[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 57 (Wednesday, April 24, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2912-S2914]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FAA SEQUESTRATION DELAYS
Mr. COATS. Madam President, I rise as a member of both the Senate
Appropriations Committee on Transportation and as a member of the
Senate Commerce Committee to discuss what I believe is a shocking
display of mismanagement and incompetence by the leadership of the
Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration.
The Federal Aviation Administration says the sequester will result in
as many as 6,700 delays per day. To put this in context, on the worst
weather day in 2012, we had 2,900 flight delays. So the FAA's projected
6,700 delays per day would more than double the worst day in 2012.
To me, this is disturbing evidence of the lack of planning on the
part of both the Department of Transportation and the FAA, leading up
to what we all knew was going to take place--in fact, since the law was
signed by the President. We have known for 1 year this may happen. The
President signed it into law, and we are now many months down the line
and suddenly the FAA came along just a few days ago and said: Oh, we
just need to let you know, by the way, we are going to implement this
part of the sequestration.
This across-the-board furlough is especially surprising given the
previous announcements their guiding principle when implementing
sequestration would be to enact a plan that ``maintains safety and
minimizes the impact to the highest number of travelers.'' Announcing 3
days or so before they implement this plan that potentially results in
as many as 6,700 delays per day minimizes the impact of the highest
number of travelers?
This is disingenuous. It is mismanagement at its worst. It is
incompetence at its worst. It is a failure to do what every agency has
been required to do; that is, plan for this. Now that it has been in
law for several months, there is no excuse for simply saying: Oh, we
didn't have time to put this in place, so this is what we are going to
do.
I voted against sequestration because it treats every Federal program
on an equal basis regardless of its necessity, its effectiveness, or
whether it is an essential function of the Federal Government.
Clearly, keeping our skies safe and getting our passengers from point
A to point B is an essential function. We need those air traffic
controllers. The plan that was put forth by the FAA flies in the face
of their own judgment and their own statements in terms of what they
needed to do.
Instead of furloughing 47,000 employees and causing significant
delays for travelers, they should have been seeking reductions
elsewhere. We tried to give these essential agencies additional
flexibility necessary to do so. Unfortunately, the President did not
support that effort, and the majority party in the Senate did not
support that effort. Therefore, they have no reason to point their
fingers over here and say: Oh, sequestration is so terrible. We never
should have been in this position in the first place.
The FAA, for the record, could have considered cutting back on the
$541 million it spends on consultants--in other words, those who have
been hired to work at the FAA because the FAA can't do the job
themselves, so they need to spend $541 million to hire outside
consultants--and the $2.7 billion it spends on non-personnel costs. But
instead of looking at how to better manage their own administration,
they turned to furloughing up to 10 percent of the air traffic
controllers, creating up to 6,700 delays per day on the traveling
public.
Then they say they haven't had time to work this out. Haven't had
time? They have had months' worth of time since the law was signed. How
about the time people now wasted standing at airports for 3 and 4 hours
waiting to board their plane and the overall disruption this causes?
And this is in good weather. That in itself is a lame excuse the FAA
has put forward.
I did not vote for the sequestration, as I said before. I thought it
was an inadequate way to deal with the necessary need to cut spending
here. But the Federal Government says: We would like to do that, but we
can't afford to do that right now and still focus on the essential
services and give them the opportunity to manage that. Clearly, the FAA
and the Department of Transportation have not managed this well at all.
This is incompetence.
As I mentioned, Congress was only informed just days ahead of the
time of these furloughs. This decision kicked in to the surprise of the
airlines and to the surprise of Congress. But clearly what we have
learned, despite 1 year of advance warning and refusals to analyze all
possible alternatives to minimize impacts to the traveling public--and
it is hard to come to any other conclusion--is this is a politically
motivated decision to inflict as much pain on Americans as possible in
an effort to make the case that sequestration never should have taken
place in the first place; that a 4-percent across-the-board cut to the
FAA budget is simply something they can't manage. In other words, we
would have asked the FAA to do what they did in 2010 with the money
that was allocated to them, but they can't do that now. This is 2012-
2013 and they need this extra money and they need these hundreds of
billions of dollars to continue to hire consultants. They don't want to
be asked to make the kinds of decisions every
[[Page S2913]]
business in this country has had to make over the last 4 or 5 years
during the malaise of economic growth following the recession that has
taken place. We shouldn't ask them to do what every family has had to
do? Their thinking is: We are the Federal Government. How dare you
impose a 4-percent cut on what we do. We need to increase that every
year because we need to keep hiring more and paying more consultants.
We are not capable of managing.
It is shocking. I hope the President understands if he wants
effective, efficient government, he is going to have to hire effective,
efficient management. He is going to have to give them the instructions
to do what every business in America has had to do during this
difficult economy and slow economic growth.
I think we should take a very close look at the kinds of decisions
that have been made at the Department of Transportation, the lack of
competent management, and the mismanagement of taxpayer money. This
administration needs to step up to the plate and be accountable. The
President, as I said, created and signed into law the sequestration
policy. His administration has known for more than 12 months this
policy was imminent and they have done nothing to prepare for it
effectively.
Our country is a long way from getting our spending under control, so
it is time the administration stops looking for excuses and starts
managing its budget effectively.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. HOEVEN. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Hoeven pertaining to the introduction of S. 794
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, what is in the parliamentary situation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is in a period of morning business.
Immigration
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I will be speaking shortly on matters of
immigration. I just wanted to report to the Senate that since February
the Senate Judiciary Committee has held six hearings on immigration. We
concluded the last one yesterday with the testimony of Secretary Janet
Napolitano.
In all, we have had dozens of hearings on immigration in the last
couple of years, but these six were especially important for the Senate
and for our work in the Judiciary Committee. Tomorrow we will put the
immigration bill on the Judiciary Committee's agenda.
Under our normal practice, I have consulted with the ranking member.
We both agree. The bill would be held over until the first Thursday we
come back from our early May recess. This actually works well because
it will give all members of the committee, and those Senators not on
the committee, more time to read it.
Once we start marking up the bill and voting on it in committee, it
would be my intention to not go Thursday to Thursday, which is normal
committee procedure, but to hold markups several days a week. I am told
that people do not intend to delay this immigration bill for the sake
of delay, and I hope that is so. This is too important an issue.
Madam President, 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. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, to go back, earlier this morning I spoke
of the immigration hearings we have held in the Judiciary Committee and
how important they are, not only to the Senate but to the country.
It was an extraordinary series of hearings. Forty-two witnesses spoke
about the need for meaningful immigration reform. I believe there is a
chance to have real immigration reform this year, the kind of reform
that our great and wonderful country deserves. This is a country where
every one of us is a child, grandchild, or great grandchild of
immigrants; a country where a large percentage of the major Fortune 500
companies were started by immigrants.
We heard from ``Dreamers'' and farmers, business people, religious
leaders, economists, government officials, practitioners, law
enforcement advocates, and others. We heard from those opposed to
comprehensive immigration reform, and we heard from those who support
it.
Since the bipartisan legislation was introduced a week ago, we held 3
days of hearings with live testimony from 26 witnesses. I have
accommodated many member requests. I worked with ranking member Chuck
Grassley to ensure that all viewpoints were heard. In fact, no witness
he suggested was denied the opportunity to appear and testify. I think
we all realize--whether Republican or Democrat--no matter how we may
vote, we should have a clear record.
I asked Secretary Napolitano to return to testify, again, even though
she just did so in February. She was scheduled last week. But with the
horrific circumstances in Boston, of course we all understood why she
had to cancel that appearance. She came yesterday and answered every
single question asked of her.
As I said earlier, when we meet tomorrow the right will be exercised
under our committee rules to hold over the immigration reform bill for
a week. I have discussed this with Senator Grassley, and I think we
both agree that this is a wise thing to do, to hold it over and give
people that extra time to read the bill. Next week is a recess week, so
we will be able to turn to marking up the legislation in May. By that
point, the bill will have been publicly available for three weeks
before we vote on any aspect of it or consider any amendments offered
to it. Everybody will have had a chance to see it. We live-streamed all
the hearings. All of this is on the Judiciary Committee Web site.
The legislative proposal we are examining is a result of the
significant work on a bipartisan compromise. I do not want to see
comprehensive immigration reform fall victim to entrenched or partisan
opposition even though it may well exist. In the course of my hearings
I quoted my dear friend of many years, Ted Kennedy, one of the lions in
this body. In the summer of 2007, he and I had worked very closely with
former President George W. Bush to pass comprehensive immigration
legislation. But that immigration reform was being blocked in the
Senate. He spoke of our disappointment. He said:
But we are in this struggle for the long haul. Today's
defeat will not stand. As we continue the battle, we will
have ample inspiration in the lives of the immigrants all
around us.
From Jamestown, to the Pilgrims, to the Irish, to today's
workers, people have come to this country in search of
opportunity. They have sought nothing more than a chance to
work hard and bring a better life to themselves and their
families. They come to our country with their hearts and
minds full of hope.
I urge all Senators to consider the recent testimony of Jose Antonio
Vargas, Gaby Pacheco, and the families who can be made more secure by
enacting comprehensive immigration reform.
The dysfunction in our current immigration system affects all of us.
I hope that our history and our decency can inspire us finally to take
action to reform our immigration laws. I know this is something my
maternal grandparents, who were so proud to come to this country,
speaking a different language, beginning a business, raising a family,
seeing their grandson become a Member of the Senate, I know that is the
way they would feel.
I know my wife's parents, who came to this country speaking a
different language, having their children here in the United States and
having stood with Marcelle and me and my parents when I was sworn into
the Senate, and then watching these children and grandchildren,
understand what a wonderful country this is.
[[Page S2914]]
We are a great and good country. But we are also a country that
becomes greater and better because of the diversity brought to our
shores. That is true from the beginning of this country to today. Let's
make it possible.
____________________