[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 113 (Wednesday, July 13, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5036-S5041]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2016--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). The Senator from Vermont.
College Affordability
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, while the Senator from Missouri is still on
the floor, I noted what my friend said about his being the first member
of his family to get a college degree.
The Leahys came to Vermont in 1850. When my grandfather--who was a
stone carver--died, my father was a teenager, and he had to go to work.
I became the first Leahy to get a college degree, and my sister was the
second one. I have to think what the path might have been otherwise.
There is one thing we all have to agree on: We have to make it easier
for college to be affordable, with all kinds of plans and ideas. The
kids have to be able to go to college. I was able to do that. I was
able to go on to graduate school. It is so important to be able to
compete today. I was touched by what my friend said, and I appreciate
it.
Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Bill
Mr. President, we have kind of a good news/bad news situation today.
The good news is that Congress is taking a step forward on how to
respond to opioid addiction. By advancing the Comprehensive Addiction
and Recovery Act, or CARA, we are leaving behind decades-old
misconceptions about how to confront addiction.
For too long, Congress relied on punitive measures that only served
to push addicts further underground and away from recovery. This
legislation treats opioid addiction as an illness. It combats it as we
would any other public health issue, through a commitment to evidence-
based treatment and recovery programs. But the bad news is our
commitment falls short.
The conference report promises critical programming, but then it does
not pay the bill. It does not provide the resources necessary to
support the programming. So we should know what we have here. We have a
first step--an important first step but barely a first step. If we make
a mistake and say: OK, we have done our job, then we have failed the
countless communities across the country grappling with addiction. We
are doing very little to stem this epidemic.
I am afraid my friends, the Republicans, have repeatedly blocked
efforts to fund the programs authorized by CARA. When the legislation
was first considered on the Senate floor, Republicans opposed Senator
Shaheen's amendment that would have provided $600 million in new
funding of emergency supplemental appropriations, which is actually a
modest amount considering what is needed in this country.
Then we have the appropriations process in committee this year.
Emergency funds to fight this addiction epidemic were denied. Senate
Republicans kept assuring us that there was going to be a time and a
place to include real funding. Well, last week's conference provided
such an opportunity. I, along with other Democratic conferees,
identified commonsense and bipartisan offsets that would enable us to
dedicate almost $1 billion in new resources to put the programs in CARA
to work. We told our Republican counterparts we
[[Page S5037]]
could not sign the conference report unless it included meaningful
funding, but the Republicans voted against funding CARA so I did not
sign the report. They also made a new promise. At the conference
meeting, the Republicans promised to include $525 million in new
funding to combat addiction through the appropriations process. I have
to note that I hope Americans demand that Congress keep this promise
and provide meaningful funding for CARA--not with poison pill offsets
that would kill it but with real promises.
I will soon again join with Senators Murray, Wyden, and Shaheen to
introduce legislation to provide $920 million to fund CARA. It could be
fully paid for. It could be paid for with offsets that received
overwhelming bipartisan support. If we are really serious about
combatting the opioid epidemic, there is no sense not to pass this, and
there is no sense not to put our money where our mouths are, because,
if we fund it, it can make an important difference. We can expand
prevention efforts, expand access to treatment and recovery services,
and authorize the critical public health programs to create and expand
Medication Assisted Treatment, MAT, programs.
If CARA were funded, it could make an important difference in
communities across the country. The bill lays the groundwork for
expanding prevention efforts and access to treatment and recovery
services. It removes arbitrary restrictions on prescribing Medication
Assisted Treatment, which will allow nurse practitioners and physician
assistants in Vermont to treat addiction just as they treat other
illnesses. It authorizes a critical public health program I helped
create to expand MAT programs. Some Vermonters tell me they are
struggling with addiction and they have had to wait nearly 1 year to
receive treatment. At the Chittenden Clinic in South Burlington, VT,
several have died while waiting. Because we wouldn't fund it, several
died. This story is not unique.
The bill also includes my provision to support our rural communities
by increasing access to the overdose reversal drug naloxone. Rural
locations have the highest death rates in the country from opioid
poisoning, and getting this drug into more hands will save lives.
The Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act also recognizes that the
overprescription of opioids is largely responsible for this epidemic,
and the legislation includes a provision I strongly support to
encourage the National Institutes of Health to intensify research on
the effectiveness of opioids in treating chronic pain and to encourage
the development of opioid-alternatives to manage chronic pain.
Two weeks ago, on a beautiful Vermont evening, a standing-room only
crowd filled a conference room at the Green Mountain Technical and
Career Center for a community meeting on opioid abuse. The event was
organized by Lamoille County Sheriff Roger Marcoux. He is a former DEA
agent who has seen the toll of heroin and opioid abuse and what it has
done in the rural regions of my State.
Dr. Betsy Perez, a panelist and longtime practitioner at nearby
Copley Hospital, surprised many in the crowd when she addressed the
opioid issue from a personal rather than from a medical perspective.
This doctor told the heart-wrenching story of her addicted daughter's
journey.
Despite many efforts at treatment, her daughter repeatedly relapsed,
eventually winding up homeless on the streets of Burlington. Her
daughter is now 2 years into recovery and recently became a mother. The
cost of her intensive residential treatment was high. It drained the
doctor's retirement savings. But she would have it no other way. I
wonder how much better off they might have been if we had prevention
clinics in place.
I held a hearing in St. Albans, VT--again, standing room only. I
remember a noted pediatrician who spoke about being with parents whom
he did not identify. He said they were well off. He was telling them
about the dangers of opioids and how teenagers can get addicted. They
were shocked to hear this.
They said: Thank you for telling us about this. We will watch out for
our daughter.
He said: I have been treating your daughter for 2 years. She is an
addict.
You could hear a pin drop in that room. But she was getting
treatment, and many are not so fortunate. Each day, throughout our
country, 129 people die from drug overdoses. I suspect that almost
every Vermonter knows someone who has been impacted by addiction. This
is not the future we want for our children, our grandchildren, our
communities. In Vermont, we know what it takes to get ahead of
addiction. While I appreciate the attention Congress has given this
issue, CARA will only work for Vermont and States across the country if
Congress is willing to provide the funding that is necessary to fight
this epidemic.
I was proud to help usher CARA through the Senate. I will support it
today. But I am greatly disappointed that Congress has so far refused
to treat this public health crisis as seriously as it did the swine flu
or Ebola.
I would urge all Senators: Don't go just to formal meetings. Just
stand outside your local grocery stores, as my wife, a registered
nurse, and I often do. Just talk with people. Walk down the street, and
talk with people. You are going to find what Vermonters know all too
well: Lives are at stake here, and time is of the essence. It is time
for Congress to act like it and fully fund CARA.
I know when Marcelle and I go home, we want to say that we are
helping because we know some of these families personally. In a little
State of only 600,000 people, you tend to know a lot of people. I have
seen some of the finest families in our State devastated by this. I am
sure it is the same in the Presiding Officer's State and every other
State in this country. We have to represent the people from our States
and help.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up
to 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Relationship Between Police and Communities of Color
Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, as our Nation confronts what increasingly
feels like a weakening of the bond between law enforcement and the
communities they serve, I rise to urge all of my colleagues to examine
the relationship between police and communities of color. One year ago,
I joined the Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee in
urging our colleagues to convene hearings on this critical issue.
The Justice Department had recently made public the, frankly,
shocking findings on its investigation into the Ferguson Police
Department, which found that the city engaged in a pattern and practice
of constitutional violations. But the Judiciary Committee, which has
jurisdiction over matters relating to civil liberties and criminal
proceedings, and entire subcommittees devoted exclusively to matters of
crime and to the protection of constitutional rights held no hearings
on the broader issue. No proposals were debated by the whole committee,
no testimony heard.
We had already lost Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, and
Freddie Gray. And rather than honor our obligation to confront this
problem head-on, rather than engage in difficult conversations about
race and about persistent inequality, we allowed these problems to be
met with silence.
It must be said that we owe a debt of gratitude to the brave officers
who worked tirelessly to keep us safe from harm. Every day, they put
their lives on the line to protect our safety and that of our families.
But we are doing a disservice to the noble men and women of that
profession and to the communities they serve by turning away from
unpleasant facts and by refusing to talk about them.
That silence carries a terrible price. Last week, a 32-year-old man
named Philando Castile was pulled over for driving with a broken
taillight in Falcon Heights, MN. It was the 53rd time he had been
pulled over in just a few short years. His girlfriend Diamond was
beside him. Her 4-year-old daughter Dae'Anna was in the back seat. We
[[Page S5038]]
don't know precisely what happened as Philando spoke to the officer who
approached the car. We don't know what the two men said to each other,
but we know how that encounter ended. Philando died after suffering
multiple gunshot wounds.
Philando's community--our community--in Minnesota is devastated. That
community includes Philando's family, his loved ones, and his friends.
It also includes the staff and the children in the elementary school
where Philando worked; he knew them all by name. And it includes the
parents of those children, many of whom began the morning after his
death by explaining to their kids that Phil wouldn't be at school
anymore.
The impact of Philando's death has been felt far beyond those who
knew him. In Dallas, as people seeking justice for Philando and his
family gathered in a peaceful protest, a deeply troubled man murdered
five members of a police force shielding demonstrators from gunfire.
And over the weekend, protests in St. Paul took a vicious turn as
protesters pelted police with rocks and chunks of concrete.
Such violence does not honor the lives of those we have lost. It does
not advance the cause of justice. Rather, violence makes it more
difficult for our communities to begin the long and difficult healing
process.
From the suburbs of St. Paul to downtown Dallas, our communities are
in pain, and it is our responsibility as lawmakers to do something
about it. We cannot take the steps necessary to confront this challenge
if we fear acknowledging that it exists. We cannot solve this problem
without coming together as a nation to address and dismantle the
systemic racial injustices that lead to far too many of these deaths
and to identify solutions. We cannot solve this problem if we run away
from it.
But running from it is precisely what this body will do. In just a
few short days, the Senate will adjourn for 7 weeks. During that time,
our communities will continue to endure anguish, heartache, and pain. I
hope every Senator uses this time to meet with people who have been
touched by these events and to better understand the challenges that we
face and they face. I urge them to join me in working to address them.
When asked about her son's death, Philando's mother said: ``All we
want is justice.'' And she deserves nothing less.
Zika Virus Funding
Mr. President, I wish to turn to another important issue: the Zika
virus outbreak, its devastating impact on families, and--I hate to say
this--the Republican obstructionism that is preventing us from taking
meaningful action to address this outbreak.
As you know, the Zika virus is transmitted to people primarily
through the bite of an infected mosquito, but it can also be
transmitted through sexual contact, through blood transfusions, or from
mother to child. While it typically causes no symptoms or mild illness
in adults, we now know that a Zika virus infection during pregnancy can
cause microcephaly and other severe birth defects. In fact, the World
Health Organization has declared this outbreak a public health
emergency of international concern. In some countries, Zika virus
transmission is so high that public health officials have asked women
to delay their pregnancies.
While other countries are feeling the brunt of this outbreak, Zika is
also affecting us here at home. So far, there have been over 1,100
people in the continental United States who have been affected by the
Zika virus while traveling to endemic countries. This includes 320 who
are currently pregnant. We are already seeing local transmission in
U.S. territories, where 2,500 additional people have been infected, and
these are just the confirmed cases. The actual number of those infected
is likely to be much, much higher.
This is why over 140 days ago President Obama asked Congress for
emergency funds to respond to the Zika virus outbreak. His request,
drawing on the expertise of public health experts, sought funds for
things such as mosquito control, vaccine and drug development, and
diagnostics so that more people can get tested and receive their
results faster.
After weeks of deliberation, the Senate eventually reached a
bipartisan compromise. Although we didn't get all the money we need to
fight the virus, we did get $1.1 billion. Democrats and Republicans in
the Senate negotiated in good faith and got a bipartisan package that
included important provisions to combat the Zika virus. That is why 68
Members of the U.S. Senate, including 22 Republicans, voted for the
Senate bill.
Unfortunately, that bipartisan spirit has not prevailed. As it turned
out, Republicans in the House of Representatives delayed and then
derailed the funding request. Even though the Senate passed a
bipartisan compromise, House Republicans, with support from Republican
Senate negotiators, sent back a partisan package packed with
ideological poison pill provisions. These included provisions that
deliberately block funds from going to family planning clinics, take
away money from the continuing fight against Ebola, and even erode
provisions in the Clean Water Act.
Let me explain some of these provisions in more detail. The bill the
House and Senate Republican negotiators sent back to us limits women's
access to contraceptive services. Imagine that. At a time when many
women have decided to delay their pregnancies out of fear of the Zika
virus, my Republican colleagues are actively working to keep birth
control out of reach. Such provisions disproportionately harm low-
income women who turn to safety net clinics such as Planned Parenthood
for birth control and for education on family planning.
Two weeks ago, one of my Republican colleagues addressed this issue
on the floor of the Senate. Standing next to a photo of a baby girl
with microcephaly, he argued that Democratic objections to the bill
were ``fanciful and imagined.'' That is what he said--``fanciful and
imagined.'' He dismissed the idea that Planned Parenthood was
deliberately targeted in this legislation since it was not mentioned by
name in the text. But it is actually that intention that is fanciful.
Because of the way the legislation is crafted, it excludes family
planning clinics such as Planned Parenthood from receiving funds. This
is particularly harmful in places like Puerto Rico, where infection
rates are rising rapidly and high numbers of uninsured women need
access to information about the virus, as well as effective birth
control.
This kind of tactic is deeply counterproductive. To combat this
virus, we must rely on the strength of our entire medical system and
not sideline the country's most experienced family planning providers.
Second, Republicans have criticized Democrats for asking for more
money, describing our vote against their bipartisan package as
``disgraceful.'' Let me describe what is disgraceful. This Republican
bill, unlike any other recent emergency spending bill, actually takes
money away from efforts to control Ebola outbreaks--which are still
active in Africa--in order to pay for Zika.
I would like to remind my colleagues that a short time ago Ebola
ravaged West Africa, infecting more than 28,000 people and killing over
11,000, making it the deadliest Ebola outbreak on record.
While research is under way, we do not yet have a vaccine against
this virus. Ebola is still an active threat. In fact, since the 2014
outbreak, there have been several new clusters of Ebola virus due to
the virus's persistence in survivors. Public health experts warn that
this virus will return; the question is whether we will be ready. At
this juncture it would be irresponsible to cut funding from Ebola
research, surveillance, and public health infrastructure. The
Republican strategy to fight the Zika virus would do just that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional
1\1/2\ minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FRANKEN. Thank you.
Finally--see, I was going to say ``finally'' anyway.
Finally, the bill even waives permitting requirements when it comes
to applying pesticides near bodies of water. This clean water
requirement was intended to protect people from toxic
[[Page S5039]]
substances, particularly pregnant women, children, and other vulnerable
populations. But my colleagues are mischaracterizing our objection to
this rider. In fact, one of my colleagues went to the Senate floor
recently and accused the Democrats of being ``more focused on
protecting the mosquito than they are protecting people.'' That is just
absurd.
To sum up, my Democratic colleagues and I supported the Senate bill
to fund the fight against a devastating disease, and Republicans
decided to politicize this issue by sending back a conference report
that was filled with partisan policy riders.
Every day that we don't act, this virus continues to spread. And, in
the meantime, the Republican leader has not given any indications that
he plans to change course. In fact, he said he plans to bring up the
same exact partisan bill that was defeated last week.
The President has already threatened to veto this bill, so another
vote would be useless.
I urge my Republican colleagues: Please, please stop playing partisan
politics, and let's pass something meaningful to address this crisis.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, at the moment, we are considering the
reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration, and I am
disappointed by what we are about to do today, although at this point
there appears to be no option. This extension fails to accomplish
significant and important reforms in the aviation world, and it is
something we were able to do, should have been able to do, and almost
accomplished. As a result of our failure, I will oppose the
reauthorization legislation we will vote on in just a few moments.
Three weeks ago, I came to the Senate floor to express my concern
with what was happening, and my plea and request to our House
colleagues to act on the FAA reauthorization bill as the Senate sent it
to them--the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2016, which in April passed the
Senate by the unusual vote of 95 votes in favor--broadly supported.
I serve on the Commerce Committee, and Chairman Thune and Ranking
Member Nelson worked hard with all of us on that committee to see that
a wide variety of interests, a wide variety of opportunities were
explored for us to make improvements in the world of aviation.
The way it works is, we have a piece of legislation that is in effect
and will soon expire, and we are up against a deadline for that
extension, but we knew that. In fact, we went to work early. The Senate
Commerce Committee began hearings a long time ago--months ago. We
worked hard to find consensus, and we did. Our product came to the
Senate floor not just with a simple reauthorization of the Federal
Aviation Administration but with items that were so important to this
country's economy, to those who utilize general aviation, to
communities that care about their local airports, and to those--in my
case in Kansas--who care about how many jobs we have and can continue
to have and how many more we can create as a result of the
manufacturing of aircraft in this country. So we did what we were
supposed to do in the Senate. We worked together and found solutions.
We found compromises, and we passed legislation overwhelmingly.
Unfortunately, when it went to the House of Representatives, no
action was taken in the House. As I said, the clock is ticking and the
FAA will no longer continue to have legal authority to exist. Once
again, as has happened in years gone by, we are left with a take-it-or-
leave-it situation. We either take the House-passed extension or the
FAA shuts down. There is no need for us to be in the position we are in
today, and the extension we are going to vote on will be missing many
important provisions included in the Senate-passed bill.
My perspective on this certainly is as a Kansan, but it matters no
matter what State you live in. Kansas is an aviation State. General
aviation is our State's largest industry, and our largest city is
Wichita, which is appropriately known as the air capital of the world.
Kansas aviation workers have supplied three out of every four general
aviation aircraft since the Wright brothers' first flight at Kitty
Hawk, and today some 42,000 Kansans make a living manufacturing,
operating, and servicing the world's highest quality aircraft.
So what does the FAA reauthorization--the extension we are about to
vote on--have to do with those jobs in Kansas? What does it have to do
with jobs in this country? If we have a goal we ought to be working on
together to achieve, it would be to create more opportunities for more
Americans to have better jobs. We need--and we all know it--a strong
manufacturing sector in this economy. Yet we will fail to take
advantage of the opportunity to increase the chances of more
manufacturing jobs, more general aviation jobs, more airplane
manufacturing jobs in the United States--more jobs for Americans,
better jobs for Americans, more secure jobs for Americans--because we
aren't able to do today--the House was unwilling to include in the
extension those things that increase the chances the aviation industry
in our country can better compete with those in a global economy that
are our competitors.
What the manufacturing side of aviation needs, what aviation
manufacturers in Kansas need is the ability to compete in a global
marketplace so the industry remains our country's No. 1 net exporter.
This requires significant reforms at the FAA, particularly in their
certification process and improvements in the regulatory environment.
These provisions that are so helpful were contained not just in the
Senate-passed bill but also in the original House FAA bill that was
approved by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
earlier in the spring. So here we have a situation in which the House
Transportation Committee, the Senate Commerce Committee--in fact, the
full Senate--approves things that matter greatly to our country and,
most importantly, to its workers, and yet today we come to the Senate
with a relatively simple extension that ignores those important reforms
and improvements.
These provisions that are not included in this extension would
streamline aircraft certification, significantly improving efficiency,
and better focus the FAA's valuable resources someplace else. These
reforms would have had a positive impact upon our economy, on job
security, and job creation. Both the House and Senate recognized the
importance of this issue and advanced nearly identical certification
reform language, but, as I said, for some reason that language no
longer appears in this bill.
In addition to certification, there were lots of other issues we
agreed upon. Among the members of our committee and among Members of
the Senate, overwhelmingly popular bipartisan provisions were included
in this bill originally in the Senate but are not included now in this
simple extension, including things such as strengthening our Contract
Tower Program, which is so important, particularly to
rural communities.
Again, while I come from a State where we manufacture planes, I also
represent a State in which general aviation, our pilots, and the
airports which they utilize are important to communities across my
State as we again try to compete in a global economy. The ability to
bring a business customer to a small community that has a manufacturing
plant is dependent upon airport and air services.
The language from section 1204 of the Senate-passed bill would have
significantly reformed the cost-benefit eligibility rules for contract
towers--again, this is a way we provide air safety for communities that
are small and have small airports--strengthening the program and
providing certainty once and for all for the 253 contract towers that
handle nearly one-third of our tower operations nationwide. It was a
good idea. It was broadly supported--supported in the House in the
Transportation Committee, supported in the Senate in the Commerce
Committee and on the Senate floor--but not included in today's simple
extension.
Apparently, the reason these important reforms were excluded was so
they could, at a later date, be used as a political bargaining chip.
The House held these popular reforms hostage in an attempt to gain
leverage and to later promote an effort to privatize our Nation's air
traffic control system.
[[Page S5040]]
By putting on hold these long overdue, noncontroversial certification
reforms, the Contract Tower Program, and others, Congress is damaging
the business aviation industry and the people who work therein.
Not too long ago I spoke on this floor defending general aviation
from the Obama administration's repeated attempts to end the
accelerated depreciation schedule for general aviation aircraft. In my
view, the proposal came as a clever political sound bite--the so-called
corporate jet loophole--but in reality it would have meant thousands of
jobs would be gone and the unemployment lines longer. The President's
proposal would have accomplished nothing for the economy--not even a
meaningful increase in tax revenues--and only would have hurt 1.2
million Americans who make their living building and servicing
airplanes.
This makes today all the more disappointing. It is one thing for me
to come to the floor and complain about an Obama administration
proposal, but today I come to the Senate floor to complain about a
Republican-controlled House that was unable to take advantage of an
opportunity to pass a strong, long-term reauthorization bill and
instead leaves us with a simple, short-term extension.
Of course, I believe fully that the leadership of my Commerce
Committee--Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Nelson--worked very hard
at crafting this Senate-passed FAA bill. I am here in support of their
efforts and express my disappointment that their efforts were not
rewarded by the House of Representatives. I regret that because we did
not have a willing partner in the House, we are left with a watered-
down extension so we can further entertain other ideas at some other
point in time while uncertainty continues.
While that uncertainty continues, the rest of the world can advance
their efforts, particularly in airplane manufacturing, while we wait
for improvements, efficiencies, and modernization in our own. While we
wait for Congress to do its work, the rest of the world moves on, with
the potential of taking away jobs from the manufacturing sector here in
the United States.
Americans rightfully should expect, and do expect, leadership from
their officials in Washington. At a time when this partisan dysfunction
puts us in places in which we constantly find barriers in the
legislative process, it sure seems to me to be a waste that this
opportunity to pass meaningful bipartisan reforms and improvements that
could have an immediate positive impact on our economy is foregone.
We have enough other problems around here in the way this place
works. Here we had, in my view, a chance to grasp victory for the
American people, for its workers, and for our economy. We failed to do
it, and in the process and as a result of that failure, the ability of
American manufacturers to create jobs is diminished and Kansans are
more at risk for their futures as a result of our failure to do our
jobs.
Mr. President, I thank the Chair for the opportunity to address my
colleagues in the Senate, and I express my dissatisfaction and
disappointment with the end product, recognizing the circumstance we
now find ourselves in.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up
to 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the FAA
reauthorization we are going to be voting on, and I thank Senator Moran
for being here and talking about aviation in general and aviation
manufacturing. He comes from a strong aviation manufacturing State, so
I certainly support many of the things he said.
I certainly support making sure we continue to streamline our
process, and it is one of the things left out of this legislation. So
we need to do more on that effort. I certainly don't want people
demonizing any aspect of aviation because they are all aviation jobs.
People don't realize how many aviation jobs we have in the United
States and the fact that we are still the top when it comes to aviation
manufacturing jobs. So it shouldn't be a sector we relent on. We have a
lot of work to do.
I would add to that list, though, the passage of the Export-Import
Bank Board members so the Export-Import Bank can be functioning so we
can actually approve aviation sales when we get them done, and this is
for smaller aircraft or larger aircraft. It doesn't matter.
If we build the best product, we ought to be able to sell the best
product around the globe. And we are still stuck on getting that
nominee out of committee because of someone holding it up, and the fact
that they are holding it up means we will go many more months before
completing airplane sales.
I want to talk about some other provisions we are passing today. I am
so proud to have worked with the chairman of the committee, whom I just
saw pass here on the floor--I am sure he is going to speak in a
moment--and the ranking member on very important aspects of aviation
security.
First, we are doubling the number of terrorist-deterrent teams at
U.S. airports and ground transportation. As we can see, these TSA teams
are people who are very involved in making sure we handle security at
our airports. This is a very important aspect of this legislation
because, as we saw with the tragic events in Brussels and Istanbul,
terrorists can attack us not just on airplanes or inside the security
perimeter but outside security as well. So I think this legislation,
thanks to Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Nelson, is giving us the
workforce we need to enhance the use of bomb-sniffing dogs, strengthen
perimeter security, expand training, respond to active shooter attacks,
and make sure the outer limits of our airports are secure.
I am proud that many of these provisions we passed out of the
Commerce Committee are contained in this legislation and that it is
doubling the number of these TSA VIPR teams that conduct controls and
make sure our passengers are secure. These teams consist of a
combination of law enforcement, inspectors, explosive specialists, and,
as I mentioned, bomb-sniffing dogs.
What is so important about those dogs is that they are one of our
best deterrents, picking up explosive material and tracking down
people, and that is what we need to have at our airports. I again thank
Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Nelson for putting this in. Combining
these law enforcement and bomb-detecting canine capabilities provides
another layer of security at our airports. We have seen how the use of
dogs helps us expedite our security lanes at SeaTac--now the busiest
airport in the country as far as increase in volume--and we need to
have more of these dogs outside on the perimeter as well. This will
give us a visible deterrent and help us in protecting the much needed
continuation of air transportation travel.
I also want to mention a couple of other things that are in this
legislation--the checkpoint of the future and making sure we are
streamlining our security checkpoints. We have been proud to work with
the Pacific Northwest Lab in Richland, WA, where critical work is
underway in detection technologies. And this legislation contains the
extension of an important aviation safety item. There are 136 airports
across the country that have automated weather equipment, but they need
weather observers to make these around-the-clock observations. So at
Spokane International Airport, this is a vital tool, and I was so glad
to work with Senator Moran and others in keeping this on.
Finally, we address in this extension a critical upcoming shortage of
air traffic controllers by making improvements to the FAA's hiring
process and creating a path forward for graduates like those at the
Green River Community College in Washington State.
I thank Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Nelson for these inclusions
in their work. We obviously have much more work to do to maintain our
aviation infrastructure, and I look forward to getting those done in
the very near future.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to
5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
[[Page S5041]]
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President I rise today to discuss the security,
safety, and other air travel benefits included in the bipartisan
aviation reform agreement that was negotiated with the House of
Representatives.
Last week, Senator Bill Nelson, the ranking member on the Senate
Commerce Committee, and I reached accord on a way forward with House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bill Shuster and
Ranking Member Peter DeFazio. Our agreement presents an opportunity for
the Senate to break the pattern of short-term extensions for the
Federal Aviation Administration that have not included any meaningful
reform.
The aviation bill the Senate passed by a vote of 95 to 3 in April was
a larger and, granted, more comprehensive bill than the agreement that
came out of our negotiations with the House. It contained provisions
added by Members in the Commerce Committee and on the Senate floor that
we remain committed to enacting.
Nevertheless, we knew that certain safety and security reforms just
couldn't wait until next year for the process to restart. When we
looked at the ISIS attacks in airports in Brussels and Istanbul, as
well as the downing of a Russian jetliner leaving Egypt, we knew there
were meaningful reforms that could help efforts to prevent these kinds
of attacks here in America, and so we acted.
To address the threat of an ``insider'' working at an airport helping
terrorists, the aviation reform agreement now before the Senate
enhances requirements and vetting for airport workers with access to
secure areas. It expands the use of random and physical inspection of
airport workers in secured areas and requires a review of perimeter
security.
Responding to ISIS's demonstrated interest in targeting unsecured
areas of airports, this aviation reform bill includes provisions to
enhance the security presence of units that can include canines and
other personnel in prescreening airport areas and increases
preparedness for active shooter incidents.
Because some international airports abroad operating nonstop flights
to U.S. airports lack the security equipment and expertise of U.S. and
other state-of-the-art airports, the bill authorizes TSA to donate
unneeded security equipment to foreign airports with direct flights to
the United States, permits increased cooperation between U.S. officials
and partner nations, and requires a new assessment of foreign cargo
security programs.
This bill, which the House passed earlier this week, recognizes that
long TSA lines aren't only an inconvenient delay for passengers trying
to catch flights, but they can lead to large crowds in unsecured
airport areas that create a target for terrorists. To address these
lines, the bill includes the TSA PreCheck Enhancement Act, which will
help enroll more Americans in expedited security screening and reduce
waits by vetting more passengers before they arrive to get them through
checkpoints quickly.
Beyond question, safety and security needs drove the effort to finish
this 14-month aviation reauthorization. The result, I can confidently
say, ended up being the most significant airport security reform bill
in over a decade. Our bipartisan, bicameral bill is good legislation
that guards against the threat of terrorism, provides stability for the
U.S. aviation system, and boosts safety and consumer protections for
airline passengers.
As we prepare for a vote on this important bill, I urge my colleagues
to support this bill that we carefully crafted over the past several
months with our House counterparts that keeps the American people
protected from terrorists, makes air travel safer and more secure, and
addresses an issue of importance to all Americans.
Again, I thank the ranking member on our committee, Senator Nelson.
Senators Ayotte and Cantwell, the chair and ranking member on the
Aviation Subcommittee, were very involved in crafting this legislation.
And, of course, there is the great work of our staffs, who put in
countless hours to get us to where we are today, not only moving the
original bill across the Senate floor back in April but also in
negotiations with the House of Representatives to produce a result
which I think we can all be proud of and which puts us on a path toward
a safer travel opportunity for people in this country who use our
airlines to get to their destinations.
Mr. President, I hope we will have a big vote, a bipartisan vote, in
support of this bipartisan legislation.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
Vote on Motion to Concur
The question is on agreeing to the motion to concur.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr.
Inhofe), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), the
Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), and the Senator from Mississippi
(Mr. Wicker).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 89, nays 4, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 127 Leg.]
YEAS--89
Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Coats
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Franken
Gardner
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Isakson
Johnson
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lee
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Reid
Risch
Rubio
Sanders
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Shaheen
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Udall
Vitter
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--4
Casey
Cassidy
Moran
Toomey
NOT VOTING--7
Cochran
Inhofe
Roberts
Rounds
Sessions
Shelby
Wicker
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
____________________