[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.
____________________