[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 16, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S768-S783]
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 assistant legislative 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
modernization of the air traffic control system, reauthorize
the Federal Aviation Administration, and for other purposes.
Pending:
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 modified amendment No. 7, to provide for an increase
in the number of slots available at Ronald Reagan Washington
National Airport.
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.
Udall (NM) modified amendment No. 49, to authorize Dona Ana
County, New Mexico, to exchange certain land conveyed to the
County for airport purposes.
Udall (NM) modified 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.
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.
Rockefeller (for Baucus) further modified amendment No. 75,
of a perfecting nature.
Hutchison modified amendment No. 93 (to modified amendment
No. 7), to provide for an increase in the number of slots
available at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I wish to catch up the membership
on the floor and off the floor a little bit about where we are. We are
at midweek for a third week of consideration of the FAA reauthorization
bill. Last night, Senator Reid filed cloture on this bill. In a perfect
world we would have finished this bill already without filing cloture,
but we need to finish and that is what cloture motions are for. I will
support cloture, needless to say.
Senator Hutchison also filed cloture on an amendment that will bring
conclusion to a debate on slots at National Airport. I will talk about
that issue in more detail later. But I am saying right now slots are
very important but they do not need to consume all of the arguments and
all of the discussion on the floor about this bill. They are a very
small part of the bill--an important part of the bill, recognizing the
West has to be served much better than it is being--but it is not the
entire bill. It is a very small part of the bill.
Last night we disposed of two pending amendments by voice vote. I
believe we have made progress to resolve some of the pending
amendments, but votes will be required on several of them and I expect
we will have those votes today. Senator Hutchison and I are trying to
clear a number of other filed amendments. There were at one point 100
of them. I hope we can accept a number of them. I have heard from any
number of my colleagues on their amendments and I am trying to be
helpful in getting them adopted where they contribute to the bill.
I know Senator Hutchison is committed to supporting the bill. We need
to resolve the issue of slots. She has been working--we have all been
working diligently and almost exclusively on that matter, and we will
do this with a vote. We will resolve that issue.
After that vote we will vote on cloture, which I believe will pass
and I am extremely hopeful we will reach agreement to get this bill
done this week. The farthest possible day and most unhappy thought
would be if we had to go through the recess and do it on the day we
came back. I think it is far better that we get it done this week.
There is no excuse for not doing it.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, we now have, I think, a glidepath to
passing this important legislation. We worked late into the night,
Senator Rockefeller and I did, to try to accommodate needs, concerns,
amendments of Members. Now we have the cloture motion in play and hope
we can come to a real agreement on the Reagan Airport perimeter issue
so we could even do it before cloture is invoked--but hopefully, if we
are not
[[Page S769]]
able to come to a complete agreement, we would at least be able to get
cloture and move on.
I hope our Members know we are going to continue to work to address
everyone's concerns. We have concerns of western Senators and concerns
of Senators within the Washington, DC metropolitan area. We have small
community concerns and we have eastern seaboard community concerns. We
have been working for years, actually--but months and then weeks to
address concerns. We are open to do that. But it is time to wind this
bill up so we can go to conference with the House with a strong Senate
position and do the big picture policy issues that need to be
addressed.
We must have the next generation of air traffic control started. We
must have a satellite-based system that is for the whole world--for the
people coming into our country and the people using our airspace. We
need to have the safety and the consumer protections that are in this
bill. We need to have a responsible way for people from all over our
country to come into Reagan Washington National Airport while also
protecting the people around the area from congestion.
We have a lot of concerns. I think this is a good bill and it is
getting better every day. I do think we can come up with the right mix
that will put our aviation system in the forefront of the world because
half of the air traffic of the world comes into and out of the United
States. We certainly need to be the best and that is what this bill
will put us on the glidepath to do.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
supplemental carriers
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, the supplemental carriers provide a
valuable and unique service to our economy as well as our military's
ability to move troops and materiel around the world in a safe and
timely manner. Current flight and duty rules for carriers recognize
differences in operations and provide the necessary flexibility for
supplemental carriers, given the challenging worldwide environments
they operate in such as Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Iraq, and other Middle
East destinations.
Supplemental carriers have a long track record of safe operations. In
more than 15 years, the National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB, has
not cited fatigue as a primary cause in any nonscheduled/supplemental
airline accident while flying under supplemental rules, 14 CFR Part
121, subpart S. There have been no fatalities attributed to any
accident where fatigue was even remotely considered a contributing
factor.
In the months preceding FAA's notice of proposed rulemaking, the
agency's lack of interest in the operations of nonscheduled carriers
led many to believe their unique operating procedures and status as
small business entities would be addressed in a separate rulemaking.
FAA issued its notice of proposed rulemaking, NPRM, to the public on
September 14, 2010, and it was clear supplemental carriers were,
indeed, covered by the NPRM, but the impacts of this proposal on
supplemental carriers were not taken into consideration. This oversight
is unprecedented. The FAA collected data from scheduled carriers to
analyze their operations but acknowledged in the Regulatory Impact
Analysis that it collected no data from NACA's nonscheduled airlines.
FAA has a legal obligation to examine the impacts of this proposed rule
on all segments of industry, which they failed to do. In the coming
weeks and months I hope you will join me in encouraging the FAA to
consider supplemental carriers flying under subpart S separately in the
rulemaking proceeding.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I appreciate my colleague's concerns about how
supplemental carriers have been treated in the FAA's rulemaking process
dealing with pilot flight and duty time. As you are aware, modernizing
the pilot flight and duty regulations has been one of the highest
priorities of the FAA as well as many in Congress. In fact, when H.R.
5900 was signed into law last year by the President, Congress mandated
the FAA complete the final rule overhauling these regulations by August
1 of this year.
I agree that all the regulated parties affected by this and other
rulemakings should be treated fairly. I am willing to work with Senator
Inhofe, Senator Murkowski, and other interested parties to ensure
supplemental carriers receive fair and thorough consideration, and that
their industry data be considered, before any new rules for those
carriers are promulgated.
Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator for his gracious commitment to insure
that these carriers are treated fairly and in accordance with well
established precedent.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Let me catch up a bit on where we are. The Senate
has been working on this national slots issue for close to 1 year or it
may be 10 years. I don't know. It has been an awfully long time. But we
have been unable to achieve a resolution so far on the matter. That is
a problem.
When we began consideration of the FAA reauthorization bill, Senator
Hutchison and I decided we should focus on helping consumers. Everybody
was talking about helping airliners. We were talking about people.
Airliners fly around. People have to be able to do it. So we decided to
focus on them.
So we both believed the growth of Western States must be recognized.
I come from an Eastern State, sort of. The Presiding Officer comes from
an Eastern State, totally. But the growth is in the West. They are
underserved. That cannot be debated. It is embarrassing how few flights
there are back and forth between National and them. The National
Capital is a fairly important place. People need to go there, either
for tourism or for business or whatever, and we need more access to the
National Capital to be provided to the citizens from there on a ``both-
way'' basis.
So time is running short for the consideration of the FAA package.
This bill is too important to the country to let it languish over this
issue. It is virtually all we have talked about, and I regret that
because it does not reflect the nature and the priorities of the bill.
Unlike the national slot issue, the FAA bill has direct impacts on
the whole Nation all the time. It will help our economy now. It will
help our economy in the future with immediate job support and long-term
impact on our role in the global marketplace.
To move forward on the bill, Senator Hutchison offered a slots
amendment, a national slots amendment, that I feel offers a fair and
reasonable solution on this issue. Over the past 2\1/2\ weeks, she and
I have worked closely with other Members and their staffs in an effort
to achieve a compromise on this issue.
Many of their needs and ideas have been incorporated into her
amendment. It still may not be perfect, but it represents an attempt to
fairly balance the competing needs of Members and their constituents
inside and outside the perimeter. It is fascinating when people have it
in their minds that something has to happen. They have to have so many
flights or flights have to go to this city or that city or whatever.
Then people sort of get attached to airlines. They feel they have to
represent an airline.
I sort of thought we were here to represent the people of the States
from which we come but, more importantly, in some sense, the entire
country, particularly on an issue such as this.
Her amendment will permit some additional beyond-perimeter flights
shortly after enactment of the bill. Then this very interesting part
about the Department of Transportation, we have introduced that into
the bill. It is a very good part of the bill. The Department of
Transportation, which is neutral, which is professional, which is fully
engaged in all of this, is required to study the effect of those
flights over the next year.
Some people will say that is kind of a dodge. It is not kind of a
dodge. Because slots are so controversial, it takes the Department of
Transportation and their analysis to guide us about whether there is an
overload at National, whether there is an underload. My own view is
there is an underload at National, lots of slots available. But that is
not the prevailing view on the part of some. They
[[Page S770]]
feel we cannot have a single additional flight.
So DOT can study that. If they find there is no negative impact, a
limited number can be added at the appropriate time or not, depending
on what we want to do.
Specifically, the amendment provides network carriers an opportunity
to swap existing flights they conduct within the perimeter and use them
for flights to Western States beyond the perimeter. Seven round-trip
flights could be converted under this provision.
Under this construct a carrier could use flights to large hub
airports within the perimeter where significant service already is
provided. This protects States and small communities within the
perimeter and limits the number of new flights at the airport as
requested by local officials.
The amendment also provides five new flight exemptions that would
only be distributed to new entrant or limited incumbent carriers. To
provide maximum flexibility for the carriers, these could be used for
new flights within or beyond the perimeter. All of this is kind of
opaque, like a puzzle, but it does happen to work.
We have had approximately 100 amendments filed to the FAA
reauthorization bill. Much of the talk is focused on slots at National
Airport. There are lots of airports, but National Airport has received
the bulk of the amendments. I don't resent that or regret it. I just
wish we could get to the rest of the bill, which I think is probably
going to be entirely acceptable to people because it is a very
reasonable approach.
Only three other amendments have been filed that directly address the
issue of west coast access to National. The Ensign amendment would
allow carriers to have unlimited conversions or swaps beyond the
perimeter. I believe this proposal goes too far and could have a
significant negative impact locally and for small communities serviced
within the perimeter. I do think Senators Ensign and Kyl, with whom I
have worked on this issue over the past year, can appreciate this
position and will receive opportunities for their constituents through
passage of our amendment.
The Merkley and Wyden and Cantwell-Murray-Merkley-Begich amendments
are the only other two amendments that have been filed with a focus on
the issue of beyond-perimeter flights at National. They would both
allow for new flight exemptions at the airport that would favor
distribution to limited incumbents or new entrants. The Merkley
amendment would provide eight new round-trips for beyond-perimeter
service. The Wyden amendment would add 12 new round-trips beyond the
perimeter and 4 new round-trips within the perimeter for a total of 16
new flights. While the Hutchison amendment may not provide the same
level of opportunity for services to their States that they desire, her
amendment does provide ample room for their constituencies to obtain
new service with 5 exemptions rather than 12 beyond perimeter.
I believe we must strike an appropriate balance. We have no choice.
We can't make everybody happy. Senator Hutchison's and my approach has
been to go down the middle. People who don't want anything more and
people who want a lot more, kind of edge them together and go right
down the middle. That is all we can do in a bill of this sort where
emotions run very high.
I do believe we must strike an appropriate balance between new
service from incumbent carriers and service from limited or new-entrant
carriers if we are going to give consumers the greatest options on
choice and competition. Consumers are really what this is about.
Airlines are obviously important. They are going to fly where the
business is. That makes all of us--the Presiding Officer, for part of
her State which is not in the New York area--very sensitive to rural
situations. West Virginia is entirely rural. It has no city larger than
slightly over 50,000 people, that being the State capital. Flights in
and out of that State are very important to me. Most of them are done
by propeller. Most of them are not particularly comfortable. But they
do get one to where one wants to go. Now we have switched to Dulles so
we can feed out from Dulles to anywhere in the world. Taking care of
rural areas is incredibly important to us.
Again, the DOT study included in the amendment will also provide
valuable insight into the impact of additional flights at National
Airport on this or any other aspect of it. Under the amendment, if DOT
finds that more access is appropriate, it can permit up to four
additional flights at National. These would be provided to incumbent
carriers to swap service from large hubs within the perimeter,
resulting in no new air traffic at the airport. Senator Hutchison and I
would like to emphasize those words, ``no new flights.'' They have room
for flights. A GAO study showed that, really quite a lot of flights.
But the prevailing wish is not to have noise and disruption.
The fact is, the planes are getting quieter, and they will get much
more quieter as they are entered into all markets.
In total, as few as 12 or as many as 16 additional beyond-perimeter
flights could result from the amendment over a 2-year period. If the
DOT determines the initial 12 flights have had a direct negative impact
on the DC market--I emphasize, we are putting DOT right on the case so
they can watch it closely; whatever people might think, they are
neutral and professional and they do this for a living--it will limit
the likelihood of adding additional flights in future FAA
reauthorizations. That makes sense. Let them be the arbiters of that
rather than us battling it out here.
This type of review is long overdue and will provide far greater
understanding of local needs by any carrier seeking access at National.
If DOT finds there is enough room for up to 16 flights, the amendment
would seek to balance them among various stakeholders. Eleven of these
flights would be swaps or conversions of service to incumbent carriers
already providing this, resulting, again, in no new traffic at that
particular airport--there are other airports in the country; I have to
keep telling myself that, but it is hard to recognize that looking at
the debate so far--and minimizing the impacts of flights on a local
basis generally.
Five of the flights would be dedicated to new entrants or limited
incumbents to receive new exemptions. These could be used for service
within or beyond the perimeter so all communities in the country would
have an opportunity to obtain a flight.
In closing, I recognize every amendment addressing slots at National
will be considered flawed in some corners. That is in the nature of our
world. However, I do think it is important that we have votes on these
amendments to determine a Senate position on this issue.
I believe the Hutchison amendment is a very reasonable offer. I hope
it will obtain the support of the majority of the Senate.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 75, as Further Modified
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Senate resume consideration of the Baucus amendment No. 75, as further
modified--this is the amendment for the finance title of the bill we
are on which was reported out by the Finance Committee last week--
further, that the amendment, as further modified, be agreed to; and the
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action
or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 75), as further modified, was agreed to, as
follows:
Strike title VIII and insert the following:
TITLE VIII--AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND PROVISIONS AND RELATED TAXES
SEC. 800. AMENDMENT OF 1986 CODE.
Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this
title an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an
amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the
reference shall be considered to be made to a section or
other provision of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
[[Page S771]]
SEC. 801. EXTENSION OF TAXES FUNDING AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST
FUND.
(a) Fuel Taxes.--Subparagraph (B) of section 4081(d)(2) is
amended by striking ``March 31, 2011'' and inserting
``September 30, 2013''.
(b) Ticket Taxes.--
(1) Persons.--Clause (ii) of section 4261(j)(1)(A) is
amended by striking ``March 31, 2011'' and inserting
``September 30, 2013''.
(2) Property.--Clause (ii) of section 4271(d)(1)(A) is
amended by striking ``March 31, 2011'' and inserting
``September 30, 2013''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on April 1, 2011.
SEC. 802. EXTENSION OF AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND
EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 9502(d) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``April 1, 2011'' in the matter preceding
subparagraph (A) and inserting ``October 1, 2013'', and
(2) by striking the semicolon at the end of subparagraph
(A) and inserting ``or the FAA Air Transportation
Modernization and Safety Improvement Act;''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (2) of section 9502(e)
is amended by striking ``April 1, 2011'' and inserting
``October 1, 2013''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on April 1, 2011.
SEC. 803. MODIFICATION OF EXCISE TAX ON KEROSENE USED IN
AVIATION.
(a) Rate of Tax on Aviation-grade Kerosene.--
(1) In general.--Subparagraph (A) of section 4081(a)(2) is
amended by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (ii), by
striking the period at the end of clause (iii) and inserting
``, and'', and by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(iv) in the case of aviation-grade kerosene, 35.9 cents
per gallon.''.
(2) Fuel removed directly into fuel tank of airplane used
in noncommercial aviation.--Subparagraph (C) of section
4081(a)(2) is amended to read as follows:
``(C) Taxes imposed on fuel used in commercial aviation.--
In the case of aviation-grade kerosene which is removed from
any refinery or terminal directly into the fuel tank of an
aircraft for use in commercial aviation by a person
registered for such use under section 4101, the rate of tax
under subparagraph (A)(iv) shall be 4.3 cents per gallon.''.
(3) Exemption for aviation-grade kerosene removed into an
aircraft.--Subsection (e) of section 4082 is amended--
(A) by striking ``kerosene'' and inserting ``aviation-grade
kerosene'',
(B) by striking ``section 4081(a)(2)(A)(iii)'' and
inserting ``section 4081(a)(2)(A)(iv)'', and
(C) by striking ``Kerosene'' in the heading and inserting
``Aviation-Grade Kerosene''.
(4) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Clause (iii) of section 4081(a)(2)(A) is amended by
inserting ``other than aviation-grade kerosene'' after
``kerosene''.
(B) The following provisions are each amended by striking
``kerosene'' and inserting ``aviation-grade kerosene'':
(i) Section 4081(a)(3)(A)(ii).
(ii) Section 4081(a)(3)(A)(iv).
(iii) Section 4081(a)(3)(D).
(C) Subparagraph (D) of section 4081(a)(3) is amended--
(i) by striking ``paragraph (2)(C)(i)'' in clause (i) and
inserting ``paragraph (2)(C)'', and
(ii) by striking ``paragraph (2)(C)(ii)'' in clause (ii)
and inserting ``paragraph (2)(A)(iv)''.
(D) Paragraph (4) of section 4081(a) is amended--
(i) by striking ``kerosene'' in the heading and inserting
``aviation-grade kerosene'', and
(ii) by striking ``paragraph (2)(C)(i)'' and inserting
``paragraph (2)(C)''.
(E) Paragraph (2) of section 4081(d) is amended by striking
``(a)(2)(C)(ii)'' and inserting ``(a)(2)(A)(iv)''.
(b) Retail Tax on Aviation Fuel.--
(1) Exemption for previously taxed fuel.--Paragraph (2) of
section 4041(c) is amended by inserting ``at the rate
specified in subsection (a)(2)(A)(iv) thereof'' after
``section 4081''.
(2) Rate of tax.--Paragraph (3) of section 4041(c) is
amended to read as follows:
``(3) Rate of tax.--The rate of tax imposed by this
subsection shall be the rate of tax in effect under section
4081(a)(2)(A)(iv) (4.3 cents per gallon with respect to any
sale or use for commercial aviation).''.
(c) Refunds Relating to Aviation-grade Kerosene.--
(1) Aviation-grade kerosene used in commercial aviation.--
Clause (ii) of section 6427(l)(4)(A) is amended by striking
``specified in section 4041(c) or 4081(a)(2)(A)(iii), as the
case may be,'' and inserting ``so imposed''.
(2) Kerosene used in aviation.--Paragraph (4) of section
6427(l) is amended by striking subparagraphs (B) and (C) and
inserting the following new subparagraph:
``(B) Payments to ultimate, registered vendor.--With
respect to any kerosene used in aviation (other than kerosene
to which paragraph (6) applies), if the ultimate purchaser of
such kerosene waives (at such time and in such form and
manner as the Secretary shall prescribe) the right to payment
under paragraph (1) and assigns such right to the ultimate
vendor, then the Secretary shall pay (without interest) the
amount which would be paid under paragraph (1) to such
ultimate vendor, but only if such ultimate vendor--
``(i) is registered under section 4101, and
``(ii) meets the requirements of subparagraph (A), (B), or
(D) of section 6416(a)(1).''.
(3) Aviation-grade kerosene not used in aviation.--
Subsection (l) of section 6427 is amended by redesignating
paragraph (5) as paragraph (6) and by inserting after
paragraph (4) the following new paragraph:
``(5) Refunds for aviation-grade kerosene not used in
aviation.--If tax has been imposed under section 4081 at the
rate specified in section 4081(a)(2)(A)(iv) and the fuel is
used other than in an aircraft, the Secretary shall pay
(without interest) to the ultimate purchaser of such fuel an
amount equal to the amount of tax imposed on such fuel
reduced by the amount of tax that would be imposed under
section 4041 if no tax under section 4081 had been
imposed.''.
(4) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Subparagraph (B) of section 4082(d)(2) is amended by
striking ``6427(l)(5)(B)'' and inserting ``6427(l)(6)(B)''.
(B) Paragraph (4) of section 6427(i) is amended--
(i) by striking ``(4)(C) or (5)'' and inserting ``(4)(B) or
(6)'', and
(ii) by striking ``, (l)(4)(C)(ii), and (l)(5)'' and
inserting ``and (l)(6)''.
(C) Subsection (l) of section 6427 is amended by striking
``Diesel Fuel and Kerosene'' in the heading and inserting
``Diesel Fuel, Kerosene, and Aviation Fuel''.
(D) Paragraph (1) of section 6427(l) is amended by striking
``paragraph (4)(C)(i)'' and inserting ``paragraph (4)(B)''.
(E) Paragraph (4) of section 6427(l) is amended--
(i) by striking ``kerosene used in aviation'' in the
heading and inserting ``aviation-grade kerosene used in
commercial aviation'', and
(ii) in subparagraph (A)--
(I) by striking ``kerosene'' and inserting ``aviation-grade
kerosene'',
(II) by striking ``Kerosene used in commercial aviation''
in the heading and inserting ``In general''.
(d) Transfers to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund.--
(1) In general.--Subparagraph (C) of section 9502(b)(1) is
amended to read as follows:
``(C) section 4081 with respect to aviation gasoline and
aviation-grade kerosene, and''.
(2) Transfers on account of certain refunds.--
(A) In general.--Subsection (d) of section 9502 is
amended--
(i) by striking ``(other than subsection (l)(4) thereof)''
in paragraph (2), and
(ii) by striking ``(other than payments made by reason of
paragraph (4) of section 6427(l))'' in paragraph (3).
(B) Conforming amendments.--
(i) Paragraph (4) of section 9503(b) is amended by striking
``or'' at the end of subparagraph (C), by striking the period
at the end of subparagraph (D) and inserting a comma, and by
inserting after subparagraph (D) the following new
subparagraphs:
``(E) section 4081 to the extent attributable to the rate
specified in clause (ii) or (iv) of section 4081(a)(2)(A), or
``(F) section 4041(c).''.
(ii) Subsection (c) of section 9503 is amended by striking
paragraph (5).
(iii) Subsection (a) of section 9502 is amended--
(I) by striking ``appropriated, credited, or paid into''
and inserting ``appropriated or credited to'', and
(II) by striking ``, section 9503(c)(5),''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to fuels removed, entered, or sold after March
31, 2011.
(f) Floor Stocks Tax.--
(1) Imposition of tax.--In the case of aviation-grade
kerosene fuel which is held on April 1, 2011, by any person,
there is hereby imposed a floor stocks tax on aviation-grade
kerosene equal to--
(A) the tax which would have been imposed before such date
on such kerosene had the amendments made by this section been
in effect at all times before such date, reduced by
(B) the tax imposed before such date on such kerosene under
section 4081 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as in
effect on such date.
(2) Liability for tax and method of payment.--
(A) Liability for tax.--A person holding aviation-grade
kerosene on April 1, 2011, shall be liable for such tax.
(B) Time and method of payment.--The tax imposed by
paragraph (1) shall be paid at such time and in such manner
as the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe.
(3) Transfer of floor stock tax revenues to trust funds.--
For purposes of determining the amount transferred to the
Airport and Airway Trust Fund, the tax imposed by this
subsection shall be treated as imposed by section
4081(a)(2)(A)(iv) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(4) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
(A) Aviation-grade kerosene.--The term ``aviation-grade
kerosene'' means aviation-grade kerosene as such term is used
within the meaning of section 4081 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986.
(B) Held by a person.--Aviation-grade kerosene shall be
considered as held by a person if title thereto has passed to
such person (whether or not delivery to the person has been
made).
(C) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Treasury or the Secretary's delegate.
[[Page S772]]
(5) Exception for exempt uses.--The tax imposed by
paragraph (1) shall not apply to any aviation-grade kerosene
held by any person exclusively for any use to the extent a
credit or refund of the tax is allowable under the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 for such use.
(6) Exception for certain amounts of aviation-grade
kerosene.--
(A) In general.--No tax shall be imposed by paragraph (1)
on any aviation-grade kerosene held on April 1, 2011, by any
person if the aggregate amount of such aviation-grade
kerosene held by such person on such date does not exceed
2,000 gallons. The preceding sentence shall apply only if
such person submits to the Secretary (at the time and in the
manner required by the Secretary) such information as the
Secretary shall require for purposes of this subparagraph.
(B) Exempt aviation-grade kerosene.--For purposes of
subparagraph (A), there shall not be taken into account any
aviation-grade kerosene held by any person which is exempt
from the tax imposed by paragraph (1) by reason of paragraph
(5).
(C) Controlled groups.--For purposes of this subsection--
(i) Corporations.--
(I) In general.--All persons treated as a controlled group
shall be treated as 1 person.
(II) Controlled group.--The term ``controlled group'' has
the meaning given to such term by subsection (a) of section
1563 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; except that for
such purposes the phrase ``more than 50 percent'' shall be
substituted for the phrase ``at least 80 percent'' each place
it appears in such subsection.
(ii) Nonincorporated persons under common control.--Under
regulations prescribed by the Secretary, principles similar
to the principles of subparagraph (A) shall apply to a group
of persons under common control if 1 or more of such persons
is not a corporation.
(7) Other laws applicable.--All provisions of law,
including penalties, applicable with respect to the taxes
imposed by section 4081 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
on the aviation-grade kerosene involved shall, insofar as
applicable and not inconsistent with the provisions of this
subsection, apply with respect to the floor stock taxes
imposed by paragraph (1) to the same extent as if such taxes
were imposed by such section.
SEC. 804. AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM MODERNIZATION ACCOUNT.
(a) In General.--Section 9502 is amended by adding at the
end the following new subsection:
``(f) Establishment of Air Traffic Control System
Modernization Account.--
``(1) Creation of account.--There is established in the
Airport and Airway Trust Fund a separate account to be known
as the `Air Traffic Control System Modernization Account'
consisting of such amounts as may be transferred or credited
to the Air Traffic Control System Modernization Account as
provided in this subsection or section 9602(b).
``(2) Transfers to air traffic control system modernization
account.--On October 1, 2011, and annually thereafter the
Secretary shall transfer $400,000,000 to the Air Traffic
Control System Modernization Account from amounts
appropriated to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund under
subsection (b) which are attributable to taxes on aviation-
grade kerosene.
``(3) Expenditures from account.--Amounts in the Air
Traffic Control System Modernization Account shall be
available subject to appropriation for expenditures relating
to the modernization of the air traffic control system
(including facility and equipment account expenditures).''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (1) of section 9502(d)
is amended by striking ``Amounts'' and inserting ``Except as
provided in subsection (f), amounts''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 805. TREATMENT OF FRACTIONAL AIRCRAFT OWNERSHIP
PROGRAMS.
(a) Fuel Surtax.--
(1) In general.--Subchapter B of chapter 31 is amended by
adding at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 4043. SURTAX ON FUEL USED IN AIRCRAFT PART OF A
FRACTIONAL OWNERSHIP PROGRAM.
``(a) In General.--There is hereby imposed a tax on any
liquid used during any calendar quarter by any person as a
fuel in an aircraft which is--
``(1) registered in the United States, and
``(2) part of a fractional ownership aircraft program.
``(b) Amount of Tax.--The rate of tax imposed by subsection
(a) is 14.1 cents per gallon.
``(c) Fractional Ownership Aircraft Program.--For purposes
of this section--
``(1) In general.--The term `fractional ownership aircraft
program' means a program under which--
``(A) a single fractional ownership program manager
provides fractional ownership program management services on
behalf of the fractional owners,
``(B) 2 or more airworthy aircraft are part of the program,
``(C) there are 1 or more fractional owners per program
aircraft, with at least 1 program aircraft having more than 1
owner,
``(D) each fractional owner possesses at least a minimum
fractional ownership interest in 1 or more program aircraft,
``(E) there exists a dry-lease aircraft exchange
arrangement among all of the fractional owners, and
``(F) there are multi-year program agreements covering the
fractional ownership, fractional ownership program management
services, and dry-lease aircraft exchange aspects of the
program.
``(2) Minimum fractional ownership interest.--
``(A) In general.--The term `minimum fractional ownership
interest' means, with respect to each type of aircraft--
``(i) a fractional ownership interest equal to or greater
than \1/16\ of at least 1 subsonic, fixed wing or powered
lift program aircraft, or
``(ii) a fractional ownership interest equal to or greater
than \1/32\ of a least 1 rotorcraft program aircraft.
``(B) Fractional ownership interest.--The term `fractional
ownership interest' means--
``(i) the ownership of an interest in a program aircraft,
``(ii) the holding of a multi-year leasehold interest in a
program aircraft, or
``(iii) the holding of a multi-year leasehold interest
which is convertible into an ownership interest in a program
aircraft.
``(3) Dry-lease aircraft exchange.--The term `dry-lease
aircraft exchange' means an agreement, documented by the
written program agreements, under which the program aircraft
are available, on an as needed basis without crew, to each
fractional owner.
``(d) Termination.--This section shall not apply to liquids
used as a fuel in an aircraft after September 30, 2013.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Subsection (e) of section 4082
is amended by inserting ``(other than an aircraft described
in section 4043(a))'' after ``an aircraft''.
(3) Transfer of revenues to airport and airway trust
fund.--Subsection (1) of section 9502(b) is amended by
redesignating subparagraphs (B) and (C) as subparagraphs (C)
and (D), respectively, and by inserting after subparagraph
(A) the following new subparagraph:
``(B) section 4043 (relating to surtax on fuel used in
aircraft part of a fractional ownership program),''.
(4) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for
subchapter B of chapter 31 is amended by adding at the end
the following new item:
``Sec. 4043. Surtax on fuel used in aircraft part of a fractional
ownership program.''.
(b) Fractional Ownership Programs Treated as Non-commercial
Aviation.--Subsection (b) of section 4083 is amended by
adding at the end the following new sentence: ``For uses of
aircraft before October 1, 2013, such term shall not include
the use of any aircraft which is part of a fractional
ownership aircraft program (as defined by section
4043(c)).''.
(c) Exemption From Tax on Transportation of Persons.--
Section 4261, as amended by this Act, is amended by
redesignating subsection (j) as subsection (k) and by
inserting after subsection (i) the following new subsection:
``(j) Exemption for Aircraft in Fractional Ownership
Aircraft Programs.--No tax shall be imposed by this section
or section 4271 on any air transportation provided before
October 1, 2013, by an aircraft which is part of a fractional
ownership aircraft program (as defined by section
4043(c)).''.
(d) Effective Dates.--
(1) Subsection (a).--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply to fuel used after March 31, 2011.
(2) Subsection (b).--The amendment made by subsection (b)
shall apply to uses of aircraft after March 31, 2011.
(3) Subsection (c).--The amendments made by subsection (c)
shall apply to taxable transportation provided after March
31, 2011.
SEC. 806. TERMINATION OF EXEMPTION FOR SMALL JET AIRCRAFT ON
NONESTABLISHED LINES.
(a) In General.--the first sentence of section 4281 is
amended by inserting ``or when such aircraft is a turbine
engine powered aircraft'' after ``an established line''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable transportation provided after March
31, 2011.
SEC. 807. TRANSPARENCY IN PASSENGER TAX DISCLOSURES.
(a) In General.--Section 7275 (relating to penalty for
offenses relating to certain airline tickets and advertising)
is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d),
(2) by striking ``subsection (a) or (b)'' in subsection
(d), as so redesignated, and inserting ``subsection (a), (b),
or (c)'', and
(3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new
subsection:
``(c) Non-tax Charges.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of transportation by air for
which disclosure on the ticket or advertising for such
transportation of the amounts paid for passenger taxes is
required by subsection (a)(2) or (b)(1)(B), if such amounts
are separately disclosed, it shall be unlawful for the
disclosure of such amounts to include any amounts not
attributable to such taxes.
``(2) Inclusion in transportation cost.--Nothing in this
subsection shall prohibit the inclusion of amounts not
attributable to the taxes imposed by subsection (a), (b), or
(c) of section 4261 in the disclosure of the amount paid for
transportation as required by subsection (a)(1) or (b)(1)(A),
or in a separate disclosure of amounts not attributable to
such taxes.''.
[[Page S773]]
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable transportation provided after March
31, 2011.
SEC. 808. TAX-EXEMPT BOND FINANCING FOR FIXED-WING EMERGENCY
MEDICAL AIRCRAFT.
(a) In General.--Subsection (e) of section 147 is amended
by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``The
preceding sentence shall not apply to any fixed-wing aircraft
equipped for, and exclusively dedicated to providing, acute
care emergency medical services (within the meaning of
4261(g)(2)).''
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to obligations issued after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 809. PROTECTION OF AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND
SOLVENCY.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 9502(d) is
amended by adding at the end the following new sentence:
``Unless otherwise provided by this section, for purposes of
this paragraph for fiscal year 2012 or 2013, the amount
available for making expenditures for such fiscal year shall
not exceed 90 percent of the receipts of the Airport and
Airway Trust Fund plus interest credited to such Trust Fund
for such fiscal year as estimated by the Secretary of the
Treasury.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to fiscal years beginning after September 30,
2011.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak about
comments I have heard from both the chairman and the ranking member
this morning about the FAA bill.
First of all, I wish to thank them for their hard work and diligence
on this legislation. This hasn't just come now, this year; this is
something the chairman and ranking member have been working on for
several years.
I had a chance yesterday to talk about the NextGen system and how
many jobs are going to be created from high-wage technology that is
going to be used to modernize our transportation system. It is going to
deliver flights that are probably 20 percent more on time, it will save
us probably 5 or 6 percent on fuel, it is going to lower
CO2, and it is going to improve the experience for
passengers. So I am all for the FAA underlying bill and I applaud my
colleagues for their hard work in trying to make this legislation a
reality and doing so this week.
I have concerns about the proposed Hutchison amendment. I know the
Senator from Texas indicated she is still talking with people and
working with people in an effort to make everyone happy. In this place
I don't think we make everyone happy, but I thank the Senator for her
willingness to at least on the floor say she is trying to make everyone
happy, and I think she is probably sincere in her efforts.
I have been involved with this issue now for probably 3 or 4 years--
not just the FAA bill but the slots issue and air transportation--and
my former colleague, Senator Gordon Smith from Oregon, and I were
involved with this issue and several years before that with numerous
other members of the Commerce Committee. It is probably one of the
thornier issues the Congress has to deal with, primarily because the
issue is one that is fused both by issues of economic development
around airports, as well as transportation interests of the flying
public, and probably a little bit of a dose of what Members' own
personal experiences and interests are.
For me, getting access to the West, to the Nation's capital, is an
important issue. It is not the primary way I come to work every week. I
actually fly in and out of the other airport in the region and do so--I
don't know if I would say happily because, frankly, I think Dulles
Airport--although I don't know what they have done lately, but they got
rid of their mobile lounges and now have invested in some transport
system where you probably walk as far on that system as you do on the
previous system. There are people smiling on the floor. I think they
have already been through it. I think they are saying, Yes, I have done
that drill, and what is up at Dulles?
Putting that aside, that is the way I fly 80 percent of the time back
and forth to the Nation's capital. I am pleased to have that flight
schedule that accommodates me and actually accommodates many
Washingtonians, because I think there are plenty of my Washingtonians
who are coming back to the region to do business on a variety of issues
in that corridor and see that as an access point as well.
The issue, though, is about whether the West has enough access to
National Airport. In the past two debates we have had on this issue in
2000 and 2003, the Congress decided the West did not have enough access
to National Airport. In both of those instances this body passed
legislation opening more slots to the West through a process whereby
the Department of Transportation basically decided what were the best
areas of the West to service, which were the best networks to possibly
service those areas, and how to get that traffic from one destination
to the Nation's capital. In both instances, in 2000 and in 2003, when
that very broad directive was given to the Department of
Transportation, each time six new flight paths were opened to the
Nation's capital, and I think that process worked very well. It worked
very well because the debate was not here on the Senate floor about
whose service was going to be delivered, but it was given to the
Department of Transportation, the broad outline. In each instance,
increasing access from the West to the Nation's capital is about having
the flying public gain access to the Nation's capital and it is also
about economic interests. That is why I still have concerns about this
proposal on the table and about the fair access it may not provide to
many people in the West.
In this particular proposal, unlike the two previous access issues in
2000 and 2003, in each point six new slots were given and the
Department of Transportation had a fair and open process about it.
This particular proposal focuses on the airlines that already service
the Nation's Capital, and in this case over 60 percent of the Nation's
Capital slots are controlled by two specific airlines. This proposal
would open those carriers's ability to trade out slots they already
have with other cities, thereby giving them access to the West. In
fact, the proposal of my colleague from Texas, even on those new slots,
new incumbent carriers they are saying can give access to the West are
carriers that are currently operating even inside the perimeter today.
If you think this proposal is about helping access the West, it is
primarily about accessing the West by people who already control the
real estate at National Airport, which are two carriers.
I noticed the Department of Justice looked at this larger issue. That
is because many of my colleagues who do not want to spend a lot of time
on this--I guess I am glad I am educated on it, but I wish I had time
to work on other things. The issue is, the national interest or policy
question comes into play when you have access to what are limited
footprint destinations, such as National Airport, such as La Guardia.
Those are times when the U.S. Government has said we want to make sure
there is a fair process about this because there is a small footprint
and, obviously, if somebody controls too much of that footprint, it is
an issue.
In the most recent debate, Delta and US Airways have been trying to
do a swap exchange between La Guardia and DCA, and the Department of
Justice says: Not such a good idea. You already own too much of the
market share. If you want to do this, why don't you divest some of the
slots you have now. Instead of doing that, the airlines are going to go
down a path of continuing to accumulate and dominate in the East.
I hope my colleagues will take into consideration that I know the
chairman and ranking member are trying to work in good faith, both on
this issue and to move the bill forward. For this Member who wants to
see a healthy transportation network, I am very concerned about the
existing incumbents at National Airport continuing to dominate, with 60
percent of the market, and perhaps cancelling a lot of flights that
they currently have now within this region only to benefit from the
more lucrative long-haul flights across the country.
I am for a fair process. I think everybody should be able to bid on
any new flights that are going to be put on the table. The two
processes Congress followed in 2000 and 2003 were closer to what I
believe, personally, is a more fair and open process.
I hope we can continue working and dialoging on these issues. I do
think they are important. They are probably more important for the long
run of what a transportation network system
[[Page S774]]
looks like in this country, to be sure the consumer interests are taken
care of and that there is a fair and competitive price.
I know some of the people who have been involved in this debate--
probably not on the floor but out in the public--are talking about the
amount of money airlines have invested in these airports, as if somehow
that means they own the airports. The facts will show, in both these
cases, the majority of money poured into the infrastructure at both
these facilities is basically taxpayer dollars through bonding
authority. It is not as if some airline owns the rights, owns the
ability to control 50 or 60 percent of one of these airports just
because they have paid for airport improvements. We all have been
paying for airport improvements. As I said, I, personally, think the
airport improvements made at Dulles are not so much of an improvement.
I am going to continue with that and continue to fly through that
particular airport.
I hope my colleagues will keep discussing this issue, and I hope we
can get somewhere on it. My concern is that a proposal with conversion
in it will mean many of my colleagues on the Senate floor will have
their flights canceled to their favorite locations, and basically they
will start servicing long-haul across the country with a very big share
of the existing national market.
I hope we can do something that will instigate more competition, more
diversity, and something that will help get this legislation passed.
I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. 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. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
A Second Opinion
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor today
because, on Monday, President Obama introduced his new budget. What we
saw in that budget is, for the most part, more of the same--more
spending, more taxes, more borrowing. We see this budget from a
President who doesn't seem to understand the gravity of the Nation's
fiscal crisis.
When we start digging down into the budget the President proposed and
look into the Internal Revenue Service component of that budget, what
we see is the Internal Revenue Service is starting to focus in and
audit ObamaCare. There is a glaring difference in the budget this year
from previous years because of the President's new health spending law.
The IRS now has unprecedented power over health care in America.
In fact, when we take a look at this budget, and specifically the
Internal Revenue Service's fiscal year 2012 budget request, over 250
times the Affordable Care Act--known in the budget as the ACA but known
by people all across the country as ObamaCare--is mentioned. Over 250
times.
To me, the goal of the health care law has been to let people all
across this country get the care they need from the doctors they want
at a price they can afford.
As a member of my party, looking at our economy, looking at the
deficit, looking at the incredible debt, what I think we need to do is
make it cheaper and easier to create private sector jobs in this
country. That is the way we get the economy going again. But when I
read this budget, and specifically IRS requests, it seems to me it is
making it harder and more expensive to create private sector jobs in
our country.
The people of this country are not taxed too little. The problem is
that the government spends too much. When I take a look at this budget,
that is exactly what I see being rejected by this administration
because it seems this administration is more interested in taxing, in
raising taxes, rather than cutting spending.
When you take a look at what the IRS says in the budget, it says:
The implementation of the Affordable Care Act of 2010
presents a major challenge to the Internal Revenue Service.
This is the IRS talking about the law that was crammed down the
throats of the American people in the middle of the night, written
behind closed doors. We are all familiar with it. Now it is presenting
a major challenge to the Internal Revenue Service.
The Internal Revenue Service goes on to say:
This law represents the largest set of tax law changes in
more than 20 years, with more than 40 provisions that amend
the tax laws.
The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this week that the budget
gives the IRS the ability to hire 5,000 new workers. After taking a
close look at the IRS's plans, we know they will have to hire over
1,000 new IRS bureaucrats, Washington bureaucrats, to implement
ObamaCare measures. What are some of those that we are now going to
have IRS agents coming and looking into? One is the tanning tax, the
component that promotes compliance with the new excise tax on tanning
facilities. The IRS is requesting another $1.5 million and requesting
81 more full-time equivalents to go ahead and implement this tanning
tax. For oversight--they call it ``strengthen oversight of exempt
hospitals.'' These are tax-exempt hospitals, hospitals that do not pay
taxes, but to do an oversight of these hospitals, they want another
$9.9 million and another 84 full-time employees. For the new health
coverage information reporting, they want $34 million and 100 full-time
employees. For something I call ObamaCare 101--assisting taxpayers in
understanding the new provisions--the IRS is requesting $22.2 million
and hiring another 150 full-time equivalents. And then, of course, for
the call centers, IRS call centers--so if someone has a question, they
can call and ask a question--they want another $15 million because of
the complexity of this new health care law that is going to be
difficult for people to understand.
The American people and small business owners--and those are the job
creators of this country--want the IRS to make their lives easier, not
tougher, not audit their health care choices and health care decisions.
But adding hundreds of new jobs and millions of new dollars to the IRS
is not going to make health care better. It is not going to make care
more available for anyone.
I am going to continue to come to the floor with a doctor's second
opinion to fight to repeal and replace this health care law and to do
it with patient-centered reforms that help the private sector, not the
IRS, create more jobs.
This morning, we had a little event called Wyoming Wednesdays where
people from Wyoming who are here come together in Senator Enzi's
office, and we have coffee and doughnuts and visit.
One of the people here from Wyoming said: I saw a sign that was
worrisome.
I said: What is the sign?
He said that this location where they are putting in offices used to
be a parking lot. When you are replacing a parking lot with more
offices for more Washington bureaucrats, that is not a good sign for
the rest of America.
Here we have the IRS saying they are dealing with a major challenge
because of the health care law. It represents the largest tax law
change in more than 20 years. More than 40 provisions are being amended
in the tax law to go after things. They want this kind of money to
implement the tax changes with regard to the indoor tanning services--
81 new full-time equivalents--and they say what is involved in this.
The IRS says there are as many as 25,000 businesses that provide indoor
tanning services they are now going to tax, including about 10,000
businesses that offer tanning services along with other services such
as spas, health clubs, and beauty salons.
We are here in the Senate, in Congress, with 9 percent unemployment
in this country, with people looking for work, and more government jobs
are being created, and these people are creating government jobs to
make it harder on small businesses. It gets right to the crux of it
right here because the IRS even says these entities, all these tanning
entities, typically do not have experience filing Federal excise tax
returns. So what is the government going to do? Come in, make them file
claims and forms they do not have experience with. It is going to be
costly; it is
[[Page S775]]
going to take time; it is going to increase taxes. That is not a way to
create new jobs.
They want 10 million more dollars to strengthen oversight on tax-
exempt hospitals. These are tax-exempt hospitals. Why are the American
taxpayers being asked to pay another $10 million to hire 84 full-time
equivalents to deal with tax-exempt hospitals? Because, according to
the law that was crammed down the throats of the American people, the
IRS is now required to review at least every 3 years the benefit
activities of tax-exempt hospital organizations, which number about
5,100 in this country. They actually say in the budget request by the
IRS, as part of the President's budget that was submitted on Monday:
These are new requirements for tax-exempt hospitals which
include a majority of hospitals in the United States.
We are going to increase taxpayer dollars going for more IRS auditors
and make it harder and more burdensome on the tax-exempt hospitals in
terms of paperwork and what they need to do.
It goes on and on. That is why the American people are fed up with
what is happening in Washington.
Let's talk a little bit about the CLASS Act because there is a whole
component of the budget wanting 30 staff members added to the health
department office overseeing implementation of what is called the CLASS
Act. That stands for community living assistance services and supports.
The President's own debt commission--remember, the President
appointed this commission about a year ago to say: Let's look into the
debt. People thought that was a bold move, a bipartisan move, a lot of
people coming together to take a look at this debt. For a year, the
President said: We have a debt commission looking into this, so he did
not deal with the debt. Now that the debt commission came out with its
report in December, the President has mostly ignored it. Yet the debt
commission--it was bipartisan, chaired by Erskine Bowles, a former
Chief of Staff of the White House for Bill Clinton, and Al Simpson, a
former Senator from my State of Wyoming--came out, took a look at the
health care law, and specifically honed in on this CLASS Act.
One of the Members of this Senate, a colleague on the opposite side
of the aisle, someone who voted for the health care law, called it a
Ponzi scheme that Bernie Madoff would be proud of.
The President's budget commission, the bipartisan budget commission,
looked at it, and they have significant concerns about the
sustainability of the program and called for the program to either be
repealed or reformed because it is not sustainable. They have raised
concerns. People on both sides of the aisle have raised concerns. Yet
the Secretary of Health and Human Services has, in her budget, money
for 30 additional staff members added to the health department offices.
Why? To go over the details of this act that people say ought to be
repealed because, as it says, the details of the CLASS Act--they want
to spend $93.5 million informing and educating people about the CLASS
Act. I can tell them right now it is unsustainable, it is
irresponsible, and it is something that should be repealed. Yet the
Department of Health and Human Services wants to spend over $93 million
of taxpayer money to inform and educate the public about this component
of the health care law that people on both sides of the aisle think
needs to go away.
Finally, as someone who believes this health care law is bad for
patients, bad for providers--the nurses and doctors who take care of
those patients--and bad for the taxpayers--what we saw in the
President's budget that came out Monday, coming out for next year, is
it is asking for over 1,000 new IRS agents to go ahead and implement
the various components and responsibilities that have been put on their
heads by this health care law. This is only the beginning. The entire
health care law does not really come fully into play until 2014. That
is when Americans are going to have more IRS agents, more money being
spent looking into their own personal lives, looking into what kind of
insurance they have.
Is it acceptable to the government? Is it government approved? That
is why Senator Graham and I have introduced legislation called the
State Health Care Choice Act, to let States decide. Let States decide
if Washington ought to be telling the people in their States that they
must buy, that every individual must buy government-approved insurance.
Let the States make that decision. Let the States opt out if they would
like. Let the States decide if all the businesses in their States must
provide government-approved insurance to their workers. Let the States
decide as to Medicaid, a program for low-income Americans which is
being expanded significantly by cramming 16 million more Americans into
Medicaid. Governors all across the country in a bipartisan way are
saying: Our States cannot afford this.
A New York Times story shows Jerry Brown from California and Andrew
Cuomo from New York complaining about the mandates Medicaid is putting
on their States, the additional burdens in terms of taxes and the
mandates and what it is going to do to the people of the State who are
trying to educate their kids and the cost and the pressure on education
dollars because they are getting shifted to Medicaid, the cost of
dollars shifted away from public safety, from firefighters, police
officers, other public safety officers. As to this health care law, I
think people at the State level ought to decide that, no, we don't want
this to apply to us.
That is why I come today, again as a physician who practiced medicine
in Wyoming for a quarter of a century, took care of thousands and
thousands of patients and families, trying to help people get better,
all in a way that now I think is being taken in the wrong direction by
this health care law, and why I think we want to continue to look for
ways to make sure people get the care they want from the doctors they
need at a price they can afford. The health care law that was passed by
this body fails in all of those respects, and now we see, with the
President's budget, a request for money for another thousand IRS
agents, not to help people get better, not to help people get the care
they need from a doctor they want at a cost they can afford--no, not at
all--but to audit the health care of the American people.
I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). The clerk will call
the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SANDERS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Effects of the Recession
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise to briefly do three things. No. 1,
there are a lot of politicians and pundits and economists who are
proclaiming all over the country that the recession is over. They have
some economic models by which they determine that the recession is
over. I suggest those pundits and economists and politicians take a
look at the booklet we recently produced in my office. It is called
``Struggling Through the Recession--Letters from Vermont.''
We have also received letters from other States, people in other
States as well. We sent out a request for people to tell us, as we
enter the third year of this recession, what is happening in their
lives. We got, from my small State, over 400 responses. That is a lot
from a small State. We probably received an equal number from around
the rest of the country.
The problem I had with these letters, some of them are so painful to
read that it is hard to read more than a few at a time because you get
sick to your stomach hearing what good and decent and hard-working
people are going through.
I wish to take a few moments to read a handful of the letters I am
receiving from Vermont, in answer to the question: Is the recession
over?
This comes from a young lady from central Vermont. She says:
I have been fortunate to hold onto my job throughout the
past 3 years, especially since I have about $42,000 remaining
on my school loans.
One of the recurring themes we hear from all over Vermont--and I
suspect it is true in New Mexico and all over the country--is a lot of
young people are graduating with a heck of a lot of debt. The jobs they
are getting are not sufficient, in terms of pay, to help them pay off
that debt.
[[Page S776]]
She writes:
Anyway, what I want to write isn't about me--it's about my
boyfriend, a talented mechanical engineer that graduated with
about $80,000 in school loans.
We are telling the young people of this country: Go out and get an
education. They are coming out with huge loans, having a hard time
getting a job.
He was laid off in November 2009 and it has not only caused
financial hardship, but it has put all of our future plans on
hold. He fortunately has temporary employment now after
nearly a year of searching, but my qualm is with the high
cost of education and how people in their twenties are
supposed to move forward with their lives with school debt
lingering over them.
That is a very significant point.
Here is another one. This is a young man from Barre, VT, in the
central part of the State.
In 2002, I received a scholarship to Saint Bonaventure
University, the first in my family to attend college. Upon
graduation in 2006, I was admitted to the Dickinson School of
Law at Penn State University and graduated in 2009 with
$150,000 of student debt.
That is not uncommon.
In Western New York I could find nothing better than a $10/
hour position stuffing envelopes.
Another example of a young person graduating from college, doing all
the right things, and yet ending up with very substantial debt.
That is from some of the younger people. Then we got letters from
middle-aged people. This is from a woman from the central part of the
State.
My husband lost his job in 2002 and has been self-employed
as a carpenter ever since due to the lack of jobs in central
Vermont.
I should tell you the recession has been less disastrous in Vermont
than in other parts of the country. These are stories from a State that
has not been hit as hard as other States.
He's had no insurance and we have not saved a cent since
2002. We've depleted our savings account paying for property
taxes. We've been burning wood to save money heating the
house. The cost of fuel for the house and vehicles puts a
huge burden on making ends meet. Being self-employed is
extremely challenging due to the economic situation.
Again, she is touching on an issue that millions of people are aware
of. The price of gas to get to work is going up. The price of home
heating fuel in States such as Vermont is going up. Wages are low for
millions of people. How do they survive in that crisis?
We also have stories from older people. This is from a woman named
Beth, who lives in the northeastern part of our State, a very rural
part of Vermont. She is 69 years of age. She writes:
I don't know what kind of a future my grand kids will have.
How will they be educated if we can't help them? It is great
there are loans out there for education but they are being
charged more for the schools than I paid for my house. They
will be in debt their whole lives.
Here is a woman who is worried about her grandchildren. Here is
another woman, Ellen, who lives in Rutland County.
All I can say is I still have a job for all it is worth. I
feel making $8.81 an hour at 17 hours per week is ridiculous!
This woman is 63 years of age.
I don't bring home enough to help out with the major
household expenses I used to pay half on. I'm lucky if my
paycheck reaches $130 a week. By the time I pay a few bills
gas up and pick up a few needed items I'm lucky if I have any
left for spending. I earned less than $8,000 this year. It
[is] just about what I made back in the 1970's and lived
better.
So the point here is, A, if folks tell you the recession is over,
read some of these stories. These stories are available on my Web site:
``Sanders.Senate.gov.'' These are mostly from Vermont, but I think they
touch the same themes that exist all over our country. For millions and
millions of people, not only those who are unemployed--those who are
underemployed, those who are working full time and not making a living
wage--trust me, the recession is not over.
The reason I ask people to send me these letters is I think it is
important as a Senate to understand we have to address these economic
issues. When 16 percent of our people are either unemployed or
underemployed or have given up looking for work, when millions more are
working with inadequate wages, we cannot say we should not be
vigorously going forward in creating millions and millions of jobs that
our people desperately need.
Social Security
I also want to say a word on Social Security. What I want to say is,
I get very tired watching the TV or hearing some of my colleagues tell
me that Social Security is going bankrupt, that Social Security will
not be there for our kids or that Social Security is part of the
serious deficit and national debt problem we face. Let me say a few
words on that.
No. 1, Social Security has existed in this country for 75 years, and
it has been an enormous success. We take it for granted. But for 75
years, Social Security has paid out every nickel owed to every eligible
American in good times and bad. When Wall Street collapsed a few years
ago, millions of Americans lost all or part of their retirement savings
when the stock market crashed. All over America, during the last 10, 20
years, corporations that had promised defined benefit pension plans to
their employees rescinded on that promise. People had worked for years,
expecting a pension from a company. That pension never came. Yet during
all of that period, Social Security has paid out every nickel owed to
every eligible American at minimal administrative cost. That is a
pretty good record. Our job now is to make sure Social Security is
strong and vibrant 75 years from now and continues to do the excellent
job it has done in the past 75 years.
People say: Social Security is going broke. Social Security is in
crisis. A lot of people believe that because they hear it over and
over, and it is repeated in the media again, again, and again.
What are the facts? The facts are that not only is Social Security
not going broke, Social Security has a $2.6 trillion surplus--a $2.6
trillion surplus--which, by the way, is going to go up before it goes
down.
Social Security, according to the Social Security Administration and
the Congressional Budget Office, can pay out every nickel owed to every
eligible American for the next 25, 26, 27 years, at which point it will
pay out between 75 and 80 percent of all of the benefits. The challenge
we face, therefore, is how, in 25 or 30 years, do we make up that 20
percent gap? That is the challenge.
So Social Security is strong and will pay out every benefit owed to
every eligible American for the next 25 or 30 years. People say: Oh,
yeah, well, that is just worthless IOUs, that Social Security trust
fund.
Absolutely not true. The U.S. Government, from the day of its
inception, has paid its debt. Social Security is backed by the faith
and credit of the United States of America. We have never yet--and I
certainly hope we never will--default on our debt.
So the first point I want to make is, Social Security is strong.
Social Security will pay out benefits for the next 26 years. For people
to come forward and say we have to privatize Social Security, we have
to raise the retirement age, we have to lower benefits, is absolutely
wrong, to my mind. We made a promise to the American people regarding
Social Security, and that is a promise we have to keep.
In the dialog around Washington, people lump the very serious problem
of a $1.5 trillion deficit and a $14 trillion national debt with Social
Security. So let's ask a very simple question. How much has Social
Security contributed to our national debt? How much? The answer is, not
one penny--not one penny--because Social Security is not paid out from
the U.S. Treasury. Social Security comes from the payroll taxes that
workers and employers contribute into the Social Security trust fund.
That trust fund today has a $2.6 trillion surplus. So when people say
we have a very significant national debt and, therefore, we have to cut
Social Security, that is absolutely a wrong thing to say.
Let me say, I will do everything I can to protect a program that has
worked extremely well for the American people.
Why are we hearing all of this opposition against Social Security?
Where does it come from? It does not come from ordinary people. They
know Social Security has been successful, it is worth preserving, worth
protecting. By the way, as we all know, Social Security is not just
there for the elderly, the retirees; it is there for people with
disabilities; it is there for widows and orphans through the survivors
fund.
[[Page S777]]
Where is all of this opposition coming from?
It is coming from two places.
No. 1, it is coming from folks on Wall Street--from Wall Street--who
are saying: Gee, we could make many billions of dollars if we ended the
Social Security system right now and Americans had to invest in
retirement accounts on Wall Street. And we can make all kinds of
commissions doing that work.
That is one of the areas, one of the sources of the opposition to
Social Security.
Second is from many of my very conservative Republican friends. Very
honestly, they do not believe government should be playing a role in
making sure elderly people have a secure and dignified retirement. They
do not believe much in government. They do not think government should
be playing a role in those areas, and they want to get government out
of those areas.
I understand where they are coming from. It is an honest position. I
strongly disagree with them. I think in a civilized, democratic society
we have to make sure when you get old it has to be guaranteed--
guaranteed--as it has been for 75 years, that you are going to get the
help you need. I believe government should be playing that role.
I would remind you, Mr. President, before Social Security was
developed in the mid 1930s, 50 percent of the elderly people of our
country at that point lived in poverty. Today, that number is too high,
but it is 10 percent--50 percent before Social Security; 10 percent
today. That is a pretty good record.
So I would respectfully disagree with my Republican friends who say:
Well, if people want a retirement account, let them invest in Wall
Street, let them do it through the private sector. I do not agree with
that. I think Social Security has worked well for 75 years. We have to
make sure it works well for another 75 years. I will do everything I
can as chairman of the new Defending Social Security Caucus to make
that happen.
The Deficit and National Debt
The last point I want to make: I want to talk a little bit about the
deficit and our national debt.
I think it is appropriate for the American people to be reminded
about how we got into the very difficult situation we are in right now.
I have to tell you, I find it a bit amusing that some of the
``loudest'' deficit hawks in the Congress are precisely the same people
who helped drive up the deficit and the national debt--the same people.
Let's try to determine how we got into the recession.
No. 1, in the midst of a recession, by definition, less money is
coming in. That is obviously an important part of why we have the
deficit and the national debt we have today. But there are other
factors.
Mr. President, you will recall that this country, during the Bush
administration, began two wars--a war in Afghanistan, a war in Iraq.
The war in Iraq is estimated, by the time we take care of the last
veteran, to run up a tag of about $3 trillion. Does anybody quite
remember how we paid for those wars? Well, the answer is we did not pay
for those wars. Those wars were put on the credit card. President Bush
said: We are going to go to war, but we do not have to worry about how
we pay for them.
The second area: As a result of President Bush's tax policies, which
have recently been extended, against my vote, in the Obama
administration, we provided many hundreds of billions of dollars in tax
breaks to millionaires and billionaires. The wealthiest people in this
country are doing phenomenally well. The effective tax rate for the
wealthiest people in this country is lower than at any time on record,
in many cases lower than what working people are paying. Yet we
decided, against my vote, to give them hundreds of billions of dollars
in tax breaks, driving up the deficit.
Congress voted, against my vote, to bail out Wall Street--unpaid for,
driving up the deficit. Some years ago, Congress, against my vote,
decided to pass an insurance company-written Medicare Part D
prescription drug program--very expensive program, unpaid for.
So all of these things are unpaired for. The national debt goes up,
the deficit goes up. Then our Republican friends say: Oh, my goodness,
we have a very large deficit. What are we going to do? We are going to
have to cut back on programs that are important to working people and
lower income people.
I think that is absolutely unacceptable.
So the first point I would make is, I regard it as incomprehensible
that there are folks who supported hundreds of billions of dollars in
tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires and then they tell us they
are concerned about the deficit and the national debt. That is absolute
hypocrisy.
In my view, the Congress should not be about cutting back on programs
for low- and moderate-income people after we have given huge tax breaks
to the wealthiest people in this country.
Second of all, I think the time is long overdue that we start ending
a lot of the corporate tax loopholes which now are preventing this
country and this government from getting the revenue we need. Before we
talk about major cutbacks for our kids or for the elderly, maybe we
should end the absurdity of the tax havens that exist in the Cayman
Islands and Bermuda, where the wealthiest people in this country and
large corporations are stashing their money away, to the tune of about
$100 billion a year--$100 billion a year--in taxes that are not being
paid because of the tax havens that exist.
I would also argue it is somewhat absurd we have a situation where
last year ExxonMobil paid no Federal income taxes at all and got a $156
million rebate from the IRS, after earning $19 billion in profits.
What I would say is, yes, deficit and national debt are very
important issues. But it is important for us to understand how we got
to where we are. It is important for us to understand that the top 1
percent today earn more income than the bottom 50 percent and have
enjoyed huge tax breaks. So before we start slashing programs the
middle class and working families of this country need, let's take a
look at some of those issues as well.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 93, as Further Modified, to Amendment No. 7, as Modified
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I have a modification of my amendment
at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be so modified.
The amendment, as further modified, is as follows:
Strike out all after the word ``SEC'' and add the
following:
__. RONALD REAGAN WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT SLOTS.
(a) Increase in Number of Slot Exemptions.--Section 41718
is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
``(g) Additional Slots.--
``(1) Initial increase in exemptions.--Within 95 days after
the date of enactment of the FAA Air Transportation
Modernization and Safety Improvement Act, the Secretary shall
grant, by order, 24 slot exemptions from the application of
sections 49104(a)(5), 49109, 49111(e), and 41714 of this
title to air carriers to operate limited frequencies and
aircraft on routes between Ronald Reagan Washington National
Airport and airports located beyond the perimeter described
in section 49109 or, as provided in paragraph (2)(C),
airports located within that perimeter, and exemptions from
the requirements of subparts K and S of part 93, Code of
Federal Regulations, if the Secretary finds that the
exemptions will--
``(A) provide air transportation with domestic network
benefits in areas beyond the perimeter described in section
49109;
``(B) increase competition in multiple markets;
``(C) not reduce travel options for communities served by
small hub airports and medium hub airports within the
perimeter described in section 49109;
``(D) not result in meaningfully increased travel delays;
``(E) enhance options for nonstop travel to and from the
beyond-perimeter airports that will be served as a result of
those exemptions;
``(F) have a positive impact on the overall level of
competition in the markets that will be served as a result of
those exemptions; and
[[Page S778]]
``(G) produce public benefits, including the likelihood
that the service to airports located beyond the perimeter
described in section 49109 will result in lower fares, higher
capacity, and a variety of service options.
``(2) New entrants and limited incumbents.--
``(A) Distribution.--Of the exemptions made available under
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall make 10 available to
limited incumbent air carriers or new entrant air carriers
and 14 available to other incumbent air carriers.
``(C) Use.--Only a limited incumbent air carrier or new
entrant air carrier may use an additional exemption granted
under this subsection to provide service between Ronald
Reagan Washington National Airport and an airport located
within the perimeter described in section 49109.
``(3) Improved network slots.--If an incumbent air carrier
(other than a limited incumbent air carrier) that uses a slot
for service between Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport
and a large hub airport located within the perimeter
described in section 49109 is granted an additional exemption
under this subsection, it shall, upon receiving the
additional exemption, discontinue the use of that slot for
such within-perimeter service and operate, in place of such
service, service between Ronald Reagan Washington National
Airport and an airport located beyond the perimeter described
in section 49109.
``(4) Conditions.--Beyond-perimeter flight operations
carried out by an air carrier using an exemption granted
under this subsection shall be subject to the following
conditions:
``(A) An air carrier may not operate a multi-aisle or
widebody aircraft in conducting such operations.
``(B) An air carrier granted an exemption under this
subsection is prohibited from selling, trading, leasing, or
otherwise transferring the rights to its beyond-perimeter
exemptions, except through an air carrier merger or
acquisition.
``(5) Operations deadline.--An air carrier granted a slot
exemption under this subsection shall commence operations
using that slot within 60 days after the date on which the
exemption was granted.
``(6) Impact study.--Within 17 months after granting the
additional exemptions authorized by paragraph (1) the
Secretary shall complete a study of the direct effects of the
additional exemptions, including the extent to which the
additional exemptions have--
``(A) caused congestion problems at the airport;
``(B) had a negative effect on the financial condition of
the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority;
``(C) affected the environment in the area surrounding the
airport; and
``(D) resulted in meaningful loss of service to small and
medium markets within the perimeter described in section
49109.
``(7) Additional exemptions.--
``(A) Determination.--The Secretary shall determine, on the
basis of the study required by paragraph (6), whether--
``(i) the additional exemptions authorized by paragraph (1)
have had a substantial negative effect on Ronald Reagan
Washington National Airport, Washington Dulles International
Airport, or Baltimore/Washington Thurgood Marshall
International Airport; and
``(ii) the granting of additional exemptions under this
paragraph may, or may not, reasonably be expected to have a
substantial negative effect on any of those airports.
``(B) Authority to grant additional exemptions.--Beginning
6 months after the date on which the impact study is
concluded, the Secretary may grant up to 8 slot exemptions to
incumbent air carriers, in addition to those granted under
paragraph (1) of this subsection, if the Secretary determines
that--
``(i) the additional exemptions authorized by paragraph (1)
have not had a substantial negative effect on any of those
airports; and
``(ii) the granting of additional exemptions under this
subparagraph may not reasonably be expected to have a
negative effect on any of those airports.
``(D) Improved network slots.--If an incumbent air carrier
(other than a limited incumbent air carrier) that uses a slot
for service between Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport
and a large hub airport located within the perimeter
described in section 49109 is granted an additional exemption
under subparagraph (B), it shall, upon receiving the
additional exemption, discontinue the use of that slot for
such within-perimeter service and operate, in place of such
service, service between Ronald Reagan Washington National
Airport and an airport located beyond the perimeter described
in section 49109.
``(E) Conditions.--Beyond-perimeter flight operations
carried out by an air carrier using an exemption granted
under subparagraph (B) shall be subject to the following
conditions:
``(i) An air carrier may not operate a multi-aisle or
widebody aircraft in conducting such operations.
``(ii) An air carrier granted an exemption under this
subsection is prohibited from selling, trading, leasing, or
otherwise transferring the rights to its beyond-perimeter
exemptions, except through an air carrier merger or
acquisition.
``(F) Additional exemptions not permitted.--The Secretary
may not grant exemptions in addition to those authorized by
paragraph (1) if the Secretary determines that--
``(i) the additional exemptions authorized by paragraph (1)
have had a substantial negative effect on any of those
airports; or
``(ii) the granting of additional exemptions under
subparagraph (B) of this paragraph may reasonably be expected
to have a substantial negative effect on 1 or more of those
airports.
``(h) Scheduling Priority.--In administering this section,
the Secretary shall afford a scheduling priority to
operations conducted by new entrant air carriers and limited
incumbent air carriers over operations conducted by other air
carriers granted additional slot exemptions under subsection
(g) for service to airports located beyond the perimeter
described in section 49109.''.
(b) Hourly Limitation.--Section 41718(c)(2) is amended--
(1) by striking ``3 operations'' and inserting ``4
operations''; and
(2) by striking ``subsections (a) and (b)'' and inserting
``under this section''.
(c) Limited Incumbent Definition.--Section 41714(h)(5) is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``not'' after ``shall'' in subparagraph
(B);
(2) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon in subparagraph
(B);
(3) by striking ``Administration.'' in subparagraph (C) and
inserting ``Administration; and''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) for purposes of section 41718, an air carrier that
holds only slot exemptions''.
(d) Revenues and Fees at the Metropolitan Washington
Airports.--Section 49104(a) is amended by striking paragraph
(9) and inserting the following:
``(9) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, revenues
derived at either of the Metropolitan Washington Airports,
regardless of source, may be used for operating and capital
expenses (including debt service, depreciation and
amortization) at the other airport.''.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. I ask to speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator is recognized.
The Budget
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we have had sort of a dustup, I guess
you could say, in the Budget Committee yesterday with Mr. Lew from the
Office of Management and Budget and a very likable individual, but we
had a serious disagreement, a fundamental matter that I do not think
can be brushed over and needs to be confronted and settled. There is
only one way to settle it, I believe; that is, for Mr. Lew and the
President to cease saying their budget does not add to the debt and
somehow changes the trajectory on which we are going.
Mr. Lew, on a Sunday morning program, said: ``Our budget will get us,
over the next several years, to the point where we can look the
American people in the eye and say we're not adding to the debt
anymore. . . . ''
``Our budget will get us to the point where we can look the American
people in the eye and say we're not adding to the debt anymore; we are
spending money that we have each year, and then we can work on bringing
down our national debt.''
That is my goal. I believe that is achievable. But it is clear this
budget does not do that.
Troubling, additionally, was the President, in his radio address
Saturday, said the same thing. Then, again yesterday, while we were
having this discussion, presumably at a similar time, the President
said this: ``What my budget does is to put forward some tough choices,
some significant spending cuts so that by the middle of this decade
[2015] our annual spending will match our annual revenues. . . . ''
Our annual spending will match our annual revenues. We will
not be adding more to the national debt.
That is an unequivocal statement. No matter what, it can have only
one meaning to American citizens who hear it, that his budget calls for
a situation in which our annual spending will match our annual revenues
and we will not be adding to the national debt.
Those of us who have been wrestling with the budget know how hard it
is. I believe we can achieve that in 10 years, but it is very hard. I
have to admit it. I wish it were not. The Presiding Officer is on the
Budget Committee and he
[[Page S779]]
knows how hard that would be. It would be a heroic effort. I think we
can do it. I think the American people are ready to do it. But it is
not easy.
The President says that is what we are going to do and that is his
plan. But, sadly, it is not correct. I asked Mr. Lew, was he not
concerned and was not this misleading to the American people who heard
it. He refused to say his statement was misleading.
What does the budget do? These are the numbers in his budget, the
document they presented to us, written by the White House, the
President's budget he is required by law to submit to Congress. This is
what happens to the debt. The quote up there again is: ``We will not be
adding more to the national debt.''
We add more under his plan, to the national debt, every single year.
The numbers are stunning in size. They are consistent and,
unfortunately, in the outer years of his 10-year budget, his numbers
show the annual debt--annual deficit increasing, not going down. So
this is what it amounts to in terms of total debt.
His plan, by his own budget that they submitted to us, would add,
without dispute, $13 trillion in new debt, doubling it to $26 trillion.
It started out at $13 trillion; in 10 years, it doubles to $26
trillion. How can this possibly be a position in which you will not be
adding more to the debt? What world are we living in? What kind of
fantastical accounting situation can occur that we can make such a
statement as that?
I am going to ask my colleagues in the Senate, any single one of them
who can defend this statement, I would like them to come down here and
do so. Otherwise we need to call on the President to be honest with the
American people. We have a serious debt crisis. To waltz out there in a
press conference yesterday, to send out to speak on his radio program
Saturday or to have his Budget Director on Sunday, and even at our
committee hearing yesterday, insist that somehow they are not adding to
the debt is not a way to begin a dialog about how to confront the
serious problems this country has. I have to say that.
I do not think it is a little bitty matter. I don't think it is
subject to gentlemen's disagreement. I don't think it is subject to
anything other than black and white, yes and no. Is that an accurate
statement or not? It is not true. The debt is added to every year. In
fact, President Bush was criticized for his deficits--and I think
rightly so. The highest deficit he ever had was $450, $460 billion. The
lowest deficit in the 10 years, by the President's own budget document
he sent to us, is over $600 billion--the lowest. It averages $720
billion a year in added debt. This is why we are on a dangerous course.
The essence of what we are talking about is can we get off this wrong
road? Can we get on the road to prosperity? Can we get on the road to
progress that gets us out of the debt disaster area we are headed
toward?
Let me read a couple things because this is the real test of the
budget. We can argue over the finer details. But the question is, Can
we continue at the rate we are going? What I would say about the budget
is that these numbers, this $13 trillion added debt, is what was being
predicted before. According to the President, it would have been $14
trillion. He has reduced it to $13 trillion, which is not enough
change, if it were to happen. But when the Congressional Budget Office
independently scores the President's budget, it is going to show he
doesn't have a $1.1 trillion reduction in spending--probably none.
There is probably no reduction in the debt.
What I am saying is, this budget keeps us on the course we were on. I
do not think that can be disputed. It does not alter the basic debt
totals each year from what has been projected, and those are the
numbers, the debt totals, that are unsustainable.
For example, in 2009, President Obama called the current deficit
spending, on this basic trend, unsustainable--himself--and warned of
skyrocketing interest rates for consumers if the United States
continues to finance government by borrowing from other countries. This
is Bloomberg:
``We can't keep on just borrowing from China,'' Obama said
at a town-hall meeting at Rio Rancho, New Mexico, outside
Albuquerque. ``We have to pay interest on that debt, and that
means we are mortgaging our children's future. . . .''
That is correct.
Mr. Bernanke, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, warned in
June of last year that ``the federal budget appears to be on an
unsustainable path.''
Mr. Geithner, the Secretary of the Treasury, in February--actually
February 15--a couple days ago on ABC, said this--this is what the
Secretary of Treasury said, Mr. Obama's Secretary:
Our deficits are too high. They are unsustainable, and left
unaddressed, these deficits will hurt economic growth and
make us weaker as a nation. . . . We have to restore fiscal
responsibility and go back to living within our means.
Peter Orszag, who was President Obama's Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, said that the CBO report--he said this in June
of last summer:
. . . concludes that we are on an unsustainable fiscal
course. About this, there is no ambiguity.
We are on an ``unsustainable fiscal course,'' there is no doubt about
it, said Mr. Orszag last summer.
What I would say to you is, the President's budget does not change
that direction and we have to change it. We have to be honest with the
American people that we are not changing it, that the President's plan
is his plan for the future. He can change the numbers any way he wants
to. He can change the trajectory we are on. It is a voluntary thing.
The numbers he put forth are his numbers, and they are a call for our
country to follow his plan. That is not an acceptable plan. It is not
an acceptable plan, and we have to change it.
Briefly, I will add this. The warnings that are out there--Alan
Greenspan, our former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, said in
December that it is a little better than 50-50, but not much, that we
won't have a debt crisis in this country in 2 to 3 years.
Moody's, the organization most famous for rating government debt and
private company debt--you know, AAA is the highest rating--Moody's, in
December, sent a warning letter that, unless the United States changes
its trajectory of debt, our debt could be downgraded from AAA in less
than 2 years.
The International Monetary Fund has said we have to reduce our
structural deficit more than Greece. They have to go to a 9-percent
improvement; we have to go to a 12-percent improvement. Only Japan,
says the International Monetary Fund, is worse off than we are and has
to take stronger action.
So this budget is no action at all. It is no alteration of the
trajectory. It is unacceptable. As Congressman Ryan said, it is debt on
arrival.
We cannot pass this budget. It is unthinkable that we would. The
American people are ready for change. They are supporting Governors and
mayors around the country who are making tough choices, bringing their
States and cities up to speed and being more effective. They are doing
that. These cities are not ceasing to exist.
We increased discretionary spending, nondefense discretionary
spending, in the last 2 years under President Obama's leadership and
the Democratic majority in both Houses, 24 percent--12 percent a year,
on average. Well, at a 7-percent-a-year increase, the total budget
doubled in 10 years. I guess at 12 percent it will probably double in 6
or 7 years. This is the trend we are on. We have to come off of that.
We are going to have to reduce those numbers because we do not have the
money.
But I will tell you, this economy has vibrancy. It is trying to come
out of this recession. If we create some stability and permanence in
our rules, eliminate unnecessary regulations, allow our energy prices
to be competitive and create more American energy and all of the things
that make sense to bring down costs and increase productivity, bring
this debt under control, we will be surprised how strong we can bounce
back. But this is not the path to do it. This is the unsustainable path
that can lead to danger. The closer we get to it, the more dangerous we
are.
So I believe it is time to change course. Where we are going to go, I
just cannot say. I am rather stunned that the President's budget--I did
not expect a very strong budget, but I expected one that would make a
lot more progress than this. So I guess we are
[[Page S780]]
all befuddled right now what our choices will be. All of us have to
work at it, though, because the future of our country is at stake.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, is there a pending amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The second-degree Hutchison amendment to the
Inhofe amendment is pending.
Mr. COBURN. Thank you. Let me confine my remarks for a few minutes to
how I see where we are from my perspective. My hope is that I can offer
some amendments, at least get them pending, and then discuss with the
chairman--I just discussed them with the ranking member--the
disposition of those. I wonder whether the chairman has any comments on
that.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I will be objecting to your amendments because you
objected to the pending amendments, and there will be no reason to add
more unless you lift your objection.
Mr. COBURN. I told them I would be happy----
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I am very happy to listen to what you have to say.
Mr. COBURN. I told Senator Leahy last night that I would be happy to
lift my objection once my amendments were pending, and we can have a
debate on his nongermane amendment.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I think the order has to be reversed.
Mr. COBURN. Well, if the chairman will assure me I will have the
opportunity to, No. 1, debate Senator Leahy's amendment----
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I cannot assure that at this point. We have not
arrived----
Mr. COBURN. Then I will continue with my objection.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. If you have amendments you wish to offer--I think
five--I am constrained to object to them.
Mr. COBURN. It is interesting. We have a nongermane amendment that is
outside the bounds of the Constitution, doing something that is not the
role of the Federal Government, that we are going to expand the cost at
a time when we are bankrupt, and five germane amendments that actually
lower the cost of the airport improvement fund, actually help NextGen
in terms of money, help preserve the airport trust fund, and we are not
going to be allowed to bring them up? If that is the way we are going
to operate, then you can count on me, knowing procedure around here,
that we will have a very difficult time moving ever to a Leahy
amendment.
Mr. President, I came to the floor to discuss what we are trying to
do and to be helpful in moving that along. I have now heard that I will
not be allowed to offer these amendments or at least bring them up. I
am going to discuss each one of them, and I will object to any
unanimous consent moving forward on any area until we have an
opportunity, as is the Senate tradition, to have a debate and bring up
amendments. If we are not allowed to do that, then I am sure we are
going to start going backward again.
Passing an FAA authorization bill, as the chairman and ranking member
have tried to do, is a significant priority for Congress. We have a
system of air traffic control that needs to be modernized. We have
monies that we are putting forward to do that. We have not had the
oversight, according to the inspector general, that is necessary for
those programs.
In this bill, we have authorizations for moneys that are not
priorities for this country at a time that we are facing a $1.6
trillion deficit, we have an unemployment rate in excess of 9 percent,
and interest rates that are going to rise in the future.
My amendments, which I am happy to have voted on and voted down, lead
us to a path that secures and enhances the airport improvement fund and
the trust fund, makes common sense that 99 percent of the American
people would agree with, excludes Alaska because it is a totally
different animal when it comes to the Essential Air Service
requirements, and will, in fact, enhance the trust fund. So I am very
sorry the chairman refuses to allow my amendments to come up, but I
will offer them and have him object in total.
What has to happen with every program in this country is that
wasteful spending, low-priority spending, and duplicative spending has
to be eliminated. Although I think the chairman and ranking member did
a fairly good job on this bill, there are areas where we can eliminate
wasteful spending, there are areas where we can eliminate duplicative
spending, and there are areas where we can say: This can't be a
priority now given the financial fix in which we find ourselves.
During our current budget deficit, the revenues coming into the
airport trust fund are lower than expected, and we have this very real
need on NextGen development. Congress has to limit somewhere and make a
priority next year, and I think they have tried to go in that
direction, and these amendments will do such a thing.
The first amendment I would like to talk about is the airport
improvement Federal cost share reduction amendment. Across this
country, we now have money being spent on low-priority projects in
airports that have very little traffic or minimal traffic, and we are
not spending money on the airports for safety and for the airports in
which we have the vast majority of traffic. We have seen one program in
particular where billions of dollars for low-priority projects have
been spent.
I would just tell you, if we are ever going to get out of the jam we
are in, some common sense has to be applied in that we cannot do
everything everybody wants, and there is going to have to be some
sacrifice in these areas.
The whole goal of this first amendment is to discourage low-priority,
wasteful aviation projects that would not be funded by increasing the
non-Federal cost share to just 25 percent over 3 years. In other words,
it is 5 percent now, and so it is 95 percent of the government's money,
and all we do is, over 3 years, move it to where you have to pay 25
percent. It is going to discourage a lot of low-priority projects
because the communities or the States have to have a greater
participation.
There is no program in the Federal Government that has a grant
process and a funding process where the Federal Government pays 95
percent other than this program--not one. So we are encouraging money
to be wasted on low-priority projects by maintaining 95 percent Federal
funding. This gives us 3 years to adjust to 75 percent, which probably
should be 50 percent but 75 percent given our fiscal issues.
Nonprimary airports could initially have up to 90 percent of their
airport improvement projects covered by the Federal Government. In
recent years, we raised that, under Public Law 108-176, to 95 percent.
This is 20 percent higher than the same cost share for other airports
qualifying for this $4 billion program. It is $4 billion a year.
Lest you think I am too critical, let me give you some examples. Two
flights a day--two flights a day, noncommercial flights, just two
private flights a day--is the average for Kentucky's Williamsburg-
Whitley County Airport. We spent $11 million there to build an airport
with a 5,500-foot lighted runway, a colonial-style terminal, and
hundreds of acres for growth even though it does not have one airline
passenger and averages two flights a day. Now, tell me, if you ask the
average American: Should we spend $11 million there or should we make
sure we can take care of the kids who do not have what they need in
this country, should we spend $11 million there or not borrow another
$11 million from the Chinese, should we spend $11 million there or
should we, in fact, make sure the airport trust fund has the money to
do high-priority projects, such as large airports or NextGen, which one
would the average American think we should do?
Lest you think I am picking on Kentucky, Halliburton Field in Duncan,
OK, got $700,000 for a pilot room and a reception room. We are building
for private aviation with taxpayer money--a low priority. We are
building a nice pilot room and a reception room for the private pilots
who fly there. Now, tell me how that is a priority in our country
today. That is my own State.
We are sending money down a hole because we refuse to make tough
choices. All this amendment does is say: Let's move it from 95 percent,
over 3 years, to 75 percent so we do not get the lower priority
projects funded, because we are too generous with what
[[Page S781]]
the Federal Government contributes. The chairman may not like it, but I
will bet you the average American thinks it is a pretty smart thing to
do given the state we are in.
All bets are off on the politics of this. I have never been
accustomed to playing the politics of it at all, but there are just as
many people on the left who think we ought to cut spending as there are
on the right. America gets it. The only place that does not get it is
here. And this does not do anything except enhance what can be done for
higher priority issues within our aviation community. That is all it
does. It is a small, simple step. And by rejecting or not allowing an
amendment such as this to come forward, what we are saying is that we
are going to keep kicking the can down the road; we are not going to
pay attention to the American public. We are going to hide from the
reality that is coming very soon for this country. We will not have any
money to put into airport improvement programs. We will not have the
money to fund a NextGen program. It will become a low-priority program
unless we wake up and start doing what the rest of America recognizes
we have to do; that is, start living within our means.
The next amendment is an amendment that is a bipartisan amendment
between the Senator from Alaska and myself.
It is an earmark rescission amendment. All it says is the earmarks
that have been out there, that the money hasn't been spent for over 9
years, giving 1 year for the agencies to decide whether they think that
is so, should be rescinded. It puts $500 million, a half a billion
dollars at a minimum, back in the public Treasury. Why would we not
want to do that? We have $2.6 million sitting in Atlanta that can't be
spent on anything except the 1996 Olympics. Why wouldn't we take back
that $2.6 million? It was earmarked. It didn't get spent. But it is
sitting out there in a hole. We can reverse that. Estimates are we will
save a billion dollars. The conservative estimate at a minimum is $500
million. Yet we are not going to allow this amendment to be considered?
It makes no sense.
The next amendment calls on us to sacrifice a little bit. The
Essential Air Service Program has multiple subsidies where people can
easily drive 1 hour and 20 minutes and get to a regional airport that
doesn't require any subsidies. All this amendment does is move it to
100 miles from where it is today, which is 70. It moves it to 100 miles
and says if you are less than 100 miles, you ought not be eligible,
sometimes to the tune of $4 or $500 per person per flight, to have a
subsidized flight when you could drive 70 minutes, 80 minutes, and have
access to a ton of flights.
Again, it is priority. Is it priority for us to continue to spend
money on a small group of airports, 36, that in no way pay for
themselves, that are readily accessible throughout the country to major
airports, and spend the kind of money we are spending?
Another amendment says if you have less than 10 emplanements a day,
we ought to think about whether we are subsidizing Essential Air
Service.
All these amendments are saying is, will we make the tough decisions.
We can't do everything we want to do. Is it nice that we have an
Essential Air Service Program so some people don't have to drive an
hour? I guess so. What are we willing to sacrifice to get our house in
order? These are little bitty amendments that will send a wonderful
signal to the American public that we get it, we absolutely get it. And
because we get it, we are going to make choices about priorities. We
are going to enhance the airport trust fund. We are going to enhance
the airport improvement program because we are going to take lower
priorities off the board, which is exactly what they want us to do.
They want us to focus on the big things, the important things, and they
want us to cut the spending that is not absolutely necessary.
I can tell my colleagues, it is not absolutely necessary that we
subsidize some of these smaller airports that are very close to
regional airports or have less than 10 passengers a day. It is not
absolutely essential. Would we ask some Americans to sacrifice? Yes.
But do you know what will happen? We will all have to sacrifice before
we get through this. The problem is the resistance in this Chamber and
in this city. We don't want to make the hard choices. It is
disappointing that we have not done that. We will have to do that. And
we are either going to do it or somebody from the outside is going to
tell us what we are going to do.
Then a fifth amendment--and I know the chairman will be against this
amendment because it is his program that I am trying to eliminate--in
the year 2000, we created another program called the Small Community
Air Services Program. This is an amendment to repeal that. It was
geared to help smaller communities enhance their air service in
addition to Essential Air Service; in other words, make it more
effective, to try to promote utilization, which is a good idea except
it is not working. When we see the funds from this program, after the
grant is over, do you know what happens? The airlines leave. They don't
stay. They leave. So we are kind of spending money in a market that
won't sustain what we are trying to put there, and then we are putting
more money on top of it to try to promote it. When it doesn't work,
what happens? We lose the Essential Air Service anyhow. It has happened
in Oklahoma.
In this day and time that we live, we have to have an FAA bill. We
can't continue to not have an FAA bill. Even if my amendments are voted
down, considering that they are going to get a vote, I will probably
support this bill. But it should be noted that we haven't gone far
enough. We haven't made all the tough choices we need to make. I am
highly disturbed that we take amendments that are absolutely germane
and say they can't be offered because a time agreement, even though it
has been agreed to, isn't disagreed to yet because the Senator from
Vermont isn't on the floor.
I am going to offer the amendment and let the chairman object. Then I
will utilize the procedures that are available to me as a Member of the
Senate.
I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call
up amendment No. 91.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. There is objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I would say to the Senator from Oklahoma, most of
the pending amendments which are now pending have been objected to from
his side of the aisle. I don't have any objection to looking at some of
his amendments and seeing if we can vote on them. But I can't do that
right now. I obviously can't give him any kind of consent right now.
It is a difficult situation. It is a sort of rolling veto type of
situation. If objection is made, we can't have votes on amendments
which are pending. I am willing to look at what he has suggested. As he
talked through some of them, they sort of stung pretty hard in my State
of West Virginia, but I am willing to look at them. But I can't do that
without consent from folks on my side. So for the time being, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. COBURN. I thank the chairman. I will go on and allow him to
object to further amendments I have so it will be in the Record that I
did attempt to offer them.
I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call
up amendment No. 80.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending
amendment and call up amendment No. 81.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 82 and
set the pending amendment aside.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. COBURN. I thank the chairman for his words. I will take him at
his word and work with him and allow him to look at some of these.
There are only two airports in West Virginia that this would have an
impact on. Both of them are less than 75 miles from the regional
airport. They both have minimal emplanements daily. They are
[[Page S782]]
over 10 but not far over that. The point is, we ought to help who we
can help, and it ought to make economic sense. They are not targeted
because there are 36 airports in here, actually, where the average
American would say, this is nuts to spend the kind of money we are.
I thank him for the time.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I rise today in order to
speak in support of the Essential Air Service Program and explain why
the program truly is essential, especially in rural States. In
Nebraska, our two largest airports are separated by only 63 miles in a
State that covers 77,000 square miles.
This means that thousands of Nebraskans are hours away from a large
or even medium-sized airport requiring them to drive several hours to
take a flight.
Due to these geographical barriers, many Nebraskans rely on Essential
Air Service to keep themselves and their communities connected to the
Nation's transportation network.
In Nebraska, we have Essential Air Service airports in many
communities including my hometown of McCook, Alliance, Chadron, Grand
Island, Kearney, North Platte, and Scottsbluff. Without the EAS
Program, you would see the many hours it already takes to get to any
type of air service increased significantly for people in rural areas.
The cost to travel on one of these EAS flights would become so cost-
prohibitive that many would not even be able to afford to travel. And,
quite frankly, there would probably be many cases where EAS airports
would struggle to exist.
But the EAS Program isn't simply about cutting hours off a driver's
time to make a flight. It is also about economic development in rural
areas and job creation.
EAS promotes accessibility and growth in rural communities and in the
surrounding rural areas--and I have seen the impact air service can
have on a community's ability to attract employers firsthand.
When I was Governor of Nebraska, one of the first questions many
companies would ask when they wanted to bring a manufacturing plant or
warehouse distribution complex to town would be what is the air service
situation in the area.
Because of these EAS airports, I could respond that the area provided
an air service transportation option which gave these communities a job
creation recruiting edge. But don't just take my word for it. Listen to
other Nebraskans who are saying the same things about how important the
essential air program is to their communities.
For example, John Chizek, the mayor in Chadron, NE has said:
As the Mayor and lifetime resident of Chadron I believe it
is essential to continue support of the Essential Air Service
Program. As a community we are active in the recruitment of
new business. I firmly believe we have a unique atmosphere to
offer to businesses looking to move or expand. Our county was
recently identified as the poorest in the State and any
limitations place on us by reducing EAS support will only
hinder our hopes of growth.
Darwin Skelton, the airport director at Western Nebraska Regional
Airport, has said:
Essential Air Service is very important to Western Nebraska
Regional Airport and Western Nebraska as a whole, without
this funding we would not have commercial air service to our
community. We have many businesses in this community that use
this airport (i.e. Aurora Loan Service, Vertex, Regional West
Medical Center, Twin City Development, just to name a few).
When they are told of this plight, I am sure you will be
receiving letters of support from many businesses/
organizations from around the area . . . small, more rural
markets need air service to grow and maintain connections
with larger hubs and doing away with Essential Air Service
would be saying to rural America that they are not valued as
an important part of air service in the United States.
Kyle Pothoff, public works director for the city of McCook, said:
Having access to commercial air service is critical to the
economic stability of communities like McCook and without
this service it would make recruiting new businesses very
difficult.
A statement that I have recently heard is that economic
development does not come by bus or train, it comes by air.
This statement could not be more true.
Finally, Dave Glenn, CEO of Pathology Services in North Platte, said:
With the economy finally showing signs of improvement, loss
of EAS funding for airports like North Platte (LBF) would be
disastrous. Pathology Services, P.C. serves 18 hospitals and
over 50 clinics in Central and Western Nebraska, Northwest
Kansas, and Northeast Colorado. To provide the Medicare
required pathologist services, we rely on using our general
aviation plane based at the North Platte airport.
Our hospital has also recently started a medical helicopter
service which helps meet the health care needs of patients.
Without EAS funding our business and the health of our
citizens would be negatively impacted.
I am well aware that the Essential Air Service does have its critics
who are concerned about providing government funding support to keep
air service in rural America. Certainly a review of all government
supported programs to find efficiencies and ways we can make a program
run better and spend less I am always open to. But to simply try and
eliminate the Essential Air Service Program which is a driver of
economic activity in my State, as you can clearly see from these
Nebraskans' stories, is the wrong approach. Essential Air Service truly
is essential to rural Nebraska and rural America and why I oppose any
efforts to eliminate this important program.
Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise today, with my colleagues, Senator
Collins, Coburn, and Brown of Massachusetts to discuss an amendment to
the S. 223, the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety
Improvement Act. Currently this bill contains language which adjusts
for inflation the personal net worth cap in the Small Business
Administration's 8(a) program. This would expand the net worth level
established by the SBA in 1989 from $750,000 to approximately $1.4
million. Our amendment aims to strike that language from the bill.
In March of 2010, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, issued a
report detailing extensive fraud within the 8(a) program. The report
revealed that 14 ineligible firms received $325 million in sole-source
and set-aside contracts even though these firms were not eligible for
the 8(a) program. As ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small
Business and Entrepreneurship, I take very seriously our committee's
responsibility of vigorous oversight and am concerned with efforts to
expand the SBA's 8(a) program when these issues have not been fully
vetted through the regular order in the Small Business Committee.
Moreover, there has not been a hearing to examine the GAO reports of
fraud.
The SBA's 8(a) program is designed to help socially and economically
disadvantaged small businesses gain access to Federal contracting
opportunities. I support these goals and applaud the Federal Government
for consistently meeting the goal for small disadvantaged businesses.
However, I am deeply troubled by the program's current vulnerabilities
to fraud and abuse which results in legitimate firms being excluded in
favor of bad actors who have infiltrated the program. This is not a
partisan issue. I recently sent a letter along with SBC Chair Mary
Landrieu to Administrator Mills' where we stated unequivocally that our
first priority in the 112th Congress is to ensure the SBA is taking the
requisite steps to purge the contracting programs of any and all fraud
and abuse.
When calculating an individual's net worth, the SBA currently
excludes the value of their primary residence and the equity in the
8(a) company. The language contained in the FAA bill would result in
allowing potential multimillionaires to be considered economically
disadvantaged. Therefore, I wonder about the further effects this
change would have on the program. I question whether expanding the net
worth would result in crowding out of business owners with
significantly lower net worth. Additionally, I worry lower income
individuals would be at a disadvantage competing with those with
substantially more resources.
In light of all these concerns, I fear the current net worth
expansion is
[[Page S783]]
fraught with unintended consequences and ignores the recent reports of
fraud in the 8(a) program. I urge my colleagues to support the Snowe-
Collins-Coburn-Brown amendment to strike this language.
Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant editor of the Daily Digest clerk proceeded to call the
roll.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have been working through this bill. I
congratulate our manager, Senator Rockefeller, who is one of the most
experienced people in the Senate and is a good manager. He has worked
well with Senator Hutchison, comanager of the bill. We have made
significant progress. We have a few amendments on which we are trying
to work a way to the end of this. I hope we can work out an agreement
to complete this legislation maybe as early as tomorrow morning
sometime. If we can't, the first cloture vote is tomorrow, and we will
see what happens after that.
Everyone should understand. It is Wednesday. Tomorrow is Thursday. I
know a lot of people have arrangements because we have a home work
period the following week. We want to go home, if at all possible, late
tomorrow night or early Friday morning, but we can't do that if there
is work left to be done on this bill. I hope we can work something out
so we can finish tomorrow. It would certainly be doable.
We know what we have left. Work on the different issues has been
extremely difficult and time-consuming, but we have settled most
everything on the Senate floor, as we are supposed to do.
There will be no more rollcall votes tonight. We hope we can move
forward to complete work on this most important piece of legislation
tomorrow. This legislation is extremely important for our country.
Let's keep in mind, this deals with people. Almost 300,000 jobs will
be created or saved with this legislation. I repeat what I have said on
the Senate floor once before. McCarran Airport in Las Vegas is the
sixth busiest airport in the country. The manager of that airport,
Randy Walker, when asked about this bill last week, said: If it passes,
we will finally be able to stop using World War II technology to land
and have airplanes take off.
It is not just McCarran in Las Vegas. At every airport in the country
it is the same thing, World War II technology. We will be able to have
a passengers' bill of rights. It is a very fine piece of legislation
that has been years in the making. We are too close to the end of this
to walk away. We have to finish this bill. It means jobs, real jobs,
not make believe jobs.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be
rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________