[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1764-1777]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   FAA AIR TRANSPORTATION MODERNIZATION AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT--
                               Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I speak on my 
amendment and ask the time not be counted or charged from either side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Amendment No. 4

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, a few days ago I offered an amendment that 
would eliminate the Essential Air Service Program, which is at least 
authorized in this bill at about $200 million. I had no idea we would 
approach the end of Western civilization as we know it if we eliminated 
this obviously outdated and unnecessary $200 million of the taxpayers' 
money.
  I am reminded of a comment once made by President Ronald Reagan. To 
paraphrase what he said: The closest thing to eternal life here on 
Earth is a government program. There is nothing that illustrates that 
point more than the Essential Air Service Program.
  I ask unanimous consent that three letters be printed in the Record. 
One is from FreedomWorks, one from the National Taxpayers Union, and 
another is from the Citizens Against Government Waste.
  I ask unanimous consent they be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 FreedomWorks,

                                Washington, DC, February 14, 2011.
       Dear Senator, On behalf of over a million FreedomWorks 
     members nationwide, I urge you to vote YES on Sen. McCain's 
     (R-Ariz.) amendment to S. 223 the Federal Aviation 
     Administration (FAA) Air Transportation Modernization and 
     Safety Improvement Act which would eliminate the Essential 
     Air Service (EAS). The EAS was created in the 1970's to help 
     a small number of rural communities retain access to air 
     service after airline deregulation. Like so many other 
     government programs, Congress initially enacted it to be a 
     relatively small and temporary ten year program costing 
     several million dollars annually. However, the needless 
     program has continued for 23 years while costing taxpayers 
     $200 million every year.
       Along with many fiscally conservative groups, even the 
     Government Accountability Office (GAO) questioned the 
     usefulness of the EAS by stating ``current conditions raise 
     concerns about whether the program can continue to operate as 
     it has . . . the growth of air service especially by low-cost 
     carriers--weighted against the relatively high fares and 
     inconvenience of EAS flights.'' Los Angeles Times reports 
     that taxpayers are forced to subsidize airline service to 
     small communities at a loss. Most of the money provides 
     service to rural airports with fewer than 30 passengers a 
     day.
       The ESA is a prime example of wasteful spending. A graph 
     produced by the FAA shows that 99.95 percent of all Americans 
     live within 120 miles of a major public airport. Airports 
     should operate where there are consumers to support such an 
     airport. Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize rural 
     airports with too little demand to justify their existence. I 
     urge you to repeal the EAS to save taxpayers $1 billion over 
     the next five years. It's a step in the right direction to 
     cut excessive spending wherever we find it.
       This, however, is a modest step and should be easily 
     supported by anyone serious about reining in the federal 
     government. In order to produce even more savings, Congress 
     should look into privatizing airports to allow private 
     capital to flow in. Many other countries have successfully 
     and fully privatized some of their airports including 
     Britain, Italy and Australia. The private sector has produced 
     more efficient airports which have led to an increase in 
     airport revenue. The privatization of airports has been 
     beneficial for consumers, airlines and taxpayers.
       We will count your vote on Sen. McCain's amendment to the 
     FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement 
     Act as a KEY VOTE when calculating the FreedomWorks Economic 
     Freedom Scorecard for 2011. The Economic Freedom Scorecard is 
     used to determine eligibility for the Jefferson Award, which 
     recognizes members of Congress with voting records that 
     support economic freedom.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Matt Kibbe,
     President and CEO.
                                  ____



                                     National Taxpayers Union,

                                Alexandria, VA, February 15, 2011.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the 362,000-member National 
     Taxpayers Union (NTU), I urge you to vote ``Yes'' on Senator 
     John McCain's amendment to S. 223, the Federal Aviation 
     Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Bill. Approving this 
     amendment, which would repeal the Essential Air Service (EAS) 
     program, is an ideal way for the Senate to demonstrate its 
     commitment toward eliminating low-priority expenditures and 
     beginning to restore fiscal responsibility to the federal 
     budget.
       Created in 1978 as a 10-year venture that would ease the 
     transition to a more market-driven commercial aviation 
     sector, EAS has, like many other federal programs, engendered 
     constituencies that have kept the program alive far beyond 
     any demonstrable purpose. Indeed, NTU questioned the need for 
     EAS in the first place, given the fact that robust and 
     competitive air services would fulfill consumers' needs more 
     efficiently than any government subsidization scheme. 
     Unfortunately, many of the taxpayers' worst fears about EAS 
     have come true. The program now operates in more than 100 
     areas of the country, even as air travelers' choices are 
     numerous. In fact, the Government Accountability Office 
     concluded in 2009 that many Americans are shunning EAS-
     subsidized flights and airports in favor of lower-cost fares 
     offered at hubs that are still reasonably accessible by 
     automobile. This free-market evolution can be encouraged by 
     easing tax and regulatory burdens on airlines and customers.
       Just as other federal transportation programs like Amtrak 
     pour tax dollars into unprofitable and low-traveled routes 
     which consumers bypass out of preference for other commercial 
     alternatives, EAS seems to operate more out of satisfying 
     political considerations than addressing any perceived market

[[Page 1765]]

     defects. Your colleague Senator Coburn provided a vivid 
     illustration of these flaws in a report, Wastebook 2010, late 
     last year:
       The cities of Macon and Athens, Georgia are both less than 
     a 90-minute drive from Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson 
     International airport. Despite this, the U.S. Department of 
     Transportation subsidized 26 flights per week to and from 
     each city at a clip of $464 per passenger for Macon and $135 
     for Athens. Passengers pay $39 each for a seat on the 50-
     minute flight. . . . The local newspaper reports that the 
     Macon [service] averaged 10 passengers a day, while Athens 
     averaged 12 EAS-subsidized flights. By law, the Department of 
     Transportation subsidies are capped at $200 for flights to 
     airports less than 210 miles from a large or medium hub, 
     which Atlanta is.
       EAS's justification may always have been dubious, but in 
     today's fiscal environment its continued existence is even 
     less defensible. The savings at stake from passage of the 
     McCain Amendment--$200 million--certainly won't erase the 
     current fiscal year's projected $1.5 trillion deficit, but if 
     the Senate cannot eliminate this blatant example of low-
     priority spending, taxpayers will have every right to 
     question Congress's sincerity in the vital endeavor of 
     bringing the budget back under control.
       NTU has expressed concerns over several portions of the FAA 
     bill, including the threat of higher Passenger Facility 
     Charges and a lack of progress in moving toward a private 
     sector-driven model for air traffic control. Senator McCain's 
     proposal provides a key opportunity to break from the tax-
     and-spend philosophy that has dominated past FAA legislation 
     and to recognize the role of commercial aviation in America's 
     economic recovery. Once again, NTU asks that you support the 
     McCain Amendment; roll call votes pertaining to this measure 
     will be significantly weighted in our annual Rating of 
     Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Pete Sepp,
     Executive Vice President.
                                  ____

                                      Council for Citizens Against


                                             Government Waste,

                                Washington, DC, February 11, 2011.
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator, Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) recently 
     introduced Amendment #4 to S. 223, the FAA Air Transportation 
     Modernization and Safety Improvement Act. Senator McCain's 
     amendment would repeal a $200 million government subsidy for 
     the Essential Air Service. On behalf of the more than one 
     million members and supporters of the Council for Citizens 
     Against Government Waste (CCAGW), I urge you to support this 
     amendment.
       Federal spending has ballooned out of control and taxpayers 
     are bracing themselves as the nation rapidly approaches its 
     statutory $14.3 trillion debt limit. Yet, Congress continues 
     to fund wasteful and unnecessary programs. The Essential Air 
     Service was created in 1978 to subsidize airline carriers 
     that provide service to small communities. Originally funded 
     at $7 million, the program has since grown to cost taxpayers 
     $200 million, subsidizing a dozen airline carriers in more 
     than 100 communities.
       Ironically, this air service program is anything but 
     essential, as 99.95 percent of Americans live within 120 
     miles of a public airport that accommodates more than 10,000 
     take-offs and landings each year. CCAGW has been a long-time 
     proponent of eliminating funding for worthless, money-
     draining airports that have long been protected under the 
     Essential Air Service. One such egregious example is the John 
     Murtha Johnstown-Cambria ``Airport for No One.'' This airport 
     services fewer than 30 people per day, yet it has received 
     more than $1.3 million under this program. This is hardly an 
     efficient use of taxpayer dollars, especially when the 
     government is facing a record-breaking $1.5 trillion budget 
     deficit.
       The Essential Air Service program has been repeatedly cited 
     in CAGW's Prime Cuts, a proprietary database comprised of 763 
     recommendations that would save taxpayers $350 billion in the 
     first year and $2.2 trillion over five years.
       Congress cannot continue on a spending rampage while 
     ignoring the nation's balance sheets. Senator McCain's 
     amendment would cut a profligate, indefensible government 
     program that Americans do not need and taxpayers simply 
     cannot afford. All votes on Amendment #4 to S. 223 will be 
     among those considered in CCAGW's 2011 Congressional Ratings.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Thomas Schatz,
                                                        President.

  Mr. McCAIN. FreedomWorks says:

       The ESA is a prime example of wasteful spending. A graph 
     produced by the FAA shows that 99.95 percent of all Americans 
     live within 120 miles of a major public airport. Taxpayers 
     should not be forced to subsidize rural airports with too 
     little demand to justify their existence. I urge you to 
     repeal the EAS to save taxpayers $1 billion over the next 5 
     years.

  The National Taxpayers Union cites:

       The cities of Macon and Athens, Georgia are both less than 
     a 90-minute drive from Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson 
     International Airport. Despite this, the U.S. Department of 
     Transportation subsidized 26 flights per week to and from 
     each city at a clip of $426 per passenger from Macon and $135 
     for Athens.

  Then, of course, the Citizens Against Government Waste points out 
that:

       Congress cannot continue on a spending rampage while 
     ignoring the nation's balance sheets.

  Probably the loudest complaints have been from the State of Alaska, a 
State I love and enjoy. There is a great article that appeared in an 
Alaskan newspaper. It is called ``Self-Sustainability--Is it time for 
Alaska to grow up?''
  Among other things I didn't know about is:

       While the nation faces a $14 trillion fiscal hole and 
     Congress is looking to tighten its belt, it's inevitable that 
     Alaska is going to feel some of the pain.

  But what is interesting is that the State of Alaska, he goes on to 
state, has ``$12 billion in reserves and another $40 billion banked 
away in the permanent fund.''
  Wow. I don't know of another State in the Union that is that well 
off. He, Andrew Halcro, goes on to say:

       We Alaskans fancy ourselves as rugged individualists, who 
     are quick to eschew the long arm of the federal government 
     and Big Brother. However our actions sometimes don't match 
     our rhetoric.

  He goes on:

       What about the amendment to eliminate essential air service 
     subsidies in small rural communities throughout Alaska? 
     Currently the feds subsidize air service to more than 44 
     communities to the tune of $12 million per year.

  The author goes on to say:

       Is it really the federal government's role to subsidize air 
     service to Rampart, a community with 15 people?

  An interesting question. He goes on to say:

       We've known this day was coming but have done little to 
     prepare our communities for it. We have continued to live in 
     a subsidized world, where one of the biggest issues so far 
     this legislative session has been a debate over suspending 
     Alaska's measly gas tax. . . .
       This past week, Alaska Senator Mark Begich, in response to 
     the announced ban on earmarks stated, ``I have said many 
     times Alaska is a young State with many needs, and we deserve 
     our fair share of Federal funding to develop our resources 
     and our infrastructure.''

  The author goes on to say:

       While I would absolutely agree that federal policies have 
     restricted Alaska's ability to develop its vast resources, 
     the ``young state'' argument has been used for decades to 
     justify growing demands on the Federal budget for things like 
     the Denali Commission and earmarks for controversial bridges.
       This year Alaska turns 52, so arguably we are not kids 
     anymore. Is it time for us to grow up?

  Is it time for all of us to grow up and eliminate these Federal 
programs that cost billions of dollars of the taxpayers' money, which 
originally may have--and I emphasize ``may have''--in 1978, when we 
deregulated the airlines, have had a legitimate reason? Obviously, it 
does not anymore.
  I look forward to the fact that our conservative organizations are 
all judging these as a key vote. I also point out to my colleagues, if 
we are serious, if we are serious about cutting spending and going 
about making tough decisions, this is an easy decision. If we vote 
against my amendment, if the majority votes against my amendment to 
eliminate essential air service, the message to the American people as 
of November 2 is, we aren't serious. We aren't serious. If we can't 
eliminate a program like this, how can we make the tough decisions that 
are coming?
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. I hope we will have a vote as 
soon as reasonably possible, and I look forward to the continued debate 
on this issue which seems to have created quite a large degree of 
controversy throughout the country.
  I yield the floor.


                     Amendment No. 14, as Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 20 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 14 offered by the Senator from Mississippi, as modified.
  The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, under the previous order I yield 4 minutes 
to the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins.

[[Page 1766]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the 
amendment of Senator Wicker to provide additional workforce protections 
for Transportation Security Officers while at the same time ensuring 
the management flexibility that is vital to the operational efficiency 
of the TSA, and thus the security of the American people. Instead of 
dramatically changing the TSA personnel system in a way that could 
interfere with TSA's ability to carry out its essential mission, as the 
administration plans, we should, instead, make some targeted but 
important reforms in the system to ensure that TSA employees are 
treated fairly.
  First, we should bring TSA employees under the Whistleblower 
Protection Act, which safeguards the rights of whistleblowers 
throughout the Federal Government.
  Second, we should give TSA workers the right to an independent appeal 
of adverse personnel actions--for example, a demotion would qualify. 
What we are proposing is that a TSA employee so affected would be able 
to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board.
  Third, we should make clear that TSA members can, in fact, join a 
union. That is a different issue from collective bargaining. So our 
amendment specifically provides that we are not depriving employees of 
that choice--which they have right now.
  I have just received a letter from former TSA Administrator Kip 
Hawley, who was extremely well regarded and served as the head of TSA 
for 4 years. He expresses support for the amendment that Senator Wicker 
and I are offering. Mr. Hawley knows firsthand how important it is for 
TSA to have the flexibility in order to respond quickly and effectively 
to changing conditions, to emerging threats, to new intelligence, and 
to impending crises. I note this is not theoretical. TSA has used this 
authority in the past.
  In 2006, for example, TSA had to respond virtually overnight to the 
liquids plot to blow up airplanes that originated in Great Britain. 
Overnight, TSA had to retrain its workers and redeploy them to 
different airports. This is not a theoretical concern.
  Another example was the blizzard that occurred in Denver, where TSA 
screeners had to be flown in from another city to cover the shifts of 
TSA employees at that airport. This kind of management flexibility was 
also used in the wake of the gulf coast hurricanes when there were 
massive evacuations.
  In his letter, Mr. Hawley states that although TSA's recent 
determination states that security policies and procedures will not be 
issues subject to collective bargaining, the dividing line between 
security and nonsecurity practices ``is not a bright one.''
  He makes the same point that former Homeland Security Secretary 
Chertoff made the last time we debated this issue, and that is defining 
what is and what is not subject to collective bargaining undoubtedly 
will be subject to subsequent litigation.
  He further notes:

       The resolution of these issues could rest with an 
     arbitrator with no direct knowledge of security issues, 
     intelligence, and transportation security. [This could] place 
     the performance of TSA's security mission in the hands of 
     someone who neither has the expertise to make these 
     decisions, nor [a person who] is accountable for them.

  I ask unanimous consent the entire letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                February 15, 2011.
     Hon. Susan M. Collins,
     Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and 
         Governmental Affairs, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins, I am writing in support of the 
     Amendment to S. 223 offered by you, Senator Wicker, and 
     others that would exclude Transportation Security 
     Administration employees from collective bargaining.
       This issue has a long history and the arguments are well 
     known, so I will focus on two specific elements of the 
     administration's recently released policy on collective 
     bargaining for Transportation Security Officers: (1) inherent 
     ambiguity in the definition of security activities; and (2) 
     the issue of performance management.
       TSA's memorandum states that collective bargaining will be 
     ``within a framework unique to TSA that does not adversely 
     impact the resources and agility necessary to protect the 
     security of the traveling public.'' It further states that 
     within this framework, ``security policies and procedures,'' 
     or ``internal security practices'' will not be issues subject 
     to collective bargaining. Given that security practices and 
     procedures frequently change, this dividing line is not a 
     bright one and will likely be the subject to collective 
     bargaining and subsequent litigation. The resolution of these 
     issues could rest with an arbitrator with no direct knowledge 
     of security issues, intelligence, and transportation 
     security. This could result in the very thing that TSA does 
     not want, and that is to place the performance of TSA's 
     security mission in the hands of someone who neither has the 
     expertise to make these decisions, nor is accountable to 
     them.
       Secondly, the decision document drives a stake through the 
     heart of what makes risk-based security work: meaningful 
     performance-based incentives. The decision here uses the 
     words ``high performance,'' ``engaged,'' describes an 
     organization that ``truly values and promotes initiative,'' 
     and vows that security will not be compromised. This 
     decision, however, imposes a wall between a TSO's job 
     performance and pay incentives.
       Cash incentives are effective motivators to officers who 
     are willing to be accountable and base their personal success 
     on good security results--something air travelers should want 
     very much. ``The performance management process'' is 
     explicitly included among the issues subject to collective 
     bargaining, but at the same time in the next section, ``pay 
     and policies affecting pay'' are specifically excluded. In 
     other words, this decision means that better performance does 
     not mean better pay. The union will bargain to define 
     ``performance,'' probably seniority-based, and TSA agrees not 
     to use cash incentives to motivate employees' performance. 
     For an agency that depends on its security officers to 
     constantly adjust and improve their skills so that they are 
     prepared for ever-changing terrorist tactics, this disconnect 
     between pay and performance could be disastrous.
       TSA has a robust pay-for-performance system in place today 
     and those who perform their security duties better get 
     significant bonuses and pay raises. Reversing the logic to 
     de-link pay incentives from job performance can only sap the 
     energy of TSOs who are motivated to be actively engaged, use 
     initiative, and strive to achieve high performance team 
     objectives. That cannot be good for security, or performance 
     of any kind.
       There are many other issues worthy of discussion, but these 
     cut across philosophy and politics and gets to the issue of 
     the security of the flying public. Action is needed now to 
     stop the imposition of this flawed decision on TSA's fine 
     workforce and all of us who depend on them.
           Respectfully,
                                                       Kip Hawley,
                                     TSA Administrator, 2005-2009.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used her time.
  Ms. COLLINS. I urge our colleagues to support this amendment. I think 
it is a balanced approach that will give these employees more rights 
than they currently have without interfering with the essential mission 
of this law enforcement agency.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, do I understand I have 6 minutes 
remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes 4 seconds.
  Mr. WICKER. I was under the impression I had yielded 4 minutes to the 
Senator from Maine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the majority object to the Senator from 
Mississippi taking 6 minutes? Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator has 6 minutes.
  Mr. WICKER. I will reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes, if I can.
  I listened carefully to the statement of my friend, the Senator from 
Maine. Frankly, I wonder if we are in parallel worlds and we are 
talking about the same thing but in a different context. My friend, the 
Senator from Maine, seems to be ignoring the very careful limitations 
that TSA has placed on collective bargaining rights. For example, under 
the provisions of TSA, the transportation security officers cannot 
bargain over pay.
  They cannot bargain over pay. They cannot bargain over deployment 
procedures--who works where. The Senator mentioned the incident 
involving Great Britain; they had to train people overnight. Well, they 
cannot bargain on

[[Page 1767]]

training either. That is not part of the bargaining rights they would 
have.
  The Senator mentioned about the deployment of people to Denver 
because of a blizzard. Well, deployment procedures, who works where, is 
not again subject to collective bargaining. Emergency response 
measures, that was the one dealing with Great Britain. On emergency 
response measures, who goes where, how long they have to be there for 
an emergency response, is not negotiable. It is not part of the 
collective bargaining agreement.
  So I am at a loss to understand what the Senator from Maine was 
talking about. They cannot bargain over emergency response procedures, 
deployments or other security issues. So, again, this is not something 
that is part of the collective bargaining agreement.
  Last week, the Transportation Security Administration said--the 
Administrator, John Pistole, testifying before the House subcommittee, 
said that the employee morale is a security issue--employee morale. Why 
did he say that? A recent survey ranked TSA 220 out of 224 Federal 
employers as the best place to work. In other words, 224 would be the 
worst place to work in the Federal Government. TSA was rated at 220. 
They have a high turnover rate, they have a high injury rate, and 
extremely low morale.
  So what we are trying to do is give them that boost in morale. Here 
is what the TSA Administrator said last week:

       The safety of the traveling public is our top priority, and 
     we will not negotiate on security. But morale and employee 
     engagement cannot be separated from achieving superior 
     security.

  While some of my colleagues have suggested that providing collective 
bargaining rights could jeopardize security, nothing could be further 
from the truth. Unionized security personnel are just as effective, 
dedicated, and willing to put their lives on the line in an emergency.
  I point out, for example, Border Patrol personnel have collective 
bargaining rights. Immigration and Customs officials have collective 
bargaining rights. Our Capitol police officers who protect us have 
collective bargaining rights. Why should TSOs be any different? To 
suggest that unionized security personnel are somehow less effective, 
less dedicated, less willing to put their lives on the line in an 
emergency I believe is an insult to every man and woman in uniform in 
this country who works under a collective bargaining agreement.
  I only need to remind everyone, remember 9/11. Remember that image of 
all the people in New York running away from those towers as they came 
down, the thousands of people running away from that calamity, and the 
picture was of other people running into it--our police, our 
firefighters, our emergency personnel, who not only risked their lives 
but gave their lives to help save people in that tragedy.
  Every single one of them, every firefighter, every policeman, the 
emergency personnel, were all union people, belonged to a union with 
collective bargaining rights. Yet look at what they did during that 
emergency.
  So, again, I think it is important to add that under this agreement, 
they get limited collective bargaining rights. They cannot bargain over 
security procedures and policies, deployment, disciplinary standards or 
``any action deemed necessary by the administrator or his or her 
designees to carry out the agency mission during emergencies.''
  They cannot negotiate on that. So, again, we just want to help raise 
the morale there, to give these people bargaining rights so----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed 5 minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield myself 1 additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Here is what they can bargain on: grievance procedures--
that helps on morale--nonemergency scheduling--that helps on morale--
awards and recognitions, uniforms, bidding on shifts and procedures 
used for how they bid on shifts--who gets the 2 a.m. shift, who gets 
the 7 a.m. shift--all nonemergency types of situations.
  This will help give them better morale and will help in terms of 
ensuring security. Do not take my word for it. Take the Administrator's 
word for it, Administrator John Pistole, who said this will help ensure 
the safety of the traveling public.
  I reserve the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  I rise in support of the Wicker amendment. Senator Collins, who spoke 
earlier, is a cosponsor of this amendment. I might also note that 
Senator Coburn has joined as a cosponsor also. The Wicker amendment has 
everything to do with public safety. It has everything to do with 
preventing excessive litigation when it comes to the definitions of the 
roles of our TSA workers. It has everything to do with preventing 
increased deficits here in the United States and in the Federal 
Government.
  For that reason, groups that support the Wicker amendment today and 
urge an ``aye'' vote include the Heritage Foundation, the Workforce 
Fairness Institute, and Americans for Tax Reform.
  Just a little history for those who have not followed this debate 
over the last several days. Currently, TSA employees are not allowed to 
collectively bargain. That has been the policy of the Federal 
Government since the inception of the Transportation Security 
Administration. For a decade, TSA employees have not been allowed to 
collectively bargain.
  Their rights and considerations and morale issues have been taken 
care of in other ways. Since the creation of TSA, its employees have 
been treated similar to those in the FBI, the CIA, and the Secret 
Service, for purposes of collective bargaining. In fact, in a 2003 
memo, the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security, which is now 
the TSA Administrator, prohibited TSA security screeners from 
unionizing with collective bargaining rights.
  The Under Secretary at the time made this decision ``in light of 
their critical national security responsibilities.'' That has been the 
regime under which we have operated the TSA for the entire existence of 
the agency.
  Now, however, the Obama administration is intent on dolling out 
rewards to campaign supporters and they are moving to reverse this 
decades-long decision and to allow TSA workers to collectively bargain. 
My amendment would prevent that and, as I say, would keep the TSA 
employees under the same restrictions as the FBI, CIA, and Secret 
Service.
  Senator Collins, in her modification to my amendment, provided some 
very important safeguards. It allows TSA workers to be under the Merit 
Systems Protection Board. It also provides Whistleblower Protection Act 
protections for TSA employees.
  We are told our concerns about safety have been taken care of because 
the agreement or the decision by the TSA Administrator says we cannot 
have collective bargaining over other security issues. It named 
several, and then it says ``other security issues.'' What does that 
mean?
  Well, that is what the former Administrator was talking about in the 
letter to Senator Collins. This is going to require litigation to 
determine what ``other security issues'' are. I will tell you what, 
apparently, is allowed under the Administrator's proposal. It does 
allow bargaining over the selection process for special assignment. It 
allows collective bargaining over the policies for transfers. It allows 
collective bargaining for shift training, as my friend from Iowa just 
acknowledged. All of these are going to make the TSA less flexible and 
less efficient in going about their business of protecting America.
  I would close by saying this: There is a budget debate also. At the 
other end of this building, we are having hour after hour of debate 
about how to keep this deficit from ballooning, how to keep the cost of 
government from going up.
  Does anybody think that allowing collective bargaining for 50,000 
additional Federal employees is going to

[[Page 1768]]

cut the cost of the Federal Government?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed 5 minutes.
  Mr. WICKER. I yield myself 1 additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WICKER. What is happening out in the States? State after State 
after State is facing bankruptcy, and a large part of it is the cost of 
government brought on by employee union contracts. That is just a fact. 
State after State, Governor after Governor, they are coming to 
Washington, DC and saying: We are going to have to do something about 
this. We are going to have break these contracts and save us from 
financial ruin.
  At a time when Governors are moving in that direction and trying to 
get out from under these public employee collective bargaining 
agreements, would it not be the height of irresponsibility, would it 
not be the height of irony for the Federal Government to go in the 
other direction?
  Vote for the Wicker amendment and save the taxpayers the additional 
money it will take to move to collective bargaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to speak against the Wicker 
amendment. This is the Republican's first of what I worry will be a 
sustained attack in the 112th Congress against Federal employees.
  As the Senator from Maryland and for Maryland, I represent more than 
130,000 Federal employees. These men and women are dedicated and duty 
driven. They are on the frontlines protecting America every day 
securing our borders inspecting our food, and performing critical 
health research. They deserve a decent wage, safe working conditions 
and our thanks and respect.
  This amendment would deny TSA workers the collective bargaining 
rights that many other employees at DHS currently have, including the 
Bureau of Prison Guards, Customs and Border Protection, and the Capitol 
Police.
  TSA currently suffers from low morale, high injury rates, and high 
staff turnover. Giving these employees a voice at work representing 
their interests will lead to a more stable, more experienced, and 
healthier workforce. That would increase productivity, performance, and 
safety for the flying public.
  Like all Federal employees, the employees at DHS with collective 
bargaining rights must follow civil service rules that prohibit the 
right to strike and allows managers to move employees to different 
areas in the event of an emergency. They bargain in a way that does not 
compromise the agency's mission and that does not endanger national 
security.
  Congress has been debating allowing collective bargaining for TSA 
employees for a decade. Republicans have been vocally against it.
  In 2001, Congress took up FAA. It gave the administrator the 
authority to determine whether TSA employee would get collective 
bargaining rights.
  In 2004, the 9/11 Commission recommended granting TSA workers 
collective bargaining.
  In 2006, the Senate passed a bill granting collective bargaining for 
TSA workers. But we couldn't get it across the finish line because of 
the threat of a Presidential veto. Every Democratic Senator voted in 
favor of collective bargaining for TSA.
  Finally, this month, the TSA completed its review of the potential 
impact of collective bargaining rights for TSA workers on the safety 
and security of American travelers. And the TSA Administrator announced 
that TSA workers do have collective bargaining rights, and they will 
soon be able to determine whether or not they wish to exercise those 
rights. In the coming months, TSA workers will be able to decide 
whether or not they want to be represented by a union to bargain on 
their behalf on nonsecurity employment issues.
  But the Wicker amendment would bring all of this to a screeching 
halt.
  We should not stand in the way of something that TSA employees want, 
and the Secretary of Homeland Security and the President support.
  Federal employees serve their communities and country every day. They 
should be empowered to fight for their rights on the job without any 
fear of retribution.
  Whether you are at the IRS or the TSA, you deserve collective 
bargaining rights. And if anyone wants to block, or take away those 
rights, you will have to get through me first.
  The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes four seconds.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Let me just say that the TSA Administrator has the 
right to allow collective bargaining for TSA employees through the 
authority he was provided in the original Aviation and Transportation 
Security Act passed in 2001.
  When Congress passed that, we came to an agreement that left the 
determination of allowing collective bargaining rights for 
Transportation Security Officers to the TSA Administrator. I firmly 
believe this authority should remain with the TSA Administrator.
  The current agreement was approved under the Bush administration and 
approved by a Republican-controlled House of Representatives. I see no 
reason to alter this compromise at this time. There are valid reasons 
to keep the authority with the TSA Administrator. He works firsthand 
with the employees every day. The nature of his work is very hands on. 
He is better qualified to determine the agency's mission, how it can be 
improved, with or without collective bargaining--he more than anybody.
  On Friday, Administrator Pistole announced his intention to allow 
collective bargaining over workforce issues, but security and pay will 
not be subject to negotiation. Most other Federal law enforcement 
agencies, including others housed within the Department of Homeland 
Security, such as Customs and Border Patrol, have collective bargaining 
rights.
  I do not believe the sponsors of this amendment would question the 
dedication of these law enforcement officers, despite their right to 
collectively bargain. TSA employees must still follow civil service 
rules that prohibit the right to strike and allow managers to move 
workers to different areas and roles in the event of an emergency and 
security as needed.
  I cannot support this amendment. I feel it could negatively impact 
security if TSA permits collective bargaining rights to improve 
employee retention. Finally, this amendment is a security issue, and 
one that is better addressed when a TSA reauthorization comes to the 
floor. This is our problem. We are not talking about security here, we 
are talking about other matters.
  Accordingly, I urge my fellow Senators to oppose the Wicker 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN. Would the Senator yield? How much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute 39 seconds.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, listening to my friend from Mississippi 
talk about deficits--and we have to be concerned about deficits. The 
first thing on which they cannot bargain is pay. That is not something 
they can bargain on. Generally, Federal employees do not bargain on 
pay, I might add.
  So I do not know what that means. I mean, he is talking about 
deficits, but they cannot bargain about pay anyway.
  Then he talked about the FBI and the CIA and the Secret Service, that 
they did not collectively bargain. Those agencies all deal with very 
highly sensitive national security information. What are we talking 
about here? We are talking about the people who check your bags. We are 
talking about the people at screenings and who do the patdowns, but we 
are also talking about an agency that has one of the highest turnovers 
of any Federal agency. I do not want a high turnover rate among those 
people at the airport. I want them to be highly skilled, highly 
trained, highly motivated. I want a good morale system there. Everyone 
says it is one of the lowest in terms of

[[Page 1769]]

morale and has one of the highest turnovers of any Federal agency.
  Giving these people the right to organize and to bargain collectively 
on things that are not of national security measures--not pay, not 
emergency procedures, but other things that make life a little bit 
better for them so they know basically: What is the procedure for me 
being posted here, what is the procedure for me working at 2 a.m. or 7 
a.m., so they have a system whereby they know what is expected of 
them--to me, that is the way to build morale.
  Lastly----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. HARKIN. I just ask for 30 seconds. I gave him 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. INHOFE. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. HARKIN. I just gave him 2 minutes. I did not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The time that was given to 
the other side was due to an error in the chair.
  The question is on agreeing to the Wicker amendment No. 14, as 
modified.
  Mr. WICKER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kerry) and the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Pryor) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 17 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown (MA)
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--51

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Kerry
     Pryor
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 47, the nays are 
51.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
amendment, the amendment, as modified, is withdrawn.


                            vote explanation

 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for the 
vote in relation to Wicker amendment No. 14, as modified, to the FAA 
reauthorization bill. If I had attended today's session, I would have 
voted in opposition to that amendment and would have supported any 
motion to table that amendment.
  Mr. REID. Mr. 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. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the consideration of Paul amendment No. 21; that there be 
100 minutes of debate equally divided between Senators Paul and 
Rockefeller or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of 
time, the Senate vote in relation to the Paul amendment; that there be 
no amendments in order to the amendment prior to the vote; and that the 
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and 
I ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that if we have 
quorum calls during this period of time, the time be charged equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Amendment No. 21

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, the pending Paul amendment will cut 
the FAA's authorization levels for fiscal year 2011 to 2008 levels, 
$14.7 billion for the entire agency, representing a near $3 billion cut 
from the administration's introduced level of approximately $17.5 
billion. That does not sound like a lot of money--of course it does--
but let me explain.
  Managing FAA at the 2008 levels would result in the immediate 
retrenchment of core functions to reduce operating costs; to wit, FAA 
would eliminate services and furlough all air traffic organization 
employees for at least 20 days. The primary services of the ATO is to 
move air traffic safely and efficiently, and that for a period of 40 
days would cease. FAA would implement a hiring freeze for the ATO--air 
traffic organization--which would force the ATO to focus on major 
airports with scheduled service resulting in service reductions at 
particularly the smaller and rural airports, which affects some of us.
  The Aviation Safety Office would eliminate 680 employees through 
attrition. It would also furlough all 1,015 operational support 
employees an average of 2 days each week. It is pretty hard to carry on 
3 days and then 3 days the next week. That particular agency, Aviation 
Safety, is responsible for the certification, production approval, and 
continued airworthiness of aircraft and certification of pilots and 
certification of mechanics and others in safety-related positions. That 
is what this amendment would do.
  The FAA would have to defer major Next Generation Air Traffic Control 
System initiatives. That is extraordinarily painful. After all, we go 
back to our old story that we are behind Mongolia in this modernization 
effort. Just a thought.
  In all of this we would be including next generation network-enabled 
weather, data communications, systemwide information management, safety 
security and environmental security, information tool set. This means 
accurate weather forecasting would go down and pilots would have less 
relevant information, resulting in increased delays and congestion as 
aircraft would have a lot more difficulty navigating storms. Weather is 
the associated cause of 7 percent of delays, much less accidents. It 
cuts Data Comm. It would impact pilot situational awareness and lead to 
degraded air safety control, having an effect on safety.
  It would cut FAA's research, engineering, and development, and 
require

[[Page 1770]]

FAA to cancel or delay the NextGen and environmental research--I 
repeat, to cancel or delay NextGen.
  Specifically, FAA will terminate all related programs that were 
started since 2008, including the Continuous Low-Energy Emission and 
Noise Program, which develops cleaner and quieter aircraft technologies 
and alternative aviation fuels. Safety research would also be impacted, 
including a 1-year delay for research on continued airworthiness for 
small aircraft, as well as research on emerging technologies for larger 
aircraft.
  Specific office impacts: Office of Human Resources. FAA would 
furlough all employees for at least 46 days. Furloughing AHR employees 
would impose a significant hardship on AHR's ability to provide human 
resources to FAA. Aviation safety and security hazard materials would 
be reduced. This means fewer inspectors for airlines, fewer parts 
certified as safe, and delays in producing new U.S.-manufactured 
aircraft.
  The Office of the Associate Administrator for Airports would also be 
cut. This would be an increased risk of runway incursions and delays to 
technology that would minimize such risks which have been widely 
reported in the press and often not reported in the press but 
nevertheless happen.
  The FAA would implement a hiring freeze which amongst many things 
would lead to a loss of support staff in air traffic control towers 
and, consequently, controllers would pick up administrative duties and 
would have less time on the boards in front of them, the lights going 
off and on. This could lead to an increased number of severity of 
operational errors. You cannot make operational errors in the control 
tower. You cannot hand that off to other people. That is called 
essential air safety. This means fewer air traffic controllers and ones 
that are less focused on directing airplanes. On the safety side and on 
the maneuverability side, both would subside.
  Elimination of all Federal contract tower funding will effectively 
shift the cost of operating these towers to the affected airports or to 
State and local government. I do not know what good comes of that since 
State and local governments do not do that stuff.
  I could go through State by State what the effects would be, but what 
it does is a ham-handed approach to make a cut.
  There is a very interesting thing about air traffic safety: It is 
highly sophisticated. It is compartmentalized. You can't just shift 
people from this to that as quickly as you can in other lines of work. 
Lives are at stake, homes on the ground are at stake, crashes are at 
stake, collisions are at stake. So it is all well and good to do 
something which appears to be cutting the budget, but when you are 
putting the lives of Americans on the ground and in the air directly at 
risk, that strikes me as something we should not do.
  So I am extraordinarily unenthusiastic about this amendment, and I 
hope there are many eloquent speeches that follow me in this manner.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I will take such time as I may 
consume, and I am sure Senator Paul will be here shortly.
  Mr. President, the Paul amendment does reduce the aggregate 
authorized spending level to the amount appropriated in fiscal year 
2008. So basically it is going back to the 2008 levels. I am going to 
support the amendment because I think we have to make a start at 
cutting back on spending in every area of government that is 
discretionary and where we can make responsible cuts. However, I do 
want to say that the better approach, in my opinion, would be to have 
an overall cap on spending at the 2008 levels and then pick the 
priorities we must fund and take away the lesser priorities for 
government funding. I believe we need a more measured approach on 
infrastructure spending.
  In the case of the FAA, I would point out that the agency is funded 
through a mix of aviation trust fund dollars and general fund dollars. 
Specifically, three of the four main accounts in the FAA budget--
airport improvement, facilities and equipment, and research--are paid 
for entirely by the aviation trust fund. The aviation trust fund is 
funded by revenue from various users of the U.S. aviation system 
through taxes and fees on the industry. So all capital investment in 
aviation infrastructure is paid for by the users of that 
infrastructure. The fourth account--operations--is then funded 
partially by the aviation trust fund and partially from the general 
fund.
  So as we move toward conference, I think we need to make sure 
infrastructure projects that increase airport capacity, improve safety, 
increase the efficiency of our aviation system, and modernize our air 
traffic control system are adequately funded. This should be especially 
true when the revenues used to pay for these projects are paid for by 
the users of the aviation system.
  I am certainly committed to restoring fiscal responsibility. I think 
we have to choose the strategic places where we must invest to ensure 
our infrastructure serves the needs of our people. I believe Congress 
would be much wiser to have an aggregate discretionary spending cap and 
then allow us to debate the priorities that would be funded under that 
cap. But that means doing business not as usual. It means we don't take 
each bill individually, each department and agency individually. It 
means we set an overall cap for Federal spending and then decide which 
places in which agencies should be well funded and which ones should 
take a pass for the present until we get our fiscal house in order.
  So I am going to support the Paul amendment, but I do believe we need 
to have a more systematic approach going forward and fund what needs to 
be funded. And I do believe FAA, aviation security, aviation 
infrastructure and efficiency in our air traffic system should be 
funded. But I think we have to do it in a bigger picture than each 
individual bill that is going to go through here, and I ask my 
colleagues to think about a better approach going forward than this 
type of amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Alaska.
  Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and the ranking 
member for the work they have done. As I said yesterday, it is fairly 
exceptional, considering the time it has taken to get to where we are.
  I understand the amendment that is being proposed and the goal of it, 
and I have been one of those who have supported the deficit commission, 
which brought forward some recommendations on how to manage this 
budget. I have supported multiple efforts on this floor to reduce and 
manage the budget in the overall scheme of how we move down to 
sustainability regarding the finances of this country. But this is one 
bill where you have to take into account not only what is being 
proposed but what it does and what it will impact. I will use my State 
as an example. When you think about Alaska, there is no question that 
when it comes to air travel, no other State has the kind of rural and 
extended air travel as we have in Alaska. I talked about the Essential 
Air Service Program yesterday. Forty-four communities are affected by 
the funding for this program, which serves people who are not next door 
to any airport and who are not only not just a few miles from an 
airport, but in some cases, from their airport to a hub, it might be 
1,200 miles. So the work and the resources of the Essential Air Service 
is critical for us to not only conduct business, to move people back 
and forth between communities, but for medical services. It is really 
the lifeblood for our communities. This amendment would literally wipe 
that out or reduce it to such a point that it would be impossible for 
us to make it economical for some of these airports to operate and some 
of these flight services that bring the only service to these 
communities, allowing them to survive.

[[Page 1771]]

  When you think about NextGen, if we went to the 2008 levels, NextGen 
was just in the beginning stages. This is an important investment. And 
it is not the Federal Government that was anxious to get it done right 
away. We had to actually push Congress--the chairman may remember 
this--we had to push the Federal Government to move this forward. Why? 
Because it was the private sector that came to us. The people in the 
private sector came to us and said: It is important that the Federal 
Government move this forward, expedite this resource, help us move this 
new technology forward to help save fuel, save time, increase capacity 
at our airports, and make it a better business operation for the 
private sector airports.
  So when I see this amendment, my view is that it is a job- killing 
amendment. This wasn't a decision where the Commerce Committee said: 
Well, let's just move this up a few years because we think the 
government should do this right away. The private sector came to us 
because they wanted to invest in this new technology. But they are not 
going to make the investment until there is certainty from the Federal 
Government on their part of the arrangement. So that is what we are 
doing. We are doing that in this bill. So this amendment, in my view, 
is truly a job-killing amendment.
  Then I look at the airport improvements, and I was listening to the 
chairman, who was talking about the contracted services. So I quickly 
looked at the list affecting Alaska, and I saw Kodiak. Kodiak is where 
the largest Coast Guard base in this country is. Kodiak is also the 
contracted services tower. I don't know how that will affect the Coast 
Guard. I would be very nervous about what it might do.
  This type of amendment may be well meaning in the sense of how we all 
are going to sit here--and I left the Budget Committee meeting to come 
here. The Budget Committee is where we are now talking about how to 
plan this budget in a holistic way, not nitpick it like this. The 
amendment may be well intended to get control of the budget, but it 
does not understand the impact.
  Again, airport improvement is another piece. I would challenge the 
individual who sponsored the amendment. If he has been to Alaska, 
great. I would love to take him to a couple of those airports. There is 
now a great reality show about flying in Alaska. It is so dangerous to 
fly in Alaska that they had to make a reality show about it. So I would 
encourage everyone to turn that on and see why NextGen, which was 
pioneered in Alaska, is so important and why this investment the 
Federal Government is making is so important for the private sector to 
have a better tool to utilize in transportation in this country.
  Again, airport improvements in my State are critical. It could be 
anything from refinishing a runway to just having a gravel runway--one 
that brings food and supplies, medical provisions, and just moving 
people in and out. It is a critical piece of the equation.
  The phrase the Chairman used about the amendment was that he was less 
than enthusiastic about it. I don't like the amendment as it is written 
today, specifically around this bill. I am anxious to get to the bigger 
debate, and I hope, once this bill is cleared off, we will get to the 
big debate of how we manage the deficit of this country, how we look at 
it long term. I know I will hear that this is a start, this is the way 
we have to start, and that would make sense if this bill was started 
with that intent in mind. But in 2007, when this authorization expired, 
NextGen was just an idea. Well, this is a new investment we have to 
make in order to make our air travel safer, more economical, save fuel, 
and respond to the private sector that has asked us to get off the dime 
and create certainty so they can make the investments that will make 
their business model more effective.
  Again, I had no intention to speak today. I was in the Budget 
Committee, but I wanted to come down and say a few words.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his 5 minutes.
  Mr. BEGICH. I again thank the chairman for the time, allowing me to 
say a few words from Alaska's perspective. And I would again emphasize 
that this amendment is a job-killing amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, everyone agrees that the FAA plays an 
important role in air safety. I don't think there is any real 
discussion or debate on either side in that regard. My amendment calls, 
though, for having spending levels at 2008. This is actually what is 
going to be produced out of the House. The House has already published 
their spending proposals, and most of their spending proposals will be 
at the 2008 level.
  This is a small downpayment on the debt. Some say this is the wrong 
place to start, but you have to start somewhere. Everybody says they 
are going to be for balancing the budget or tackling the debt or doing 
this or that, but you don't get there unless you cut spending.
  Now, you can't create a situation where you make it an either/or 
situation--either we have air safety or we don't have air safety--
depending on a spending level. Perhaps you can spend money more wisely. 
Perhaps the job of a legislator is to find out how you spend money, how 
you find savings, and how you make do with less. If we don't, we are 
never going to get out of this problem.
  The deficit is an enormous burden on all of us--on our kids and 
grandkids. The last election was about the deficit, about the mounting 
debt, but the other side doesn't seem to have listened. They also need 
to understand what the deficit does to jobs. Our national debt now is 
approaching our gross domestic product. That means our debt is about 
equal to what we produce as an economy for a year as a whole country. 
When it does, there are estimates that it kills the rate of growth of 
our economy by 1 percent and costs 1 million jobs a year. This is from 
the debt.
  They are talking about what $2 billion will do within one agency. We 
are talking about what $14 trillion worth of debt does to an entire 
economy. Remember, 1 percent loss of growth and 1 million jobs a year. 
The national debt is killing us.
  So we had an intervening election, and a message was sent. The 
message was, listen to the American people. They are upset about 
passing this debt on to our kids and our grandkids. So we got a 
response. The President laid out his budget this week. Do you know what 
his budget will do? The President's budget will spend $46 trillion--I 
am not making that up, $46 trillion over 10 years. That tells me the 
other side didn't get the message.
  Now, $46 trillion over 10 years, what does this mean? When President 
Obama came into office, the debt was about $7 trillion, maybe $8 
trillion. We are now going to triple that debt if he wins a second 
term. The President will have tripled the national debt in 8 years.
  His 10-year proposal will double the debt in just 10 years. The 
deficit this year alone will be $1.65 trillion.
  The President said he is going to freeze spending. He is going to 
freeze spending in this little, tiny percentage of the budget, about 12 
percent of the budget. It is not enough. It doesn't do it.
  Republicans want to go back to the 2008 level, which is what I am 
proposing. It is not enough either because you are only looking at one 
tiny sliver of the budget. Today we are looking at one small program.
  The problem is that people are starting to recognize the problem of 
the debt, but they are unwilling to do what it takes to look at the 
entire budget. We are going to have to look at military spending, we 
are going to have to look at nonmilitary discretionary spending, and 
ultimately we are going to have to look at entitlements. But you have 
to say every program has something good about it. Everybody can stand 
and say we need NextGen. I am for NextGen. But the thing is, if you are 
a legislator and you have less money, let's figure out where we find 
the money in the existing budget.
  I proposed some other alternatives. I proposed $500 million in 
savings by saying: When we build airports, let's not

[[Page 1772]]

make it be the union wage or the prevailing wage, let's have the market 
wage. That would have saved $500 million. That goes a long way toward 
funding NextGen. Another $500 million, $400 to 500 million is in the 
unprofitable airports that we are going to subsidize in this bill. 
There are savings that can be found, but we never find them.
  In Washington, what do we tend to do? If we want something, we just 
add more money to the bill. There are always arguments for these 
programs, but we also have to understand what are the consequences of a 
$14 trillion debt.
  President Obama's 10-year plan that he released this week will change 
$14 trillion into nearly $27 trillion. The numbers are mind-boggling. 
If we do not do something about it, it is a threat to our country. The 
President's own Secretary of Defense has said the No. 1 threat to our 
national security is our debt. It is out of control. I don't think the 
problem is fully grasped by either side, but I know if we are here 
today and cannot come to an agreement to save $2 billion--think about 
it. I am asking to save $2 billion out of a budget of $3.7 trillion. It 
is such a small number.
  They might argue it is such a small number, why even do it? If you 
don't start somewhere, how will we ever balance the budget? How will we 
ever get out of this mess if we are not willing to save $2 billion? It 
is a start. It is a downpayment. It is how we can say to the American 
people we heard you in November. We realize we cannot pass this debt on 
to our kids and our grandkids. Something has to be done.
  Instead, what we get from the other side is that we make this into: 
The other side is not for progress. They are not for developing 
airports. They are not for GPS systems at the airport. It is not that 
simple. I am for all those things, but I am for saying let's step up as 
legislators and say: How do we find the savings in the existing budget? 
Because the alternative is: How are we going to pay for $14 trillion in 
debt? How are we going to pay for $26 trillion in debt that is going to 
be added if the President gets his 10-year plan?
  You can pay for debt in a variety of ways. You can tax people. But as 
you can tell by the movement out there, most of us think we are taxed 
enough already. The average taxpayer is often paying 40 percent and 50 
percent of his income. The average taxpayer is paying more in taxes 
than they do for food and clothing and transportation and all their 
expenses; they pay more in taxes. I don't think the general public 
wants to raise taxes.
  The other way is, you stick your head in the sand and keep borrowing. 
That is what we keep doing, borrowing and borrowing, but it threatens 
our very economy and threatens the country.
  How does the country also pay for debt? Are we going to default on 
our debt? No. Ultimately, we will print money to pay for it, but there 
is a downside to that too. Countries have ruined their currency. 
Germany in the 1920s destroyed their currency.
  If you look at the curve of what happened to the currency in the 
1920s, it happened over a period of about 6 months. You had bread that 
sold for 100 marks and then 1 million marks and then 100 million marks 
and then 1 billion marks. The money became so devalued it was of more 
value to actually burn as a fuel. People went around with wheelbarrows 
full of money. The workers demanded to be paid two and three times a 
day.
  That is what happens to a country that has a massive debt. You cannot 
tax people enough.
  Greece just went through default recently. As Greece went through 
default, they tried to raises taxes, but everybody was paying too much 
already, so everything was forced into the underground economy. You can 
raise the taxes by 90 percent, you don't get more money. When you 
increase tax rates, you don't always get more money. The money went 
underground.
  You can print the money, but if you just simply print the money, you 
destroy people's savings. You steal from those who have saved and take 
the value of their dollar.
  This bill is the beginning of the debate. It is the first bill we 
have had to come forward with a new Congress that talks about money. It 
is a very small downpayment. I am asking for a little over $2 billion 
savings. It is 2008 levels. It is what the House is asking for. You 
have to realize also what happened between 2008 and 2011. Do you know 
how much spending went up? Spending went up by 24 percent. Spending is 
out of control in this city, and we have to realize the consequences. 
If we stood here and had an argument over whether NextGen is a good 
thing, there is no argument. It is a good thing. We should have GPS. We 
have it in our cars. For certain, we should have it in our airports. I 
am all for modernizing the airports. But what I am saying is, it is 
irresponsible as legislators to stand here and just say more, more, 
more. We are going to spend more money.
  We cannot do it. The thing is, it is not just the program. We are not 
talking about whether the program is justified or whether we should 
spend money. We are talking about what are the consequences of a 
massive debt. I think that is where we are.
  The American people know this. They instinctively know this. I think 
there is a great danger to not stepping up. I wish the other side would 
have come back and said: Why don't we split the difference and try to 
save $1.5 billion. That is what compromise would be in this city. If 
they don't want to save $2.5 billion, let's save $1.5 billion. But the 
thing is, we need to save money everywhere and it cannot be that every 
program you want to cut is somebody else's program and then when it 
gets to be your program that you are interested in, you can't cut it. 
Everybody has a self-interest in their program. Every special interest 
in this country has a special interest. They have an interest in their 
particular spending.
  I would say this is a small downpayment. This is a way to say to the 
American people: We have heard you in the election. We know there is a 
problem. We are going to start cutting spending.
  I urge my fellow Senators to vote for this amendment. It is something 
that has nothing to do with quality, has nothing to do with whether you 
believe in air safety. It has to do with whether you think the debt is 
a problem, whether you think the debt is a threat to us as a country, 
and whether we are going to step up and do the responsible thing.
  I reserve my time.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, what is pending before the Senate at 
this moment?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment of the Senator from 
Kentucky.
  Mr. DURBIN. It is my understanding this amendment by the Senator from 
Kentucky would establish a new authorization level for the Federal 
Aviation Administration, which would revert to the level of 2008. I 
think it is worth noting that this may cut spending in some regards, 
but I do not believe it is a wise decision by the Senate to move in 
that direction.
  Our world has changed dramatically since 2008 and the world of 
aviation even more so. The aviation industry is not the same today by 
any means. We debated the FAA bill on the Senate floor in 2008. At that 
time, oil was $120 a barrel, and the airline industry was in the 
doldrums.
  Eight airlines either completely ceased operations or filed for 
bankruptcy that year. That cost 11,000 airline-related jobs in America. 
Airlines that weathered the financial storm lost millions of dollars 
because fuel costs were going through the roof.
  United Airlines, based in Chicago, which I am honored to represent, 
reported a $538 million loss that year,

[[Page 1773]]

driven by a $618 million increase in fuel expenses. The airlines 
reacted to this market reality in 2008 by reducing capacity across the 
industry by 25 percent. Flights were reduced at airports all around the 
country.
  The point I am trying to make is, if we take a snapshot of the 
aviation industry in 2008, we would find an industry devastated by high 
fuel prices, still recovering from some of the episodes that followed 
after 2001, and dramatically cutting back its services across the 
United States.
  We have a suggestion by the Senator from Kentucky to return to that 
level of spending by the government, when it comes to our 
responsibilities related to the airline industry. I do not believe that 
is a thoughtful suggestion because it does not reflect the reality of 
where we are today and what we are likely to see in the future.
  Today is a different day. The airline industry is seeing a major 
rebound at this point in America. Airlines have reported a $15 profit 
in 2010, and the industry is adding jobs. Airline activity is up 
considerably compared to 3 or 4 years ago. Today the FAA announced that 
their forecasts for aviation traffic for the next 20 years were too 
low. The FAA now predicts U.S. airlines will reach 1 billion passengers 
per year by 2021, 2 years earlier than last year's prediction.
  So the obvious question is, if the airlines are now going to move 
forward into a period of expansion with more flights, can we afford to 
say to the American public and the flying public from around the world 
as they come to the United States that we are going to dramatically cut 
government investment in aviation?
  What the Senator from Kentucky would have us cut, unfortunately, is 
not the fluff and the extras. It goes to the heart of the 
responsibility of the Federal Aviation Administration. Madam President, 
you and I and our colleagues get on these airlines every week. We put 
our fate and future in their hands, trusting that we have a qualified 
airline crew, a plane that is ready to fly, and air traffic controllers 
who will move us safely from one spot to another.
  Much of that is being done by those who are employees of the 
airlines. But a lot is being done by the employees of the Federal 
Aviation Administration. What Senator Paul is suggesting is that we, at 
a time of great expansion in this industry, need to cut back on the 
government role.
  It means fewer dollars and, equally important, fewer professionals 
who would be inspecting these airplanes to make sure they are safe, 
fewer air traffic controllers, less of a role by our government in 
making certain the airlines are operating in a safe and efficient 
manner at a time when the aviation industry is expanding.
  Senator Paul's suggestion moves us in the wrong direction. If there 
was ever a need for more vigilance, more oversight, and more 
professionalism at the FAA it is now. Cutting back to 2008 spending 
levels will take away the professional men and women who make the FAA 
the fine agency that it is.
  We signed the last FAA reauthorization bill into law in December of 
2003. That bill expired in 2007, about the same time Congress was 
considering the fiscal year 2008 spending levels of the FAA. We have 
now extended this law 17 times, lurching forward each time, waiting for 
this moment when the bill came to the floor.
  Congress used to reauthorize the FAA every 2 years just to keep up 
with a changing aviation industry and to make sure our government 
agency, working with the airlines, was on top of its responsibility. 
Now we have been stuck with the same authorization bill we crafted 9 
years ago, and the Senator from Kentucky, with this amendment, would 
have us go back to spending levels of 2008.
  Almost all Senators agree we need to do more to make sure we have the 
best men and women working for the Federal Aviation Administration. We 
need to talk about a new generation of air traffic control. Almost all 
Senators understand we need to update an air traffic control system 
that is based on World War II technology, technology from the 1940s--70 
years ago. It is good, but it could be dramatically better.
  This bill before us makes that investment in a technology known as 
NextGen. These investments move us from radar-based systems to a GPS-
based system. It is incredible to me that I can stand on the floor of 
the Senate and make this speech while I can carry in my pocket a cell 
phone which has a GPS device which some people could use to determine 
where I am at this very moment in time. Yet when I board an airplane to 
fly to Chicago, this technology is not being used. Instead, they are 
using radar--not an ancient technology but a very old technology.
  If a GPS is good enough for my cell phone, if it is good enough for 
so many other applications, such as the bus that travels back and forth 
on the streets in the city of Chicago, why don't we have it in our 
airplanes? Well, because we have never moved from that old technology 
to this modern technology of GPS, using satellites to determine 
exactly, pinpointing, where the planes are at every moment.
  The FAA bill before us moves us in this direction. The Paul amendment 
by the Senator from Kentucky would basically eliminate our development 
of this new technology. The amendment moves us back to the past and it 
does not save money. The Paul amendment, in fact, would basically deny 
us this new technology. The FAA Administrator under President Bush, 
Marion Blakey, was recently asked what she thought about the movement 
to roll back funding to the fiscal year 2008 levels--the Paul 
amendment--when she was Administrator. She said: ``It's false savings 
because in the long run it'll cost us much more.''
  She knows and we know we have to move to GPS from radar to make it 
safer and more up to date. Senator Paul of Kentucky says: Let's stop 
talking about the future. Let's focus on the past.
  Can we afford that when it comes to the aviation industry, where 
every single day we entrust our lives and the lives of the people we 
love on these airplanes?
  Ms. Blakey said that rolling out the NextGen system by 2018--which is 
the goal of this bill--would save $22 billion, mostly because fewer 
delays would mean less fuel burned.
  But reducing FAA spending to the fiscal year 2008 levels, as Senator 
Paul suggests in this amendment, would amount, as Marion Blakey said, 
to a cut of $1.3 billion--the amount being spent this next year on 
NextGen. It would roll back and stop NextGen, this new technology, 
before we can move forward.
  This amendment is not about saving money. This amendment is about 
cutting corners in an area where we should never cut corners. When it 
comes to the safety of the American public boarding airplanes every 
day, you do not cut corners. You make sure you have the very best 
professionals working for the agency and the best technology being used 
by airports and airliners as well.
  I am afraid Senator Paul's approach may have some appeal to those who 
would cut blindly, but if you open your eyes and take a look at it, 
this is a bad move--a move that invites some terrible consequences, 
which none of us want to envision. We need to keep America investing in 
modern technology. We need to expand our national airspace safely and 
efficiently.
  I urge my colleagues, this afternoon or early this evening, to vote 
against the Paul amendment. I know his goal is to save money. This is 
money that needs to be spent for the safety of the American flying 
public.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, we are out here talking about the FAA 
bill, a bill to improve the transportation system in America dealing 
with

[[Page 1774]]

our airways. There are a lot of great things about this legislation, 
everything from the passengers' bill of rights to improvement in 
airport infrastructure that many of my colleagues have been out here on 
the floor talking about. Even the Acting President pro tempore 
articulated why it is so important to make improvements in our ground-
based system.
  Practically every elected official in America knows that airports are 
a cornerstone of economic development. No business is going to locate 
in a community without knowing what the air transportation system is. 
If it is falling behind, if it is dilapidated, people are going to go 
somewhere else for their economic development. So improving the ground 
transportation system as part of the airport infrastructure is 
critically important for improving jobs in America.
  So I know my colleagues are out here offering amendments, and the 
pending amendment is the Paul amendment, which is a very concerning 
amendment from the prospects of what it would do to cut the innovation 
we are about to implement in this FAA bill--the longstanding 
improvements to the Federal aviation system that have to do with taking 
our airways from a 1950s technology to a 21st century technology that 
improves both the situation for the pilots in the sky and the 
efficiency of our system and it improves and coordinates the 
communication system on the ground.
  All that also increases jobs in America, high-wage jobs. It puts 
America back in the driver's seat in the development of key technology. 
Those are the kinds of jobs in manufacturing we want to be creating in 
America.
  So when my colleague from Kentucky comes out and offers a proposal to 
basically slow down the implementation by the FAA on key employees in 
these areas that are part of the technology and infrastructure, what 
you are going to do is slow down high-wage manufacturing jobs in the 
United States as well.
  With this legislation--with both the improvements to the airport 
infrastructure and what is, with the NextGen system, going to take 
place with new technology--we are talking about thousands of new jobs 
in America. We certainly want those manufacturing jobs to be here in 
the United States and to get the benefits of this NextGen system.
  So I wish to take a moment to talk about that NextGen transportation 
system and why it is so important to us in creating jobs. Because my 
colleague from Kentucky may not realize, when you actually cut people 
and you cut the number of programs that are geared toward this, such as 
in the NextGen system, you are talking about that the R&D programs 
could be reduced by as much as $25 million and then funding for areas 
such as how to do self-separation, weather technology in the cockpit, 
weight turbulence.
  I do not know about the Acting President pro tempore, but I fly a 
lot, back and forth across the country almost every week. Some of the 
pilots I have been flying with have said this has been the most 
turbulent weather this winter that they have seen. So I know 
personally. I want to know as much about this and the latest technology 
that can help us. But under this proposal, the estimated loss of jobs 
and cutbacks in grant programs and targeted areas again could mean the 
loss of expertise in R&D that is critical for us in our flying 
transportation system and safety.
  So what are we talking about when we are talking about the NextGen 
system? We are talking about improvements in flight performance and 
improvements in the passenger experience and improvements in basically 
even how we use fuel.
  What I like about the NextGen system most is that it reduces total 
flight delays by 21 percent. That is not the day we pass the bill or 
when the President signs it. But over time, the implementation of this 
system--which, again, we have a very old 1950s system, so it is 
basically radar. It is taking a picture in the sky and saying: Here is 
where planes are and having air traffic controllers talk to those 
planes and control, even in pass-off movements, where those flights are 
going.
  In fact, I would say to the Acting President pro tempore, I do not 
know if she or anybody in her family has ever played Flight Simulator. 
There is probably more certainty and predictability in the movement in 
a flight simulator than in that radar system we have today. But we are 
going to change that.
  What this does, by allowing for more accurate tracking and interface 
and information, is give us the ability to have flights fly on a more 
direct path, to be able to coordinate better with flights in 
transportation, and to have that system totally integrated on the 
ground.
  So even those kinds of flight delays that happen on the ground at 
airports, where you are waiting and taxiing at the airport--oh, this 
flight is here and that flight is there--all that will be more 
improved. In fact, that improvement, estimates are, will reduce carbon 
dioxide emissions from the air transportation system by 12 percent. So 
that is a very positive aspect of moving forward on Next Generation.
  Obviously, if you are improving flight delays by 21 percent, I 
guarantee you, you are going to be improving the passenger experience. 
When they know we are trying to get them where they need to go on time, 
in a better coordinated fashion, with savings, it helps us.
  But it also is going to improve the ground transportation system. If 
you think about that, our ground transportation system is always in 
need of coordination. We have actually had some accidents on runways. 
People have heard those in the news over the last several years.
  So what this does--when you, again, have a GPS system, the GPS system 
is coordinating that, so you have better coordination of the taxiing of 
planes and airport vehicles and the entire ground transportation 
system. That should not be minimized. The fact that we can imagine how 
a GPS system can give us better data in the sky is important, but there 
is a lot that is lost on the ground with flights and the coordination 
of flights.
  If you can imagine--just one of my personal pet peeves--you fly all 
the way across the country and you end up at your destination after 
5\1/2\ hours, and no one is there to meet the plane or it takes an 
extra 10 minutes because somehow somebody did not know the plane was 
actually at the gate.
  All that changes with the system. You know exactly where the plane 
is, and you know when they are going to be at that gate after they have 
landed. You know exactly how long it is going to take for them to taxi 
and how long it is going to take to get there. So that is a great 
improvement in this system and something that should not be 
underestimated.
  But the issue of safety is also of critical importance--the fact that 
safety, in any kind of improvement to our system, has to be the 
paramount issue. To me, that is what NextGen delivers. It delivers 
better air traffic controller information. It means there is no routing 
pass-offs, as we do now when you are flying in between cities. At some 
point in time, Seattle is tracking you. When you leave Seattle, at some 
point in time, it is handed over to another sector and then to another 
sector and then to another sector. This situation is going to have 
accurate information all the way across, including no pass-offs or 
challenges with pass-offs, and it is going to give the pilots 
themselves better situational awareness. It is giving them more 
information about how they fly and about the information on the runway. 
So that is critically important for this system. We want safety. We 
want advancement.
  In a lot of ways my colleague may be well intentioned in trying to 
reduce our budget, but when we look at these numbers and we look at 
what the Next Generation system is going to deliver, we don't want to 
cut that out of the government system. These are things that are going 
to give us efficiencies, they are going to help our economy, they are 
going to create jobs, and they are going to improve the safety of air 
transportation travel. I can tell my colleagues I certainly want to 
improve the safety and the situational awareness of pilots.

[[Page 1775]]

  I mentioned fuel efficiency. I wish to talk about fuel efficiency for 
a second because I know fuel efficiency is an important issue. The 
flying public may think, Well, why do we want planes to be more 
efficient? The more the transportation system uses fuel, obviously, the 
more we have seen gas prices go up. It means our transportation tickets 
and travel costs are more expensive. With this Next Generation system, 
if we can start driving more fuel efficiency in our air flights by 5 or 
6 percent, then we are going to help keep the efficiency in the 
transportation system.
  A program with something like Next Generation was done by Southwest 
Airlines in a pilot project in Texas, and it actually demonstrated a 6-
percent fuel savings for flights between Dallas and Houston. By that I 
mean it showed that by giving pilots more information, being allowed 
because of a satellite system-like approach to transportation instead 
of radar, they are able to fly a more direct route from takeoff to 
destination. That efficiency translates into savings in fuel costs. It 
alone is a very important aspect of the system.
  The net-net of this is high-wage jobs for us in this particular 
sector. When we think about this, it means high-wage jobs in 
engineering, in software development, and for other high-tech workers 
who are part of developing this system, as well as jobs for the flight 
crews and maintenance and basically everybody who benefits from the 
fact that we have a traveling public and tourism in our economy.
  I hope my colleagues will vote down the amendment by the Senator from 
Kentucky. All of these things are very positive aspects of the Next 
Generation system and the improvements to our air transportation. This 
amendment would cut the viability of many of these programs within the 
NextGen system and the jobs that can be created from this particular 
legislation. It is definitely long overdue and something the public is 
expecting from us.
  I mentioned there is a passenger bill of rights here which in and of 
itself is a very positive aspect of the legislation in terms of access. 
Any time there is a delay on the runway, we have to make sure there is 
access to food and water and necessary medical treatment. Basically, 
the Department of Transportation can issue fines for noncompliance of 
airlines. I know many of the traveling public will love this particular 
aspect of this important FAA legislation.
  I hope we can dispose of this amendment by my colleague from Kentucky 
and move on to passing this important legislation. It is about jobs. It 
is about safety. It is about fuel efficiency. It is about ontime 
arrival. It is about not gutting this legislation when it is needed 
most to be passed by this body.
  I thank the Presiding Officer. I see my colleague from Washington is 
also here to speak so I will yield the floor for her.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to take 10 
minutes of the Republican time unless a Republican Senator comes to the 
floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, we are here on the floor debating an 
amendment by the Senator from Kentucky. It is very important for the 
American public to understand. Everyone agrees we have to take some 
smart steps to cut waste and reduce our debt and deficit, but cutting 
back doesn't mean cutting blindly. It doesn't mean indiscriminately 
cutting programs that not only create jobs but, importantly, keep our 
country and people safe. Make no mistake about it: The Paul amendment 
we are considering and that we will be voting on shortly directly 
impacts the safety of air travel in this country.
  We all know the FAA has a very specific mission. It is responsible 
for keeping air travel safe. It oversees the safety of our airline 
operations. It certifies the equipment they use to meet safety 
standards. It is responsible for the air traffic controllers who guide 
our planes, and to make sure the pilots who are responsible for our 
safety are fit to fly. That is what the FAA does. But under the 
amendment we are considering this afternoon, the FAA's ability to do 
that job would be dramatically hampered because under that amendment, 
the FAA would lose hundreds of its safety inspectors and would have to 
use furloughs to reduce the work hours of its entire safety inspector 
workforce.
  The FAA controls air traffic every hour of every day. Under the Paul 
amendment, the FAA would have to furlough its air traffic controllers 
for significant periods of time because we wouldn't be able to afford 
to pay for the controller workforce to make sure we have safety in the 
skies. That doesn't make any sense. It would mean stretching a thinner 
workforce that bears the burden of keeping millions of air travelers 
safe every day.
  The Paul amendment would force the FAA to continue controlling air 
traffic with outdated equipment. That is not what we should be doing 
today. We all know the FAA is currently in the midst of a long-term 
initiative called NextGen to modernize our air traffic control system 
which the Senator from Washington just spoke about--a system that will 
increase the capacity of our aviation system. It will reduce delays and 
cancellations that everybody knows are hampering our air traffic right 
now. It saves fuel, and it lowers emissions. It is a modernization 
effort that is long overdue.
  Right now, our air transportation system still relies on radar 
technology that was developed during World War II. That is right. If 
you are flying today, you are relying on radar technology that was 
developed during World War II. The cell phones in everybody's pockets 
make use of satellite positioning, but we still haven't moved the FAA 
to a satellite-based system that could guide our planes with increased 
efficiency. Every one of us uses computer networks every day in our 
lives, but we are still making the investments to move the FAA to 
network-enabled operations that will help the agency coordinate more 
effectively with Homeland Security and the Defense Department.
  We all rely on our BlackBerries to communicate with each other 
through e-mail and text messages, but we are still making the 
investments necessary to help the FAA rely less heavily on voice 
communication between pilots and air traffic controllers. If you are on 
a flight and if you listen on your headphones when the pilot is talking 
to the air traffic controllers, and you know they step on each other, 
we know the system is not efficient. Under the Paul amendment being 
offered today, that entire modernization effort would face significant 
delays. With goals for reduced delays and fuel savings in sight, we 
would be stepping on the brakes. Ironically, that would increase the 
cost of these NextGen investments over the long term, forcing all of us 
as taxpayers to put in more money to reach those necessary goals.
  This amendment would not only impact the safety of our travelers in 
this country, it would create a major impact on our efforts to create 
jobs and boost the economy. I told my colleagues this amendment would 
furlough or eliminate the jobs of workers across the country, and they 
are not nameless, faceless bureaucrats. These are people who are air 
traffic controllers who are right now controlling the planes in the sky 
as we speak. These are the safety workers who are responsible for 
keeping watch over our airlines and certifying our pilots to make sure 
that plane they are flying and any repair that is made is done 
correctly. They are the researchers who are working to find cleaner and 
quieter aircraft technology and alternative aviation fuels.
  But this amendment wouldn't just impact those workers we all rely on, 
and that is because when we are forced to continue flying with fewer 
air traffic controllers in the tower under older technology, we are 
going to face huge delays and inefficiencies that will lead to billions 
of dollars in lost revenue. Ask anybody in the hotel business or 
restaurant business or tourist business what happened after 9/11 when 
our air traffic was shut down. The impact on our economy is huge.

[[Page 1776]]

  We need to make sure when we make cuts to our budget, we do it 
wisely. The Paul amendment that is before us affects our economy, 
affects jobs, and critically affects the safety of the American public. 
That is not wise or responsible.
  The most recent statistics show that civil aviation accounts for 
about $1.3 trillion in economic activity in this country. Even more 
importantly, aviation provides jobs for hard-working Americans. A few 
years ago, 11 million Americans were employed in an aviation-related 
field. They earned about $400 billion. This is not the time to put this 
vital job sector at risk by cutting back on our effort to modernize and 
innovate, and we should never be willing to put the safety of our skies 
and our airports and Americans at risk.
  This amendment is a misguided attempt at providing savings that comes 
at too high a cost. We all know and we all agree we need to be prudent 
about our spending, but we can't undermine the FAA as our first attempt 
out here and put the American public at risk. That is not wise; that is 
not prudent; it is not what we should be doing.
  I urge the Senate to consider the very real danger this amendment 
poses to our safety and our economy and oppose this amendment.
  Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to 
take 1 minute of the time remaining allocated to the other side of the 
aisle.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I can say it in 1 minute. Why 
do we not want to savage the FAA budget, cutting millions and millions, 
to go back to the 2008 level? Simply this: It is the safety of the 
flying public.
  The airways are getting more crowded. The delays on the ground, in 
the airports, are getting longer. That is the whole idea of creating a 
new system of air traffic control--in order to handle more traffic 
safely by having instruments in the cockpit that operate off our 
constellation of satellites that can keep the separation between 
airliners, can fly more efficient direct routes, and it all be 
coordinated instead of through radar from the ground. That is the whole 
purpose of the updating of the FAA air traffic control, called the Next 
Generation of air traffic control.
  If this amendment is adopted, all of that is savaged. That is not 
where America should be going.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I commend Senator Paul for his diligent 
work to try to bring spending in line with our Nation's fiscal 
realities.
  His amendment reduces the overall authorization level for the Federal 
Aviation Administration to $14.719 billion. That is the authorized 
level for fiscal year 2008. That is down from $17.526 billion, which is 
proposed under the 2011 bill. To put this in perspective, it is a 19-
percent increase in just 3 years. If we continue to have those kinds of 
increases, it is not going to be sustainable given our large and 
growing debt.
  Holding spending to 2008 levels is not so outrageous or unworkable as 
has been portrayed. By reducing the top line amount, the amendment 
provides the Secretary of Transportation with the necessary discretion 
to make the appropriate reductions to the related FAA accounts. Not all 
of them, for example, are safety accounts. So priority could be given 
to those matters.
  There is an argument that could be made that since this is an 
authorizing bill rather than an appropriations bill, the overall 
funding levels do not matter. But authorization bills do establish 
guideposts for the Appropriations Committee. In this case, the spending 
reductions reflect limits on how much will be appropriated out of the 
airport and airway trust fund.
  Additionally, a portion of FAA's funding comes from the general fund 
of the U.S. Treasury. Imposing spending cuts to this authorization bill 
also provides a tiny but still necessary signal to other Members of the 
body, the administration, and the financial markets that the United 
States is prepared to begin dealing with our pending budgetary 
catastrophe.
  The simple fact is that the United States is $14 trillion in debt and 
running an annual deficit of $1.6 trillion. Our record level of debt is 
equal to $45,500 per American citizen and $127,500 if we just count the 
taxpayers in America. Each day the United States pays another $1.273 
billion in interest alone on this debt.
  To be clear, the amendment could result in a reduction of some FAA 
services. This is a reality that setting the tough spending priorities 
will cause some services potentially to be trimmed and certainly 
unnecessary functions to be eliminated.
  But I do not think the debate over this amendment can occur outside 
the context of the difficult spending decisions that we are going to 
need to consider in the next several weeks. We literally have to start 
somewhere, and almost everywhere is going to require some sacrifice.
  The House of Representatives will consider cuts to the FAA funding 
levels this week and, likewise, this body will be required to do the 
same.
  I appreciate the work that Senator Paul has done and hope that my 
colleagues will strongly consider supporting his amendment.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
disposition of the Paul amendment occurs, the Senate proceed to the 
consideration of H.R. 514, which was received from the House and is at 
the desk; that the Reid-McConnell substitute amendment, which is at the 
desk, be agreed to; that there be up to 30 minutes of debate equally 
divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to the vote on 
passage of the bill, as amended; that there be no further amendments or 
motions in order to the bill prior to the vote, and that the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I express my appreciation to everyone 
involved. It has been a difficult issue, but I will put on the record 
what I have told a number of Senators personally, and that is that we 
will, prior to this expiration occurring, bring up the PATRIOT Act and 
have an opportunity for an extended period of time--a week at least--to 
offer amendments and do whatever people feel is appropriate on this 
bill.
  I have talked to a couple of Senators who have told me specifically 
that they want to offer amendments. Although I didn't agree I would 
support their amendments--one was a Democrat and one was a Republican--
I said that is what we should be able to do, to set this up so they can 
offer their amendments. And I will do whatever I can to make sure we 
move forward on this legislation in ample time so that we can pass this 
PATRIOT Act for a more extended period of time, which is so important 
to the security of this country. I know people have problems with it, 
and that is why we are going to have the amendment process.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is expired on the amendment.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to table amendment No. 21 offered by 
the

[[Page 1777]]

Senator from Kentucky, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kerry) and the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Pryor) are necessarily 
absent.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 18 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--47

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown (MA)
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Kerry
     Pryor
       
  The motion was agreed to.


                            Vote Explanation

 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for the 
vote in relation to Paul amendment No. 21 to the FAA reauthorization 
bill. If I had attended today's session, I would have voted in 
opposition to that amendment and would have supported any motion to 
table that amendment.

                          ____________________