[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 114 (Wednesday, July 27, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4946-S4947]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
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.