[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 20 (Tuesday, February 7, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S382-S385]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         FAA CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last night, the Senate adopted the final 
version of a long term reauthorization of the Federal Aviation 
Administration. The process has been long and less than elegant as we 
worked through differences between the chambers, across parties and 
regional differences. I voted for the bill and am pleased that there is 
now more stable funding and policy to support our national aviation 
system. There are aspects of this bill that I do not agree with and 
would have done differently.
  The FAA authorization expired in October of 2007. For more than 4 
years, we have been operating on short-term extensions--23 total short 
term extensions. The FAA, airlines and flying public all deserve a 
long-term authorization to provide certainty to our national aviation 
system.
  One reason I voted for this legislation is that it is a jobs bill. 
The FAA estimates commercial aviation is responsible for 5.2 percent of 
gross domestic product and generates $1.2 trillion in economic 
activity. The aviation industry provides $346 billion in earnings and 
11 million jobs. And this bill will help grow those numbers.
  The funding provided in this bill will support 280,000 jobs. The 
economist Mark Zandi said, ``Aviation is the glue that keeps the global 
economy together.'' This bill will boost our economy now and keep the 
United States competitive in the global marketplace in the future.
  As importantly, this bill will improve the safety of our aviation 
system. Improving runway safety is one of the National Transportation 
Safety Board's ``Most Wanted'' list. There were 988 runway incursions 
last year. This year there have already been 66 incidents. This bill 
will require FAA to review all commercial service airports in the 
United States and initiate action to improve lighting, signage, and 
runway and taxiway markings.
  Another key component of this bill is NextGen, the term we use to 
describe our transition from radar-based air traffic control system to 
a GPS-driven system. NextGen will give pilots and air traffic 
controllers the ability to accurately pinpoint aircraft in the sky--to 
avoid problems, to monitor traffic, to move things more smoothly, 
safely and efficiently. The FAA has called for action on implementing 
NextGen.
  Last year, U.S. airlines carried 704 million passengers. Soon, those 
numbers will increase significantly. The FAA reports that U.S. airlines 
will carry more than one billion passengers by 2023 and more than 1.2 
billion passengers by 2030. Our outdated air traffic control systems 
cannot safely and reliably handle this increase in traffic. But with 
NextGen, we hope to triple the capacity of our national aviation 
system.
  This technology will allow planes to fly the straightest, quickest 
route from point A to point B. And with more precise information and 
better communication between the ground and the cockpit, we can fit 
more planes safely in our airspace. Doing so will save airlines at 
least 3.3 billion gallons of fuel a year--or more than $10 billion 
annually by 2025. NextGen should also reduce airport delays 
significantly.
  Chicago's Midway Airport was ranked dead last over the past few 
months for on-time departures. Chicago's O'Hare airport has won that 
dubious distinction more than once. The

[[Page S383]]

main reason for these delays is the lack of capacity in our aviation 
system. Fully implementing NextGen could reduce those delays by half.
  NextGen will also save more than 1.4 billion gallons of fuel and 
provide $22 billion in savings to airlines and flyers. This is a great 
investment. This bill will help airports and air travelers in Illinois 
and nationwide save time and money.
  In Illinois, we are in the middle of the largest airport expansion 
project in U.S. history at O'Hare airport. This $6.6 billion project 
will completely reconfigure the runways at O'Hare to make sure we can 
move more traffic in and out of Chicago more efficiently. Moving this 
project along means a lot to the people of Chicago and Illinois.
  O'Hare already generates 450,000 jobs and $38 billion in economic 
activity for the Chicago region and the State of Illinois. The O'Hare 
modernization project will create 195,000 more jobs, and another $18 
billion in annual economic activity. This bill will allow O'Hare to 
keep moving forward by funding the airport improvement program at 
healthy levels. And it isn't just O'Hare. Airports in Illinois will 
benefits from more than $3.3 billion per year for AIP projects.
  Last year, airports in the Quad Cities, Rockford, Decatur and 
Springfield all used AIP program funds to make critical improvements to 
their airfields. Keeping this funding flowing will allow these airports 
to handle the traffic of today and the future increases of tomorrow.
  The bill helps rural areas keep the commercial air service they have 
now and attract new service in the future. The Senate Conferees 
defeated an attempt to completely dismantle the essential air service 
program. This bill fully funds essential air service and puts in place 
important reforms so the Department of Transportation works with 
businesses, local communities and the airline industry to start and 
retain quality air service to rural communities.
  Without a robust EAS program, many rural communities would have no 
commercial air service at all, and residents of smaller cities would 
have to travel significant distances for flights. This bill will ensure 
communities in Quincy, Marion and Decatur have scheduled commercial air 
service--an enormous tool for communities to retain and attract 
businesses. Scheduled air service as an important requirement for many 
businesses when they choose a headquarters or office.
  While I voted for this bill for all the reasons I have already 
mentioned, I have very serious concerns about some of the labor 
provisions included in this bill. Several times, Republicans held up 
passage of a reauthorization bill on unrelated labor issues. And last 
year, these disagreements led to a lapse of authorization for several 
days before we were able to pass the latest short term extension. 
During that lapse, some 4,000 Federal aviation workers were furloughed, 
airline construction projects like the O'Hare Modernization Project 
were threatened, and it cost the Federal Government roughly $25 million 
in tax revenue each day.
  So, Senator Reid made a tough decision--he negotiated with House 
Republicans for the removal of language overturning the National 
Mediation Board rule, but in exchange the bill now includes the current 
labor provision which could make it more difficult for workers to 
organize and form a union. It is unfortunate that Republicans insisted 
on bringing Federal labor law into this legislation without hearings or 
adequate debate. But I could not allow Republicans to continue holding 
this bill hostage. It is too important to airline safety, the economy, 
my State, and the country as whole.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I support a clean extension of the FAA 
bill. But I cannot support the conference report that's before the 
Senate today because it includes a radical provision to undermine our 
rail and airline workers' right to organize.
  The FAA bill is a jobs bill that keeps air safety employees and 
construction workers at airports on the job. According to the U.S. 
Department of Transportation, every dollar spent on transportation 
isn't just an investment in concrete and steel, it is an investment in 
our workers that creates jobs. Reauthorizing this bill keeps thousands 
of Federal employees and tens of thousands of construction workers on 
the job and not worrying about whether they will receive a paycheck.
  A reauthorization of the FAA bill means 4 years of stability. It will 
modernize and upgrade our air traffic control system. And it will 
provide billions in investments to improve our airports with new 
runways, aprons, lighting, and land purchases. A clean FAA bill saves 
jobs, protects the flying public, and stimulates our economy.
  But this FAA bill comes with a poison pill labor provision that was 
added in Conference. I cannot vote for such a radical provision that 
makes it more difficult for rail and airline workers to organize and 
sets a dangerous precedent of opening the Railway Labor Act up for 
hostile anti-worker amendments on unrelated must-do transportation 
bills.
  This is just another example in a persistent pattern of attacking 
workers' rights. The Republicans have made it clear that the price of 
their support for a much-needed investment in our air infrastructure is 
to undermine our workers' right to organize and decide whether they 
want to be represented by a union.
  During the Senate's debate of the FAA bill last year, the Republicans 
tried to strip hardworking Transportation Security Administration 
workers of their collective bargaining rights.
  Last summer, the FAA shut down for 2 weeks because the House 
Republicans insisted on a provision to make it harder for rail and 
airline workers to form unions. Now, we are days away from the 
expiration of the latest of 23 short-term extensions to the FAA bill, 
and the conference report includes another attack on workers' rights. 
The Republicans need to get off of it with labor, and get on with the 
business of creating jobs.
  Unions play a vital role in ensuring safe and fair working 
conditions. We encourage the right to organize around the world. We 
need to encourage it on our own FAA bill.
  Our rail and airline workers are hard at work every day protecting 
Americans. They keep us safe and secure as we travel. In return, they 
deserve a decent wage and safe working conditions. They deserve to have 
their right to organize and negotiate protected. And they deserve our 
thanks and respect.
  I support a reauthorization of the FAA bill, but I am not prepared to 
trade away our workers' rights to get it done. I cannot support this 
conference report.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my support to the 
Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act conference 
report which was passed by the Senate last night, and will provide a 
greater sense of financial security than the Federal Aviation 
Administration, FAA, has seen in a long time. No agency should be 
subjected to the budget uncertainties that FAA has been forced to 
experience, nor strung along year after year unable to make long-term 
plans. For more than 4 years, the FAA has operated under more than 20 
short-term funding extensions. I think that is unprecedented in the 
history of agency funding. At any rate, it is no way to run a railroad 
or a national aviation system.
  I also support the conference report because it would finally allow 
the FAA to move forward on the NextGen air navigation program, would 
give the passenger's bill of rights the force of law, and would provide 
billions of dollars to improve and develop public airports across the 
country. For these reasons, the legislation is long overdue and sorely 
needed.
  The conference report, however, does contain a provision about 
aviation security and the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, 
that is deeply troubling to me and about which I feel duty bound to 
express my disapproval.
  At stake is TSA's management of the Screening Partnership Program, 
SPP, which allows a limited number of airports around the country to 
replace Transportation Security Officers, TSOs, with private 
contractors to screen passengers and their baggage. TSA has implemented 
this program at airports where, due to low-traffic volume, full-time, 
year-round Federal staff is unnecessary. A handful of larger airports 
take part in the program so TSA can measure and assess its performance 
and cost effectiveness

[[Page S384]]

against the private contractors. It is telling that TSA's assessment 
after comparing the two systems is that it can secure airports more 
economically than private screeners can.
  Regrettably, some of my colleagues in the House and Senate are 
resolved to undermine TSA--and therefore airport security itself--by 
advocating for the pre-9/11 system of screening by private contractors. 
My response to that is, how quickly we forget.
  Mr. President, we have already tried an aviation security system run 
by private contractors. It very tragically did not work. The 9/11 
attacks did not occur because of one, two, or three specific 
vulnerabilities. They occurred because a number of our defenses--
including our system of airport screening--were simply inadequate.
  I know everyone has vivid memories of the days after the 9/11 
attacks, and it is hard to forget the dramatic loss of confidence the 
public felt for the aviation security system. Air travel dropped off 
precipitously in the weeks and months after 9/11, the aviation industry 
was shaken to its core, and our economy suffered because of it.
  It became clear to many of us that aviation security was inseparable 
from national security, and we could not, and should not, rely on the 
private sector to do the job. The security of our skies would have to 
become a government responsibility. Americans need to be safe and 
secure wherever and whenever they travel. And while I would not want to 
cast blame or criticism on any one contractor, we have already 
witnessed the results of a system utilizing private security companies 
which were constantly pressured to focus on costs first and security 
second.
  Less than 2 weeks after the 9/11 attacks, a bipartisan group of 21 
Senators introduced the legislation that would create TSA and turn 
airport screening over to Federal officials. Barely a month after 9/11, 
the Senate passed that bill by a vote of 100 to 0. The bipartisanship 
of that vote was heartening and demonstrated a unity among Members that 
I wish we could experience more often. In the years since, we have had 
a few near misses, and our defenses have been penetrated more than 
once, but no hijackings or terrorist incidents have been successfully 
carried out. In large part, we have a dedicated corps of TSOs to thank 
for that.
  I know it is fashionable in some quarters to criticize TSA. 
Understandably, people are unhappy with pat-downs, body scans, and 
invasions of privacy. But TSA establishes its policies for a reason. 
They are a direct response to real terrorist threats, and they have 
evolved as the threat has evolved. When a terrorist put explosives in 
his shoes and tried to light them afire mid-flight in 2001, TSA asked 
passengers to remove their shoes for screening. When a terrorist plot 
was uncovered in 2006 that involved lighting flammable liquids aboard 
several planes, liquids, except in small quantities, were prohibited. 
After the Christmas Day 2009 attempted attack with explosives hidden in 
a terrorist's clothing, better screening technology was developed. 
These are not hypothetical cases or academic scenarios. They are real 
incidents and the reason that TSA makes so many demands on the flying 
public. And we should not delude ourselves or the American people into 
thinking that adopting a contract workforce will eliminate the need for 
body scanners, pat-downs, or any other security procedure TSA 
determines is necessary to secure air travel. Regardless of whether a 
U.S. airport uses Federal screeners or private ones, the security 
procedures implemented are the same.
  Yet a provision has been tucked into this bill that would make it 
more difficult for TSA to maintain its current system by lowering the 
burden of proof for admitting additional airports to the Screening 
Partnership Program. Right now, airports must demonstrate that a 
private screening workforce would be more effective, secure, and 
efficient, than the TSA. The standard tucked into this bill, however, 
would only require airports to demonstrate that using private screeners 
``would not compromise security or detrimentally affect the cost-
efficiency or the effectiveness of screening.''
  While the TSA Administrator would still have the authority to deny an 
application to the Screening Partnership Program, this lower standard 
would make it far more difficult for him to do so. TSA Administrator 
Pistole has said that the Screening Partnership Program should be used 
judiciously and that airport screening is and should remain a core 
mission for the Department of Homeland Security since 9/11, and I agree 
with him wholeheartedly.
  Another provision in the bill strikes me as counterproductive. This 
provision would require TSA to provide recommendations to an airport 
that was denied its application to the SPP on how that airport can 
overcome the denial, if it decides to resubmit its application. If TSA 
believes that it can screen passengers and baggage better and with more 
cost efficiency than a private contractor, why would it provide tips on 
how an airport can escape that system?
  Private screening could also limit TSA's ability to react nimbly to 
intelligence threats. If screeners are privately employed and managed 
airport by airport, TSA may not be able to respond effectively by 
shifting personnel to where it is most needed or modifying procedures 
if it cannot exert direct control over screeners.
  Mr. President, private screening at airports could undermine not just 
public confidence in the aviation security system but in aviation 
security itself. We have been there and experienced the consequences of 
private screening. The American public must feel secure when it 
travels, and security is the first priority of TSA.
  Ultimately, I voted for the Federal Aviation Administration 
Modernization and Reform Act. But I believe we should reconsider and 
revisit the language related to TSA's Screening Partnership Program. I 
would urge my colleagues to remember the lessons learned after 9/11 and 
work with me to ensure we won't make the same mistakes again.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the long-awaited passage of the long term 
FAA reauthorization conference report is a great achievement for 
Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Hutchinson, and the many other 
Senators and staff members who were involved in this legislation. I'm 
pleased with the important nationwide achievements in this bill--
NextGen radar systems, improved passengers' rights, and airline ticket 
transparency, to name a few.
  But I wanted to take a few moments to talk about the huge positive 
impact this legislation is going to have throughout almost every part 
of my home State of Oregon.
  The big news for the Portland region is that the new slot exemptions 
at Washington National Airport will likely allow for the first direct 
flight from Portland International Airport to Washington National. This 
was not an easy victory for the northwest--many of my colleagues from 
both sides of the aisle had opinions on this issue and it seemed like 
we were not going to be able to come to an agreement. But I'm proud to 
say that both sides came to a compromise that will improve air service 
in the northwest and throughout the country.
  One of the things I'm most proud of is that this bill permanently 
protects Crater Lake from the threat of noisy air tours. As most folks 
who have visited Crater Lake know, the quiet and peace of the park is 
just as important as its scenic beauty. This legislation says that 
Crater Lake is specifically off limits to any overflights that might 
threaten that tranquility.
  This bill creates six new test areas for commercial use of unmanned 
aerial systems. In Central Oregon, folks are excited about the 
potential for using those test areas to advance the cutting edge 
aviation industry that already exists there. It's also an opportunity 
to monitor wildlife, do meteorological testing, and improve law 
enforcement in the vast acres of public lands now being co-opted by 
drug traffickers.
  Perhaps the folks who are most directly helped by this legislation 
are in Independence, OR. Independence has a community of general 
aviation enthusiasts who live near Independence Airport and who keep 
their planes on their own property. The FAA recently decided to change 
the rules on them, putting their future in doubt. This legislation 
erases that doubt and allows those folks to continue an arrangement 
they've had for nearly 40 years with no significant safety issues and 
no significant noise complaints.
  Finally, this legislation includes language to encourage recycling at 
airports, something I have been working

[[Page S385]]

on for nearly a half dozen years. I'm glad that it will provide 
important tools for airport recycling going forward.
  I commend my colleagues for moving this legislation forward as a 
positive step for the country and for my home State.

                          ____________________