[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11799-11800]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUESTS--H.R. 2553

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we are facing a deadline tonight. At 
midnight, the current reauthorization of the Federal Aviation 
Administration expires. That expiration will mean that no funds can be 
collected or paid out of the airport and airway trust fund starting 
tomorrow, July 23. The trust fund provides the primary source of 
funding for the Federal Aviation Administration through excise taxes 
imposed on airline tickets, aviation fuel, and air cargo shipments.
  We asked the Federal Aviation Administration and the Secretary of 
Transportation what would happen if the extension is not passed today 
in the Senate, and he said as follows: There will be a partial shutdown 
of Federal Aviation Administration operations. Approximately 4,000 
nonessential FAA staff will be furloughed. Mr. President, 143 of these 
employees, incidentally, work in my State, mostly in Chicago.
  The Airport Improvement Program, which provides construction project 
grants to airports, will be shut down and unable to obligate grants for 
projects. Projects already obligated will be able to continue--for 
example, the O'Hare Airport, Quad City's runways in Illinois--but 
obligating funds for new projects will be suspended. If the extension 
continues for a period of time, there may be reimbursement issues with 
projects that are underway.
  There is an unresolved question as to whether this failure to extend 
the FAA authorization will have an impact on the fees we collect, the 
aviation taxes and fees we collect from airlines for their operations. 
It is not clear yet whether we will lose that revenue or whether we can 
capture it if we reach an agreement at a later time.
  Majority Leader Reid and Chairman Jay Rockefeller have told House 
leaders that a shutdown is likely unless a clean extension can be 
passed. The Senate is hotlining a clean extension today, which I will 
go to next. There are no objections to this clean extension on the 
Democratic side, but we do expect an objection from the Republican 
side.
  I want to tell you the request I make for this extension, this clean 
extension, is in the name of chairman Jay Rockefeller from your State 
of West Virginia. This is a sad commentary on the political state of 
affairs in Congress today. This is the 21st extension of this 
authorization. How could we possibly explain to America that we have 
been unable so many times to extend this authorization for something so 
critical to our commerce and our economy? But now we are facing the 
most serious challenge we ever had when it comes to this extension, and 
that is the expiration of it this evening. It will have a direct impact 
on the people who work for the FAA and a direct impact on their 
operations.
  Now, I might add, very quickly, to give peace of mind to people, this 
will not have an impact on air traffic control or the safety of our 
airlines. Not at all. But the orderly operation of the FAA is at risk.
  What is this all about? It is a battle over a program called 
Essential Air Service. Essential Air Service, if I am not mistaken, was 
initiated by your predecessor, Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia. 
At the time of deregulation of airlines a decision was made that the 
smaller communities across America needed a helping hand to maintain 
air service. We have it in Illinois. Over the years we have 
reconsidered it, amended it, changed it. It is a shadow of what it 
started out to be. It is a very small program by standards of the 
original program.
  There is a battle going on between the House and the Senate now, 
between Republicans in the House and the Democratic leadership in the 
Senate, about the future of this program. I just want to say in all 
fairness and all honesty, for goodness' sake, to both sides, save that 
battle for another day. Let us not jeopardize the operations of the 
Federal Aviation Administration because of a squabble over an important 
but relatively small program, and that is what is going to happen. What 
we are going to hear after I make this request is an objection on the 
Republican side to extending this authorization of the Aviation 
Administration with a clean extension, making no statement about 
changing policy. It just says don't jeopardize the operations of the 
FAA. Let's keep them in business. Let's fight this out next week or the 
week after on the Essential Air Service issue, but let's move forward 
and let the FAA do its business with a clean bill that does not take 
sides over who is right and who is wrong on Essential Air Service.
  What I am offering is neutrality, political neutrality, a clean 
extension, but I am afraid what I will get back is an insistence if you 
don't take the House Republican proposal, we will shut it down. I don't 
think that is a good choice for America. Let us, as politicians, do our 
battles. Let's never do them at the expense of ordinary people across 
America who are trying to do good work to improve our airports and make 
sure we have the safest runways and safest air operations in the world. 
That should be our highest priority.
  So I am going to make this request for a clean extension without 
getting into this political squabble at all. I hope the Republicans 
will not object. I hope we can extend this authorization for the 
Federal Aviation Administration.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
consideration of Calendar No. 109, H.R. 2553, that a Rockefeller-
Hutchison substitute amendment which is at the desk be agreed to, the 
bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, and the motions to 
reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HATCH. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to explain my 
objection to the legislation just offered by my esteemed colleague. I 
want to make it absolutely clear that a long-term FAA reauthorization 
is a priority for this country and a priority for myself, and I have 
said as much repeatedly. The consent request just offered by my 
colleague, even if accepted, would not prevent a lapse of current law. 
As my colleagues are likely aware, the House has completed legislative 
business for the week, so the only way to prevent a disruption to FAA 
funding is to pass Chairman Mica's bill the House passed earlier this 
week. I worked with Finance Committee Chairman Baucus to report a tax 
title from the Finance Committee to the bill that passed the Senate 
earlier this year.
  However, since then progress on a long-term reauthorization has been 
slow. I share House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 
Chairman Mica's frustration that favors to organized labor have 
overshadowed the prospects for long-term FAA reauthorization.

[[Page 11800]]

  Last year the National Mediation Board changed the rules under which 
employees of airlines and railroads are able to unionize. For decades 
the standard has been that a majority of employees would have to agree 
in an election to form a union. However, the new National Mediation 
Board rules changed that standard so that all it takes to unionize is a 
majority of employees voting. This means that the NMB wants to count an 
employee who doesn't vote as voting for big labor. Somehow, organized 
labor is able to claim that it is democratic to appropriate someone 
else's vote without that person's input and participation. The FAA 
reauthorization bill that passed the House earlier this year will undo 
this heavyhanded rule and lets airline employees decide for themselves 
how to use their own votes. The House bill would merely undo a big 
partisan favor done at the behest of big labor, and put efforts to 
unionize airline workforces on the same footing they have been on for 
years. The House bill does not create a new hurdle for unionization; 
instead it restores the longstanding ability of airline employees to 
make decisions for themselves.
  As I said, it is unfortunate that kowtowing to big labor has 
effectively grounded efforts to get a long-term FAA reauthorization off 
the ground. The lack of a long-term bill is bad for airports all across 
the country because they don't have the funding stability to plan and 
complete projects. Kicking the can further down the road is not a 
viable alternative to actually doing what is in the best interest of 
passengers, commercial users of air transportation, and our airlines 
and airports.
  As a Senate conferee to the FAA bill, I stand ready to do everything 
I can to break the cycle of short-term extensions, and to do something 
that hasn't been done around here for more than 7\1/2\ years, and get 
FAA reauthorization off the ground.
  So, Mr. President, having said all of that, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2553, 
which was received from the House; that the bill be read a third time 
and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that 
any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, the Senator 
from Utah is my friend. We have worked on many issues together and in 
this particular moment in time we are in disagreement. What he has 
presented to you is one side of a story, one side of a debate and said 
unless you accept the House Republican position, which has not been 
resolved, we are going to lay off 4,000 people at midnight tonight. Do 
you think that means anything to them?
  What I offered was a clean extension of which I didn't get into the 
merits, which said let's put this debate aside and that debate aside 
and keep the agency working, the Federal Aviation Administration. He 
said, no, either take the Republican approach or else, and, 
incidentally, he told me at the outset the House Republicans have gone 
home. They are gone. They sent this over and said take it or leave it 
or close it down. That is not a very sound choice for our country. I am 
sorry if the Senator from Utah objected to a clean extension so we can 
keep up these operations. I object because I don't believe it is a fair 
approach.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am getting a little tired of the National 
Labor Relations Board usurping the power of the Congress of the United 
States and enacting labor laws by fiat of the Board that are hardly 
going to be upheld by the courts, but nevertheless it will take years 
to reduce them and take them away. In this particular case the National 
Mediation Board has changed the longstanding rule when you vote to 
unionize, it is the vote of all employees. This means that you could 
have a vote, and this is what I think the House is trying to stop and 
to change. That means you can have a vote with less than half of the 
employees and it would be the majority of those who vote. Now, that has 
never been the law, it has never been the case, and it is clearly a 
heavyhanded approach towards the FAA, and I think that is one reason 
why the House has taken this very strong position.
  I understand my friend on the other side, and we are friends and we 
have worked together on some of the issues, and I have a tremendous 
amount of admiration for him and his ability to lead and express 
himself. He is one of the best people of expression in the history of 
the Senate, and I have great respect for him. But that is one of the 
main reasons why the House is up in arms and I have to say our side is 
up in arms as well.
  We have to stop this changing laws without the consent of Congress 
just by the fiat of those on the National Labor Relations Board and the 
National Mediation Board. It is not right and upturns hundreds of years 
of labor law, and, frankly, it is wrong and I am on the side of the 
House in this matter because of it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, perhaps if I were as persuasive as my 
colleague just said, he would not have objected. Having said that, when 
we speak about heavy hands, we don't have to worry about the heavy hand 
of the House on this issue because they went home. They took off. They 
left, which means that 4,000 people would be furloughed this evening.

                          ____________________