the many rural communities 
     that rely on it--its title so accurately describes its 
     function--it is ``essential'' to the health & welfare, 
     economy, education, and the list goes on and on. All of these 
     communities are an integral part of the fabric of Alaska and 
     we cannot let them be unjustly harmed, which would surely 
     occur if a necessity as basic as transportation is crippled.
       Each community has a story, with many similar needs around 
     the State, and ample justification to retain the Essential 
     Air Service Program. Allow me to briefly share our situation, 
     with the hope that it can assist in the defense of this 
     important and essential program. The community of Kake is 
     located on an island in Southeast Alaska and is without road 
     access to other communities. We are extremely reliant on safe 
     and effective air service for basic transportation to/from 
     other cities for health care, business, education, pleasure, 
     etc.--essentially any goods or services that require a 
     transportation connection. In addition to passengers and 
     freight, reliable and daily delivery of U.S. mail to/from 
     Kake is critical for both business and personal. The reasons 
     for this necessary service to Kake are based on essential 
     requirements that will allow the community to function and 
     live in today's society--with an adequate number of daily 
     flights absolutely required to meet those needs.
       Please feel free to contact our office for further 
     information and as always, thank you for your efforts on 
     behalf of our community and others around our great state.
           Sincerely,
                                              Casimero A. Aceveda,
     President.
                                  ____



                                                       PenAir,

                                  Anchorage, AK, February 1, 2011.
     Re Essential Air Service in the State of Alaska.

     Hon. Mark Begich,
     U.S. Senator, Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Begich: I am President and Chief Executive 
     Officer of Peninsula Airways, Inc. (``PenAir''), the largest 
     commuter airline in Alaska with several hundred employees. 
     PenAir provides critical passenger, cargo, and mail services 
     to dozens of remote communities throughout southwestern 
     Alaska, from the Aleutian Islands in the west to Unalakleet 
     in the north, to our base at Anchorage in the east. For many 
     of these remote communities, PenAir is the only scheduled 
     passenger air service link to the rest of the world.
       It has come to our attention that an amendment has been 
     proposed in the U.S. Senate to eliminate the federal 
     government's Essential Air Service (``EAS'') Program. Such an 
     amendment, if passed, would have a devastating effect on many 
     remote communities in Alaska, on many air carriers who 
     provide those communities with air transportation service, 
     and on Alaska's economy. Accordingly, PenAir respectfully 
     asks that you vigorously oppose any such amendment.
       The EAS Program was established by the U.S. Congress to 
     ensure that smaller communities would retain a link to the 
     national air transportation system even if federal subsidies 
     were necessary to maintain such service. It is a particularly 
     important program for Alaska because, as you well know, the 
     federal government's ownership of lands in Alaska and the 
     limited access to those lands means that air transportation 
     is the only way to reach most rural communities in Alaska.
       For its part, PenAir currently provides subsidized 
     essential air service to the remote communities of Akutan, 
     Atka, and Nikolski. Other small and large air carriers 
     provide subsidized air service to dozens of other communities 
     throughout Alaska.
       Without the EAS Program and corresponding federal 
     subsidies, service to these remote Alaskan communities would 
     simply not be economically viable, and therefore these 
     services--including PenAir's scheduled Atka, Nikolski, and 
     Akutan service--would be discontinued. As a result, the 
     residents and businesses in these communities would lose 
     their only scheduled passenger air transportation service, 
     effectively cutting them off. PenAir would also be compelled 
     to reduce the ranks of its employees and its aircraft fleet 
     as its route network contracted with the discontinuation of 
     these essential air services. And, of course, with the loss 
     of these scheduled passenger air services and the jobs 
     associated with those services, Alaska's economy would suffer 
     greatly as well. In sum, the elimination or repeal of the EAS 
     Program would have devastating effects on the remote EAS 
     communities in Alaska that rely on these services and on the 
     air carriers that serve them.
       PenAir therefore respectfully asks that you vigorously 
     oppose any such elimination or repeal of the EAS Program.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Danny Seybert,
     President.
                                  ____

       To Whom It May Concern: I would like to express my immense 
     concern over Senator McCain's amendment to bill 223 proposing 
     to repeal Essential Air Service. This would not only diminish 
     jobs and raise costs but also potentially abolish air service 
     to some communities entirely. Villages in Southeast Alaska 
     have no roads and limited, if any, ferry service making air 
     service a lifeline. This is how they receive everything from 
     medication to mail to groceries as well as how they travel 
     for medical, personal and business.
       Air carriers cannot afford to personally subsidize service 
     into small communities whose population is not great enough 
     to support air service. Disruption in air service

[[Page S662]]

     will have deep reaching effects that are far removed from 
     simply loss of airline service, loss of airline service may 
     well affect the viability of some communities that we 
     presently serve.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Bruce Phillips,
     Chief Pilot.
                                  ____



                                                  40-Mile Air,

                                  Fairbanks, AK, February 1, 2011.
       To Whom It May Concern: We serve two communities under an 
     Essential Air Service contract Then communities are in 
     remote, road less areas of Alaska. These communities, others 
     like them and businesses like ours will be economically 
     devastated if the Essential Air Service contract was to end.
       Their ability to get essential things, like groceries and 
     medications will become very difficult and cost prohibitive. 
     I believe communities that do not have year round roads 
     should continue to receive Essential Air Service subsidies.
       Thank you for your time and consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Leif Wilson,
     President.
                                  ____



                                              Alaska Airlines,

                                    Seattle, WA, February 2, 2011.
     Hon. Mark Begich,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington DC.
       Dear Senator Begich: We are writing to express our concerns 
     regarding Senator McCain's proposed amendment to the pending 
     FAA reauthorization bill to repeal the Department of 
     Transportation's Essential Air Service program. Given the 
     vital importance of the EAS program to the state of Alaska, 
     we are opposed to any modifications to the program that in 
     any way affect EAS service in the state.
       The EAS program is part of the critical transportation 
     infrastructure in the state of Alaska. On a statewide basis, 
     the EAS program provides compensation for service by 13 
     carriers to 47 communities. Quite understandably, no other 
     state has comparable air service needs. Without it, many 
     parts of the state would suffer from lack of connectivity to 
     the larger cities within the state and beyond. Alaska 
     Airlines operates under two EAS agreements in the state of 
     Alaska, one to serve Adak and the other to serve the 
     Southeast Alaska communities of Cordova, Gustavus, Wrangell, 
     Petersburg and Yakutat. Under these agreements, we connect 
     these communities on a single-flight basis to our Anchorage, 
     Juneau and Seattle hubs, providing for both their passenger 
     and cargo needs. It also bears mentioning that, in enacting 
     EAS legislation, Congress recognized the state of Alaska's 
     special needs by providing that the EAS program would 
     uniquely cover cargo as well as passenger service in the 
     state. As you are very much aware, these EAS communities are 
     extremely remote and not accessible by road. Air service is 
     truly ``essential'' for them.
       Alaska's air service to Adak and these Southeast Alaska 
     communities would simply not be economically feasible without 
     EAS compensation. Alaska Airlines, having provided EAS 
     service to these communities for decades, views its 
     relationship with them as extending well beyond a traditional 
     commercial airline relationship. The company readily 
     acknowledges its special continuing obligation to serve as 
     their vital transportation link to our hubs within the state 
     and beyond. The EAS program is critical to our ability to 
     provide such service.
       We sincerely appreciate your support for the program and 
     respectfully encourage you to oppose Senator McCain's 
     amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                     W. L. MacKay,
     Senior Vice President.
                                  ____

                                                        Alaska Air


                                         Carriers Association,

                                  Anchorage, AK, February 2, 2011.
     Hon. Mark Begich,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Begich: The Essential Air Services program 
     allows 45 communities in Alaska to be connected to life 
     sustaining services. Alaska is approximately \1/3\ of the 
     communities served under EAS contracts, however, expenses to 
     serve these 45 communities are less than 10% of the EAS 
     program.
       Alaska has the largest aviation system in the US, which 
     includes 700 airports and 1,200 airstrips. Over 10,000 
     aircraft are registered in the State of Alaska. These 
     aircraft are the backbone of transportation for the State. 
     Alaska is served by 304 certificated carriers, of which over 
     90% employ less than 10 employees.
       Eighty-two percent of our communities are not accessible by 
     road and rely on air transport for all life sustaining goods 
     and services. Alaska's people travel by air eight times more 
     often per capita than those in rural areas of the Lower 48, 
     and ship 39 times more freight per capita--nearly one ton per 
     person per year.
       Aviation in Alaska provides $3.5 billion to the State's 
     economy, is eight percent of the Gross State Product, and is 
     the fifth largest employer in the State, employing 10% of our 
     total workforce.
       Since 1966 the Alaska Air Carriers Association (AACA) has 
     represented the interests of aviation businesses in Alaska. 
     AACA is a statewide organization representing over 150 
     members. Our members meet the needs of the traveling public 
     and rural Alaskans by providing scheduled commuter travel, 
     on-demand air charter, cargo transport, mail delivery, 
     emergency medical evacuation, flight seeing, pilot training, 
     aircraft maintenance, parts sales, fuel sales, storage, 
     rental, and airline servicing.
       Please help insure that the viability of communities in 
     Alaska and small businesses struggling to survive are not 
     unfairly swept away or categorized alongside communities on 
     road systems in the Lower 48.
           Sincerely,
     C. Joy Journeay,
       Executive Director.
     Gerard H. Rock,
       President.
                                  ____



                                 Alaska Federation of Natives,

                                 Anchorage, AK, February 13, 2011.
     Re AFN Board Resolution 11-04, Supporting the Continued 
         Funding of Essential Air Services per S. 223.

     Hon. Mark Begich,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Begich: On behalf of the Alaska Federation of 
     Natives (AFN), thank you for opposing the proposed McCain 
     amendment repealing Essential Air Services (EAS) as it 
     affects the air transportation services to communities in 
     rural Alaska. EAS is a program that was set in place when the 
     airline industry was deregulated, and it was intended to 
     provide a notice and subsidy when community (that had 
     regularly scheduled service as of 1978) received notice that 
     it would no longer receive regularly scheduled air service.
       The significance of the EAS program in Alaska is that it 
     provides a vital link that connects, sustains, and maintains 
     our communities in rural Alaska. The communities that depend 
     on EAS would be effectively cut off from the rest of the 
     United States resulting in the cessation or decreased 
     delivery of mail, food, and fuel to most rural parts of the 
     United States, and particularly in rural Alaska, if the 
     McCain Amendment is enacted.
       The attached AFN Board Resolution 11-04 was passed 
     unanimously by the Board of Directors of AFN in a duly called 
     meeting where a quorum was present. This resolution fully 
     supports your efforts on the floor of the U.S. Senate as the 
     U.S. Senate is considering S. 223. Keep up the good fight!
           Sincerely,
                                                   Julie E. Kitka,
     President.
                                  ____


                            Resolution 11-04

       Supporting the Continued Funding of Essential Air Service

       Whereas: The U.S. Senate is considering S. 223 to 
     ``modernize the air traffic control system, improve the 
     safety, reliability, and availability of transportation by 
     air in the United States, provide for modernization of the 
     air traffic control system, reauthorize the Federal Aviation 
     Administration, and for other purposes;'' and
       Whereas: Senator John McCain has proposed an amendment to 
     repeal Essential Air Service (EAS), and its repeal will 
     likely have a negative impact on air transportation and 
     communities in rural Alaska; and
       Whereas: EAS provides a vital link that connects, sustains, 
     and maintains our communities; and
       Whereas: Alaska is a vast state, with millions of acres of 
     wilderness and has few transportation options and ground 
     transportation is non-existent to most rural communities; and
       Whereas: EAS is a program that was set in place when the 
     airline industry was deregulated, and it was intended to 
     provide a notice and subsidy when community (that had 
     regularly scheduled service as of 1978) received notice that 
     it would no longer receive regularly scheduled air service; 
     and
       Whereas: The communities that depend on EAS would be 
     effectively cut off from the rest of the United States, which 
     would result in the cessation or decreased delivery of mail, 
     food, and fuel to the most rural parts of the United States; 
     and
       Now therefore be it Resolved by the Board of Directors of 
     the Alaska Federation of Natives, That it conveys its thanks 
     and support to the Alaska Congressional Delegation for its 
     support and effort to maintain the Essential Air Service 
     (EAS) as it now exists and respectfully urges them to 
     continue to oppose any legislation repealing EAS as it 
     applies to Alaska.

     Passed This Day, 10th of February 2011.
                                                   Julia E. Kitka,
                                                        President.

  Mr. BEGICH. It is easy to call this wasteful if you do not understand 
the needs of rural communities. They do not have any other means of 
transportation. When he introduced the amendment, my friend in Arizona 
suggested that folks are bypassing Essential Air Service flights to 
drive to a hub and the hub airports, where they can get cheaper fares 
to more destinations. Consider how that applies in my State. For the 
community of Adak, in the Aleutian Islands, the connection to the 
nearest medium hub is Anchorage. I laugh a little bit, because I want 
to put this truly in perspective. It is almost 1,200 miles.

[[Page S663]]

  So if one wants to, as Senator McCain says, drive to the hub, they 
can't do that because they are here. In order to get to here, they have 
to go by air or catch a boat, assuming the weather is good. So his 
analysis that the people are just driving off to these hubs and 
catching flights that are cheaper is inaccurate. He is unfamiliar, 
obviously, with what is going on in Alaska.
  To put the number in perspective, it is about the same distance from 
Los Angeles to Houston, except, unlike Los Angeles and Houston, there 
are no roads between these two places.
  I agree with Senator McCain that we need to do something to address 
our Nation's budget deficit. Before I started this conversation, I made 
some comments on things I have done, and I will continue to work on 
that. But I don't believe we should balance the Federal budget on the 
backs of communities and people facing some of the highest costs of 
living and the toughest conditions in the country, and that is exactly 
what the McCain amendment would do.
  When Senator McCain introduced this amendment, he cited a July 2009 
GAO report and suggested that the EAS has outlived its usefulness. I 
have that very same report. Sometimes when people make speeches, they 
read selectively. I wish to go to page 2 of this report. There, the GAO 
said:

       Our review focused on communities within the continental 
     United States--

  We like to refer to them as the lower 48--

     that received EAS subsidized service. We focused our review 
     on these communities because the requirements for communities 
     in Alaska are different than for communities in other states, 
     and airports outside the contiguous states are not 
     representative of the program in the rest of the country.

  I can't speak for Senator McCain's constituents in the four 
communities in Arizona that receive Essential Air Service. Maybe the 
folks of Kingman, Page, Prescott, and Show Low, AZ, who receive EAS 
don't think it is necessary. I am not sure if Senator McCain has 
checked with them; maybe that is how they feel. But I can speak for 
rural Alaskans who have contacted my office, who are terrified about 
this amendment and what it would mean for their community, for their 
way of life, for the very health and well-being of their families. We 
are in the midst of a recovery from an economic collapse. It makes no 
sense to eliminate a valuable program that helps rural America and puts 
small business to work.
  This amendment would take us in the wrong direction. I strongly urge 
my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. 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. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         The President's Budget

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, each year the President presents a budget. 
It is the beginning of the formal conversation about what next year's 
budget will be, and each President presents their offering and their 
suggestion. Then, of course, the House and the Senate have to try to 
reach an agreement as to what the actual budget will be. The President 
suggests a bottom line in spending, and then the House and the Senate 
make appropriations decisions within that bottom line.
  Today, President Obama kicked off this conversation by presenting his 
budget to America. He presented it at a time when he faces two very 
significant challenges: how to create more jobs and less debt. It is a 
tough balancing act because we know that to reduce the debt, we need to 
reduce spending. What the President reminds us is, let's not cut 
spending in areas that are critical for the growth of our economy and 
the creation of good-paying jobs in America.
  The unemployment rate is about 9 percent. Mr. President, 13.9 million 
Americans are out of work. In Illinois, it is 9.3 percent, with 620,000 
people actively looking for jobs. Too many people want to work so they 
can keep a roof over their heads but cannot find a job.
  At the same time, though, we have a $14 trillion debt. I hope the 
Presiding Officer will forgive me for a little history because I think 
it is worth noting when we talk about the debt of America how we have 
reached the point we are at today.
  The fact is, 10 years ago--10 years ago--when President William 
Jefferson Clinton left office, the debt of America was $5 trillion. The 
President said to his successor, President George W. Bush: The budget 
is in surplus as I leave office. We are collecting more money than we 
are spending in Washington, and we project a $120 billion surplus in 
the next fiscal year. Welcome to Washington, President Bush.
  Now fast-forward 8 years later--the next transition, from President 
George W. Bush to President Obama. What was the state of play? The 
national debt was no longer $5 trillion; 8 years later, it was $12 
trillion--$12 trillion. President George W. Bush said to President 
Obama: Welcome to Washington. I can't give you a surplus, but I can 
give you a deficit of $1.2 trillion for the next fiscal year.
  In 8 years, what a massive turn of events. How did we go from a $5 
trillion debt to a $12 trillion debt? How did we go from surplus to 
deep deficit in 8 years? Well, you do it by waging two wars you do not 
pay for, being the first President in history to call for tax cuts in 
the middle of a war, and by creating programs, such as the Medicare 
prescription drug program, that are not paid for. Put those policies 
together, and you end up with the sorry state of affairs President 
Obama inherited. Now that deficit has gone from $4 trillion to $14 
trillion because of the recession he inherited, and we are still 
struggling to get out from this mountain of debt that was created 
during the 8 years of the President George W. Bush administration and 
continues to this day.
  So President Obama is trying to strike the right balance: How do you 
responsibly go after a deficit that calls on us to borrow 40 cents for 
every $1 we spend and at the same time not kill the economic recovery? 
So he has tried to parse out those things that he thinks and I agree 
are critical for economic growth: education, innovation, and building 
America's infrastructure. He has done it with this budget and I think 
done it in a responsible way. He calls for freezing our spending for 5 
years, which will save us $400 billion off of the anticipated deficit, 
and he also talks about in the same period of time reducing the amount 
of money for domestic discretionary spending to a level, as a 
percentage of GDP, where it was under President Eisenhower back in the 
1950s. We understand there is more to do, but I think the President 
sets out on a course that is responsible. We will change it--we always 
do--but I think the goals he has given us are worthy goals.
  We know we have to act on our fiscal situation. I was appointed by 
the majority leader to be a member of the President's deficit 
commission. With Erskine Bowles, a former chief counsel to the 
President, and Alan Simpson, our former colleague in the Senate, our 
bipartisan Commission studied it for 10 months and came up with a 
proposal that we should deal with this budget deficit in a sensible 
way.
  One of the things they suggested and I agreed with is, let's not cut 
too soon. If you cut too soon in some areas, you are going to spoil the 
recovery, you are going to slow down the recovery. You have to make 
sure the investments are there that will help us build jobs.
  Now, the House Republicans see things differently. They started 
calling for cuts in spending and then were trumped within their own 
membership to raise those cuts to a level of about $100 billion. Among 
the things the House Republicans want to cut are the following: $74 
million from the Small Business Administration at a time when small 
businesses are turning to the SBA for loans so they can stay in 
business and hire more people; $1.4 billion from the clean water 
revolving loan fund that local communities use for basic infrastructure 
so they have good, clean drinking water for the families in their 
communities; $600 million in TIGER II grants. These were grants that 
went directly from Washington to local units of government--no 
middleman involved at any State capital--for

[[Page S664]]

economic development. We need them in my State in communities such as 
Peoria and Moline. They also want to cut $2.5 billion from high-speed 
rail. That is a national project of significance that hires thousands 
of private sector employees who would be out of work if the House 
Republicans have their way.
  In education, the House Republicans would cut $1.1 billion from Head 
Start. How many people have to remind us if we don't intervene in the 
lives of small children from families at risk, that those kids, sadly, 
may end up as poor students or worse. Head Start gives them a chance, 
and it is one of the first programs the Republicans called to cut.

  They propose to cut $700 million from schools across America serving 
disadvantaged students. They are going to have to lay off 10,000 
teachers because of this House Republican cut.
  House Republicans also call for an $845-per-student cut in Pell 
grants for 8 million college students across America. There is a way 
for us to make sure Pell grants are well spent, but cutting the 
assistance for these students will discourage some from the training 
and education they need to find a job in the future.
  House Republicans propose to cut $1.5 billion from grants to States 
for job training. Again, at a time when we need new skills, when many 
people have lost a job to which they can never return, cutting this 
money could be very tragic.
  Then, when it comes to research and development, I think the House 
Republicans have lost their way. They want to cut $300 billion from the 
National Science Foundation, cutting grants to researchers, teachers, 
and students across America.
  They want to cut $1 billion from the National Institutes of Health. 
What are they thinking, to cut $1 billion in medical research funds 
from the National Institutes of Health? If there is ever an area where 
we cannot lose our edge, not only for the good of humanity but for the 
good of our own people, it is in medical research. That is one of the 
first areas the Republicans turn to, to cut $1 billion; and money from 
the Office of Science at the Department of Energy, $1.1 billion. That 
is research for innovation in areas such as batteries for electric 
vehicles and other forms of clean energy, and that is clearly the 
future. What the Republicans want to cut, sadly, is too much in areas 
that promise a better future for America. We can do better.
  Government can't directly create jobs at the pace we need to get this 
economy moving forward, but we can make the right investments. For 
example, infrastructure. In Illinois, we need to make sure we invest in 
high-speed rail. I am glad our State was chosen. It is going to mean 
more and more passenger service within our State, fewer cars on the 
highway, more construction. Ultimately, it is a benefit to the 
environment. So high-speed rail is an important infrastructure 
investment.
  Modernizing O'Hare Airport, not just for the flight times so they 
will be more on time for arrivals and departures, but also for safety--
the modernization of O'Hare needs to continue.
  We need to have safer roads and bridges.
  We need broadband across Illinois and across America so small towns 
have the same advantages as big cities.
  We need to put money into Head Start for education.
  We can do this. There is waste in this government to be cut. We can 
work on that together and find it, but let's not eliminate the jobs of 
teachers whom we need so badly or the money for elementary and 
secondary schools or grants for families and loans to help them put 
their kids through college, and worker training. These are things where 
the President has the right priorities and, sadly, the House 
Republicans do not. It is a sharp contrast. It is an important debate, 
and it is one we will hear on the floor of the Senate and the House in 
the weeks ahead.
  We can reduce our debt. I think the President is right. His budget 
would reduce projected deficits by $1.1 trillion over the next 10 
years. He wants to freeze nonsecurity discretionary spending for 5 
years, and I think he has shown leadership in making that proposal. We 
need to work with him to come up with a bipartisan plan that reaches 
our goal of reducing debt in America while still creating jobs.
  I went through that exercise with the deficit commission. I didn't 
agree completely with their product, but I thought it was a move in the 
right direction and I joined the bipartisan group of 11 who supported 
it. The fiscal commission report was called the moment of truth, and it 
was. With funding for the current fiscal year unresolved, with the next 
fiscal year looming, and with the debt ceiling within shouting 
distance, this is a seminal moment for the fiscal and economic future 
of America.
  I commend the President for his approach in the fiscal year 2012 
budget proposal. Just as America has faced down great challenges 
throughout our history, we can do this too. We can meet the dual 
challenges of more jobs and less debt. It takes leadership and 
constructive activism and realism. Bringing those together, Democrats 
and Republicans can work together to make equally painful but important 
political sacrifices. It will take a lot of work, but we can do it if 
we work together.
  Mr. President, 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. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________