[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 58 (Thursday, April 25, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2984-S2985]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXCESSIVE GOVERNMENT WASTE
Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, a recent Washington Post headline has
grabbed national attention. It reads: U.S. Government spends $890,000
on nothing.
It almost sounds like a bad joke, but this is no laughing matter. The
Post reported:
This year, the government will spend at least $890,000 on
service fees for bank accounts that are empty. At last count,
Uncle Sam has 13,712 such accounts with a balance of zero.
The American people are no strangers to reports of excessive
government waste, from robotic squirrel research to Moroccan pottery
classes. This latest example, however, comes at a particularly
frustrating moment, as thousands of Americans are stuck waiting for
hours in airport terminals with delayed fights--the result of the
Federal Aviation Administration's decision to furlough thousands of air
traffic controllers due to sequestration. The Post astutely noted:
If you are a federal worker on furlough this week--or an
airline passenger delayed by federal furloughs--you might
want to save your blood pressure and go read another story.
Federal law requires the government to reduce overall spending by 5
percent in each agency, totaling $85 billion for the remainder of this
fiscal year. While the $890,000 currently spent on unused bank accounts
may seem like a drop in the bucket, it nonetheless proves there is
plenty of fat to trim in Federal spending. We can do that, and we can
do it without directly impacting essential government services and
jobs.
The same holds true with the FAA. Similar to many Nebraskans, I
remain concerned about the Federal Government's failure to effectively
target these required but necessary budget cuts. Of particular concern
is the FAA's complete mismanagement of the cost reductions which has
resulted in unnecessary travel delays all across this Nation. Since
1996, the FAA's operations budget has grown by an astounding 109
percent, from $4.6 billion to $9.7 billion. A mere 5-percent budget cut
would simply return the FAA to the 2010 funding levels.
Despite 2 years to prepare for these budget reductions, the FAA chose
to provide Congress and the airline industry with less than 1 week's
notice regarding its plans to furlough its workforce, showing complete
disregard for the traveling public.
The FAA has insisted on targeting air traffic controllers, rather
than solely focusing on lower priority personnel to ensure morale. I
wonder if anyone has checked in with the folks waiting in airport
terminals--and waiting in those terminals for hours--to determine their
current morale. The FAA has 47,000 employees, of which 15,500 are air
traffic controllers. While I appreciate the hard work of many Federal
employees, air traffic controllers should be the last ones on the FAA's
budgetary chopping block.
Rather than selectively ratcheting up the pain of Federal budget cuts
on American citizens with these long delays, the FAA should, instead,
focus on cutting its $500 million consultant slush fund or the $325
million spent on supplies and travel.
For months, the administration has argued it lacks the flexibility to
target the required budget cuts in a smart, responsible manner--in a
smart, responsible manner--that mitigates the impact on the public. To
that end, I have cosponsored several legislative efforts to provide
this administration with the tools to ensure that essential Federal
employees continue to provide these vital services, such as our control
tower operations.
Most recently I cosponsored the Essential Services Act, which would
simply require each Federal agency head to identify and exempt
essential employees from any furlough policies by using the same
standards that were created by multiple administrations during previous
government shutdowns.
Unfortunately, the President and my Democratic colleagues continue to
oppose any of these measures to both achieve needed savings without tax
hikes and preserve our important government functions.
Notably, FAA Administrator Michael Huerta recently testified at a
Senate hearing that he does, in fact, have discretion to prioritize the
spending cuts. If that is true, then it appears the FAA is more
interested in scoring political points rather than cutting its $2.7
billion in nonpersonnel operation costs.
I am very disappointed in Administrator Huerta's lack of
forthrightness with this Congress. When asked at the same hearing about
the FAA's possible furlough strategy, Mr. Huerta provided only general
statements. Hours later, FAA officials provided detailed furlough plans
to airlines--a disturbing move to hide the ball from lawmakers, who
were left without the opportunity to mitigate the impact of these
extensive furloughs.
I stand here ready to work with the President and any of my
colleagues who are committed to making these budget cuts in a smart,
effective, and efficient manner, a manner that preserves essential
government services.
I thank the chair. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a serious problem
confronting the American traveling public and our economy, and later
today I will be introducing a bill to remedy this problem. I am very
pleased to be joined by several of my Senate colleagues as original
cosponsors, including Senator Mark Udall, Senator Risch, Senator
Roberts, Senator Isakson, and I expect several more cosponsors to join
in this effort over the course of the day.
As the ranking member of the Transportation Appropriations
Subcommittee, I have followed the issue of FAA delays and furloughs
very closely. In fact, the first thing this morning I met with
Secretary of Transportation LaHood and FAA Administrator Huerta to
discuss this problem and my proposed solution.
The challenges the FAA faces this fiscal year are daunting. Not only
is the agency operating under a continuing resolution but sequestration
compounds the problem. It is important that sequestration be
implemented in a way that ensures safety and minimizes the impact on
travelers as well as on jobs in the hospitality and airline industries.
The FAA recently announced its plans to achieve its sequestration
savings by implementing furloughs of air traffic controllers, closing
contract towers, eliminating midnight services, among other cuts.
I personally believe the FAA had other choices and could have avoided
many of these disastrous outcomes, but there is no doubt that personnel
does make up a great deal of the agency's budget and that some
furloughs undoubtedly would have been necessary. Whether it was
necessary for the FAA to concentrate so many of the cuts in the area of
air traffic controllers is an entirely different question. In any
event, my bill would restore funding for these essential programs and
would do so--and this is an important point--without increasing the
funding for the FAA or for the Department of Transportation.
Let me give a little bit of background. The FAA began furloughing
47,000 employees this past Sunday, including nearly 15,000 air traffic
controllers. This is essentially 10 percent of its
[[Page S2985]]
workforce, which equates to one furlough day per biweekly pay period
for approximately 11 days through September 30. The FAA also plans to
eliminate midnight shifts in more than 70 control towers across the
country and will close more than 149 air traffic control towers at
airports with fewer than 150,000 flight operations or 10,000 commercial
operations per year. In addition, the agency is slated to reduce
preventive maintenance and equipment provisioning and support for all
National Airspace System equipment.
These are simply irresponsible cuts that have real and detrimental
impacts on the traveling public, on the airline industry, on the
hospitality industry, and they will cause widespread delays to the air
transportation system. It is estimated as many as 6,700 flights could
be delayed each day, more than double the worst day of flight delays
last year.
In fact, there is one estimate that just since Sunday, 5,800 delays
have occurred because of the actions taken by the FAA. This reduction
in staffing of air traffic controllers has been the primary cause of at
least one out of every three delays since the furloughs began, and the
problem is only going to get worse.
To give an example: On Monday there were 2,660 delayed flights, of
which 1,200 were due to the furloughs. What is even more troubling is
this is only the beginning, and soon we will be approaching the peak
travel season. Some airports may experience delays of up to 3 hours
during peak travel times, and we know these delays cause a ripple
throughout the entire system. What is going to happen is that air
travelers are going to decide to cancel trips and will not even bother
to go on brief vacations because they don't want to spend 3 hours
sitting on the tarmac waiting for their flights to take off.
The FAA acknowledges these service reductions will adversely affect
commercial, corporate, and general aviation operators. The agency
expects that as the airlines estimate the potential impact of the
furloughs, they will be forced to change their schedules, cancel
flights, and lay off employees. At a time when our economy is already
fragile, that is the last thing we need to happen.
The legislation I am introducing with several of my colleagues,
including Senator Mark Udall, is called the Reducing Flight Delays Act
of 2013. Here is how it would work: It would provide the Secretary of
Transportation with the flexibility to transfer certain funds to
prevent the furloughs of essential employees at the FAA, and certainly
air traffic controllers qualify as essential employees.
Specifically, it would give the Secretary the authority to transfer
an amount not to exceed $253 million to prevent the furloughs of the
air traffic controllers and other essential employees in order to
reduce flight delays and at the same time to maintain a safe and
efficient national airspace system. Our bill would accomplish this goal
by allowing a one-time shift of unused moneys in the Airport
Improvement Program to the operations account.
I first raised this idea of using the AIP carryover balances as a
solution at our Republican policy lunch on Tuesday. Since that time,
many of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle have indicated
interest in this approach.
I want to emphasize our legislation has been vetted by the general
counsel offices at both the FAA and the Secretary's office, so we know
it works. Secretary LaHood told me this morning it is an effective,
workable solution.
I want to explain further exactly how this would work. Each year
funds are distributed according to a formula under the Airport
Improvement Program to airports across the country, but each year there
are moneys that cannot be used by these airports by the end of the
fiscal year. Those moneys come back to the FAA in Washington, and they
are then usually reallocated through a competitive grant program.
Last year it was as much as $700 million that came back to Washington
to be reallocated. This year the amount of unused funds is estimated to
be approximately $400 to $450 million. So we would take $253 million of
that $400-plus million and use those funds to avoid these very damaging
furloughs. The rest of the funds would, as usual, be reallocated to
airports that need them through a competitive grant program.
I want to be clear: This is the discretionary portion of the Airport
Improvement Program. It in no way affects the entitlement funds that
airports are guaranteed to receive. The program has sufficient funding
to support this effort. Moreover, this is a one-time shift. It does not
in any way provide a permanent change in this program.
There would also be sufficient funds to fully fund and continue
operating the contract tower programs, which so many of our
colleagues--particularly Senator Moran--have supported and been
concerned about.
This is a commonsense solution. It doesn't involve additional money.
It is a one-time shift of unused moneys. It does not make a permanent
change in the Airport Improvement Program. It will solve the problem,
avoid the need for these delays, for layoffs, and avoid harming our
economy at a time when we can least afford to do so.
The Airport Improvement Program is a very important program. It does
support infrastructure at our Nation's airports. We are simply taking
the unused funds that are generally reallocated and instead using a
portion of these funds to avoid these disastrous implications of the
direction the FAA has chosen.
Our bill should be recognized as a one-time solution in order to
avert these serious national impacts.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I hope we can act very
promptly to solve this problem.
Thank you, Mr. President.
____________________