[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 114 (Wednesday, July 27, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4945-S4948]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                          FAA Reauthorization

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, last week I came to the Senate floor 
to

[[Page S4946]]

ask unanimous consent to pass something called--a very easy thing--a 
clean extension of the FAA bill, something the Senate has done 20 
times. This is the 21st time--4 years waiting to pass a reauthorization 
bill.
  But for the first time in these 4 years, the Republicans objected to 
this extraordinarily routine request. Shortly, I will renew my request 
to pass our 21st short-term extension of the FAA. But before I do, I 
want to highlight the very painful consequences of failing to pass this 
bill, which we can only do by getting a clean extension.
  By objecting to my request last week, Republican Senators made sure 
that 4,000 hard-working FAA employees were furloughed already. Hundreds 
of critical airport safety capacity air traffic control projects were 
brought to a halt. Payments were stopped to hundreds of small 
businesses dependent upon reimbursement from the FAA for their work.
  The Federal Government is being forced to forego almost $30 million a 
day in aviation tax revenue that is critical, obviously, to supporting 
our overall airport infrastructure program. The introduction of the 
newest Boeing aircraft is being delayed because the FAA cannot certify 
that the planes operate safely.
  I know in Washington we have a tendency to view these fights as 
purely policy disagreements that have no real impact on people. I 
stress that there is an enormous effect on people and businesses, large 
and small, and on the economy of the United States. Because some 
Republicans have refused to allow another clean extension of the FAA 
programs, something we have done 20 times in the last 4 years, we are 
inflicting real pain on very real people.
  People are suffering. Small businesses are hurting. We are losing 
jobs and will lose a lot more. Even consumers are losing out on the 
airline ticket tax holidays.
  The majority of the airline industry has greedily chosen to pocket 
those revenues rather than reducing ticket prices. In other words, they 
have a tax holiday because the expiration of the tax has already taken 
place a number of days ago. So they are taking this tax holiday, and 
rather than leaving at the present level the cost of a ticket for 
consumers--as Alaska Airlines is doing and Virgin Airlines is doing and 
one other airline is doing--they are taking the money to themselves, 
giving it to themselves.
  I find that extraordinary. It reminds me of ``Too Big to Fail''--the 
movie--the greed, the promise to help with small mortgages and they got 
all the money and didn't spend a dime to help with small mortgages.
  The damage we are doing to our aviation system is incredibly real. If 
we fail to act in a timely manner, it may be so devastating as to 
become irreversible. It makes sense when we think about it. If one were 
to operate on somebody and cut beyond a certain point, they can't 
reverse the damage.
  With so much pain being inflicted on so many, one may ask why my 
Republican colleagues have refused repeated requests to pass a clean 
extension--something we have done 20 times in the past 4 years.
  They are willing, evidently, to hurt so many of these people for the 
benefit of one company. It is called Delta Airlines. As the chairman of 
the House Transportation Committee has stated publicly, the House 
inserted language on the Essential Air Service Program to leverage the 
Senate on including provisions relating to the National Mediation 
Board.
  What do I mean? What they sent to us was all about essential air 
service. But that is not what it is about at all. The chairman, my 
counterpart in the House told me many times that essential air service 
is not a big deal to him. He doesn't particularly have a dog in this 
hunt. We need to do some reform on it, which we offered to do. He 
didn't mention a thing about the National Mediation Board. That is the 
only thing that motivates the House.
  Delta Airlines is nonunion. The other airlines, for the most part, 
are union. Delta Airlines has had four elections in the last several 
years to unionize. Each time the company has prevailed over the union. 
So one might ask: Why is it that they are so strongly suggesting they 
need this National Mediation Board, which they changed in their bill.
  It had been changed 2 years ago to say the number of votes that were 
cast were the number of votes that were reflected. In their bill, they 
want to say that anybody who does not vote in a union certification 
election, by definition, has voted no. I have never heard of that in 
America anywhere else. It is a rather ridiculous ploy.
  This is not policy, this is pettiness. It has become the typical ``my 
way or the highway'' thinking of the House Republicans.
  I note that we have forgone almost $150 million in tax revenues by 
failing to act. It will go up by about $25 million a day, which, when 
we think about it, would come close to paying for the whole Essential 
Air Service Program anyway, in just a week or so. Again, by the end of 
the week, we will have lost more revenue used for aviation 
infrastructure spending than on the entire Essential Air Service 
Program cost all of last year. It is embarrassing.
  I wish my Republican colleagues would have defended the prerogatives 
of the Senate. Instead, some chose to back the House leadership.
  Last week, as my friend from Utah--who is here now--outlined so 
honestly, Senate Republicans are not permitting the Senate to pass a 
clean extension because they want the Senate to accept language 
altering 85 years of labor law and legal precedent.
  I wish I understood why the policy objections of one company--Delta 
Airlines--mattered so much to so few and also mattered so much more 
than the livelihood of thousands of American workers who have or will 
be furloughed.
  Last year, the CEO of Delta made $9 million. Whether that was a 
salary or salary plus options, I know not. Delta paid its top 
executives almost $20 million. Yet it is fighting to make sure its 
employees cannot organize--they already had four elections, and in all 
four Delta has prevailed--for fear they may secure a few extra dollars 
in their paychecks.
  At the same time, it is pushing for special interest provisions in 
the FAA bill. Delta is not shy. Delta announced it was abandoning air 
services to 26 small, rural communities--leaving many of them, 
obviously, without any air service. One only has to live in a small, 
rural community or a State such as mine to understand what that means 
and what the cost truly is.
  Delta then had the gall to announce publicly it would seek EAS 
subsidies to continue this service. Maybe Mr. Anderson and his 
colleagues can forgo some of their own salaries to help subsidize the 
air service. That is not my business. Maybe they could use some of the 
millions of dollars they are collecting in a tax holiday windfall to 
pay for this service. That is not my business, but it is theirs, and it 
is shameful.
  Let me be clear. House Republicans and their Senate allies have 
thrown nearly 4,000 FAA employees out of work already, stopped critical 
airport safety projects, hurt hundreds of small businesses, and gutted 
the Aviation Trust Fund--or began to--so Delta Airlines--that one 
company--doesn't have to allow its employees to organize in a fair or 
timely manner, if they chose to.
  The needs of one company should not, in any deliberative body, 
dictate the safety and soundness of our aviation system. We need to 
pass a clean extension that will get people back to work and businesses 
and their employees back to work and build out our airport 
infrastructure.
  It is so simple to pass a clean extension bill. We have done it so 
often. We have done it 20 times. The one time where there was some 
policy attached was 2 years ago, when the House and the Senate totally 
agreed on what was in the extension, and it passed. But it is such a 
simple thing to do. By not doing it, it is holding up our whole 
process.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 2553

  Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that, as in legislative session, 
the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 109, H.R. 2553; 
that a Rockefeller-Hutchison substitute amendment, which is at the 
desk, be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read the third time 
and passed; and that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, 
with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HATCH. I object, Madam President.

[[Page S4947]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I will take a few minutes to explain why 
I am, once again, objecting to the legislation offered by my dear 
friend from West Virginia, my Finance Committee colleague. I wish to 
make it absolutely clear that a long-term FAA reauthorization is a 
priority for this country, and it is a personal priority for me.
  Once again, I point out that I have worked with Chairman Baucus on 
reporting a Finance Committee title to the bill that passed the Senate 
earlier this year. The current lapse in FAA taxes and expenditures 
authority from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund is a detrimental 
situation brought on by the Senate majority's refusal to discontinue 
granting excessive favors for big labor and their refusal to cut any 
wasteful spending.
  As I have said, I share House Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee Chairman Mica's frustration that favors to organized labor 
have overshadowed the prospects for a long-term FAA reauthorization.
  Last year, the National Mediation Board changed the rules under which 
employees of airlines and railroads are able to unionize. For decades, 
the standard has been that a majority of employees would have to agree 
in an election to form a union. However, the National Mediation Board 
rules changed that standard so all it takes to unionize is a majority 
of employees voting. This means the NMB wants to count an employee who 
doesn't vote as voting for big labor. Somehow, organized labor is able 
to claim it is democratic to appropriate someone else's vote without 
that person's input and participation.
  The FAA reauthorization bill that passed the House earlier this year 
undoes this heavyhanded rule and lets airline employees decide for 
themselves how to use their own votes. The House bill would merely undo 
a big partisan favor done at the behest of big labor and put efforts to 
unionize airline workforces on the same footing they have been on for 
years.
  The House bill does not create a new hurdle to unionization. Instead, 
it restores the longstanding ability of airline employees to make 
decisions for themselves. The House bill only undoes the NMB action 
that was taken to reverse 70 years of precedent for narrow political 
gain.
  In addition to an impulse to cater to big labor, the Senate majority 
also is resistant to any attempt to cut any government spending, no 
matter how wasteful that spending may be. The House bill I am going to 
ask unanimous consent for in a few minutes has aroused the ire of the 
majority because it contains a provision that would limit essential air 
service eligibility to communities that are located 90 or more miles 
from a large- or medium-hub airport. This would save $12.5 million a 
year. That is right, million with an ``m'', not a ``b'' or a ``t.''
  The majority is resisting a provision that already passed this body 
as part of the Senate's long-term reauthorization bill that would save 
$12.5 million a year, and they are willing to put the FAA's finance at 
risk in the process. The House bill I am going to offer also contains 
an additional proposal to limit essential air service subsidies for 
communities where the cost per passenger is greater than $1,000. This 
provision would affect a grand total of three airports in the whole 
country. It is my understanding these three airports would also have 
ceased to receive EAS subsidies under another provision in the Senate-
passed, long-term FAA bill that limited subsidies to airports averaging 
10 or more passengers a day.
  To sum this up, our friends on the other side, the Democrats, are 
holding this up over wasteful spending and handouts for President 
Obama's big union allies.
  The point is, the Senate majority has cut the FAA off from its 
primary source of financing and created confusion for travel companies 
and tax-paying passengers by objecting to a short-term extension 
measure that doesn't do one single thing that is not done by a bill 
that passed the Senate by unanimous consent on April 7 of this year.
  I wish to briefly discuss and hopefully clear away some of that 
confusion. Passengers who bought tickets while the taxes were still 
being collected may be entitled to a refund if they are traveling 
during a period in which the taxes have lapsed. I wish to make it clear 
that the inability of the Senate majority to process legislation should 
not constitute an additional burden to the already beleaguered travel 
industry. It is the responsibility of the IRS to refund ticket taxes, 
and while I recognize they want to do the right thing for taxpayers, I 
encourage the IRS to work closely with the travel industry. The travel 
industry is not responsible for the lapse in FAA taxes, and they should 
not bear extra costs because of that.
  The lack of a long-term bill is bad for airports all across the 
country because they don't have the funding stability to plan and 
complete projects. Kicking the can farther down the road is not a 
viable alternative to actually doing what is in the best interests of 
all parties.
  As a Senate conferee to the FAA bill, I stand ready to do everything 
I can to get to work with my House and Senate colleagues on a long-term 
FAA reauthorization, as soon as they are willing to get down to work.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 2553

  Madam President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2553, 
which was received from the House. I ask unanimous consent that the 
bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be 
laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Is there objection?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, have the yeas and nays been ordered on 
the Mueller nomination?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No.
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays on the Mueller nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, how much time remains until the vote on 
the Mueller nomination?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I hope all Senators will step forward and 
vote for this nomination. I can think of no reason why they should not. 
Director Mueller is typical of many in our government who serve the 
people of America tirelessly, without any gain to themselves but 
instead for what is best for all Americans and for our 
country. Director Mueller has worked--along with the thousands of 
individuals at the Department of Justice and the FBI who work around 
the clock every day to keep America safe to protect us from crime and 
to protect us from terrorists. Unfortunately some people try to lump 
together and deride government employees. The fact is the people at the 
FBI and Department of Justice are very brave men and women, many of 
whom put their lives on the line for us day by day, and we ought to 
acknowledge that.

  Bob Mueller is the public face of the FBI, as its long-serving 
Director. Amazingly, he and Ann, his wife of many years, along with 
their grown children, are able to separate that their private life from 
the public life. Like so many who serve this country, Director 
Mueller's public life takes an inordinate amount of his time, and I 
think it is a testament to his dedication that he was willing to do 
this job for another two years, but it is also important to acknowledge 
the sacrifice of his wife Ann and his children. I think all Americans 
share in the good fortune that when the President asked Director 
Mueller to step forward and serve for another 2 years, he answered the 
call.
  I also want to compliment President Obama. He knew he had the 
opportunity to name somebody who would be there as long as he, Barack 
Obama, may be President, whether he serves one term or two, and beyond. 
Instead, the President, as he has often done, did what he thought was 
best for the country.
  Director Mueller is a fine public servant, and I would urge all 
Senators to vote ``aye'' on this nomination.
  Madam President, how much time remains?

[[Page S4948]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I see no one else seeking the floor, so I 
yield back the remainder of the time, which is now about 30 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Robert S. Mueller, III, of California, to be Director of the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation for a term expiring September 4, 2013.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 118 Ex.]

                              YEAS -- 100

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lee
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, a motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid on the table. The President will 
be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________