[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5845-5846]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        FAA SEQUESTRATION DELAYS

  Mr. COATS. Madam President, I rise as a member of both the Senate 
Appropriations Committee on Transportation and as a member of the 
Senate Commerce Committee to discuss what I believe is a shocking 
display of mismanagement and incompetence by the leadership of the 
Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration.
  The Federal Aviation Administration says the sequester will result in 
as many as 6,700 delays per day. To put this in context, on the worst 
weather day in 2012, we had 2,900 flight delays. So the FAA's projected 
6,700 delays per day would more than double the worst day in 2012.
  To me, this is disturbing evidence of the lack of planning on the 
part of both the Department of Transportation and the FAA, leading up 
to what we all knew was going to take place--in fact, since the law was 
signed by the President. We have known for 1 year this may happen. The 
President signed it into law, and we are now many months down the line 
and suddenly the FAA came along just a few days ago and said: Oh, we 
just need to let you know, by the way, we are going to implement this 
part of the sequestration.
  This across-the-board furlough is especially surprising given the 
previous announcements their guiding principle when implementing 
sequestration would be to enact a plan that ``maintains safety and 
minimizes the impact to the highest number of travelers.'' Announcing 3 
days or so before they implement this plan that potentially results in 
as many as 6,700 delays per day minimizes the impact of the highest 
number of travelers?
  This is disingenuous. It is mismanagement at its worst. It is 
incompetence at its worst. It is a failure to do what every agency has 
been required to do; that is, plan for this. Now that it has been in 
law for several months, there is no excuse for simply saying: Oh, we 
didn't have time to put this in place, so this is what we are going to 
do.
  I voted against sequestration because it treats every Federal program 
on an equal basis regardless of its necessity, its effectiveness, or 
whether it is an essential function of the Federal Government.
  Clearly, keeping our skies safe and getting our passengers from point 
A to point B is an essential function. We need those air traffic 
controllers. The plan that was put forth by the FAA flies in the face 
of their own judgment and their own statements in terms of what they 
needed to do.
  Instead of furloughing 47,000 employees and causing significant 
delays for travelers, they should have been seeking reductions 
elsewhere. We tried to give these essential agencies additional 
flexibility necessary to do so. Unfortunately, the President did not 
support that effort, and the majority party in the Senate did not 
support that effort. Therefore, they have no reason to point their 
fingers over here and say: Oh, sequestration is so terrible. We never 
should have been in this position in the first place.
  The FAA, for the record, could have considered cutting back on the 
$541 million it spends on consultants--in other words, those who have 
been hired to work at the FAA because the FAA can't do the job 
themselves, so they need to spend $541 million to hire outside 
consultants--and the $2.7 billion it spends on non-personnel costs. But 
instead of looking at how to better manage their own administration, 
they turned to furloughing up to 10 percent of the air traffic 
controllers, creating up to 6,700 delays per day on the traveling 
public.
  Then they say they haven't had time to work this out. Haven't had 
time? They have had months' worth of time since the law was signed. How 
about the time people now wasted standing at airports for 3 and 4 hours 
waiting to board their plane and the overall disruption this causes? 
And this is in good weather. That in itself is a lame excuse the FAA 
has put forward.
  I did not vote for the sequestration, as I said before. I thought it 
was an inadequate way to deal with the necessary need to cut spending 
here. But the Federal Government says: We would like to do that, but we 
can't afford to do that right now and still focus on the essential 
services and give them the opportunity to manage that. Clearly, the FAA 
and the Department of Transportation have not managed this well at all. 
This is incompetence.
  As I mentioned, Congress was only informed just days ahead of the 
time of these furloughs. This decision kicked in to the surprise of the 
airlines and to the surprise of Congress. But clearly what we have 
learned, despite 1 year of advance warning and refusals to analyze all 
possible alternatives to minimize impacts to the traveling public--and 
it is hard to come to any other conclusion--is this is a politically 
motivated decision to inflict as much pain on Americans as possible in 
an effort to make the case that sequestration never should have taken 
place in the first place; that a 4-percent across-the-board cut to the 
FAA budget is simply something they can't manage. In other words, we 
would have asked the FAA to do what they did in 2010 with the money 
that was allocated to them, but they can't do that now. This is 2012-
2013 and they need this extra money and they need these hundreds of 
billions of dollars to continue to hire consultants. They don't want to 
be asked to make the kinds of decisions every business in this country 
has had to make over the last 4 or 5 years during the malaise of 
economic growth following the recession that has taken place. We 
shouldn't ask them to do what every family has had to do? Their 
thinking is: We are the Federal Government. How dare you impose a 4-
percent cut on what we do. We need to increase that every year because 
we need to keep hiring more and paying more consultants. We are not 
capable of managing.
  It is shocking. I hope the President understands if he wants 
effective, efficient government, he is going to have to hire effective, 
efficient management. He is going to have to give them the instructions 
to do what every business in America has had to do during this 
difficult economy and slow economic growth.

[[Page 5846]]

  I think we should take a very close look at the kinds of decisions 
that have been made at the Department of Transportation, the lack of 
competent management, and the mismanagement of taxpayer money. This 
administration needs to step up to the plate and be accountable. The 
President, as I said, created and signed into law the sequestration 
policy. His administration has known for more than 12 months this 
policy was imminent and they have done nothing to prepare for it 
effectively.
  Our country is a long way from getting our spending under control, so 
it is time the administration stops looking for excuses and starts 
managing its budget effectively.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. HOEVEN. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Hoeven pertaining to the introduction of S. 794 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, what is in the parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is in a period of morning business.


                              Immigration

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I will be speaking shortly on matters of 
immigration. I just wanted to report to the Senate that since February 
the Senate Judiciary Committee has held six hearings on immigration. We 
concluded the last one yesterday with the testimony of Secretary Janet 
Napolitano.
  In all, we have had dozens of hearings on immigration in the last 
couple of years, but these six were especially important for the Senate 
and for our work in the Judiciary Committee. Tomorrow we will put the 
immigration bill on the Judiciary Committee's agenda.
  Under our normal practice, I have consulted with the ranking member. 
We both agree. The bill would be held over until the first Thursday we 
come back from our early May recess. This actually works well because 
it will give all members of the committee, and those Senators not on 
the committee, more time to read it.
  Once we start marking up the bill and voting on it in committee, it 
would be my intention to not go Thursday to Thursday, which is normal 
committee procedure, but to hold markups several days a week. I am told 
that people do not intend to delay this immigration bill for the sake 
of delay, and I hope that is so. This is too important an issue.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, to go back, earlier this morning I spoke 
of the immigration hearings we have held in the Judiciary Committee and 
how important they are, not only to the Senate but to the country.
  It was an extraordinary series of hearings. Forty-two witnesses spoke 
about the need for meaningful immigration reform. I believe there is a 
chance to have real immigration reform this year, the kind of reform 
that our great and wonderful country deserves. This is a country where 
every one of us is a child, grandchild, or great grandchild of 
immigrants; a country where a large percentage of the major Fortune 500 
companies were started by immigrants.
  We heard from ``Dreamers'' and farmers, business people, religious 
leaders, economists, government officials, practitioners, law 
enforcement advocates, and others. We heard from those opposed to 
comprehensive immigration reform, and we heard from those who support 
it.
  Since the bipartisan legislation was introduced a week ago, we held 3 
days of hearings with live testimony from 26 witnesses. I have 
accommodated many member requests. I worked with ranking member Chuck 
Grassley to ensure that all viewpoints were heard. In fact, no witness 
he suggested was denied the opportunity to appear and testify. I think 
we all realize--whether Republican or Democrat--no matter how we may 
vote, we should have a clear record.
  I asked Secretary Napolitano to return to testify, again, even though 
she just did so in February. She was scheduled last week. But with the 
horrific circumstances in Boston, of course we all understood why she 
had to cancel that appearance. She came yesterday and answered every 
single question asked of her.
  As I said earlier, when we meet tomorrow the right will be exercised 
under our committee rules to hold over the immigration reform bill for 
a week. I have discussed this with Senator Grassley, and I think we 
both agree that this is a wise thing to do, to hold it over and give 
people that extra time to read the bill. Next week is a recess week, so 
we will be able to turn to marking up the legislation in May. By that 
point, the bill will have been publicly available for three weeks 
before we vote on any aspect of it or consider any amendments offered 
to it. Everybody will have had a chance to see it. We live-streamed all 
the hearings. All of this is on the Judiciary Committee Web site.
  The legislative proposal we are examining is a result of the 
significant work on a bipartisan compromise. I do not want to see 
comprehensive immigration reform fall victim to entrenched or partisan 
opposition even though it may well exist. In the course of my hearings 
I quoted my dear friend of many years, Ted Kennedy, one of the lions in 
this body. In the summer of 2007, he and I had worked very closely with 
former President George W. Bush to pass comprehensive immigration 
legislation. But that immigration reform was being blocked in the 
Senate. He spoke of our disappointment. He said:

       But we are in this struggle for the long haul. Today's 
     defeat will not stand. As we continue the battle, we will 
     have ample inspiration in the lives of the immigrants all 
     around us.
       From Jamestown, to the Pilgrims, to the Irish, to today's 
     workers, people have come to this country in search of 
     opportunity. They have sought nothing more than a chance to 
     work hard and bring a better life to themselves and their 
     families. They come to our country with their hearts and 
     minds full of hope.

  I urge all Senators to consider the recent testimony of Jose Antonio 
Vargas, Gaby Pacheco, and the families who can be made more secure by 
enacting comprehensive immigration reform.
  The dysfunction in our current immigration system affects all of us. 
I hope that our history and our decency can inspire us finally to take 
action to reform our immigration laws. I know this is something my 
maternal grandparents, who were so proud to come to this country, 
speaking a different language, beginning a business, raising a family, 
seeing their grandson become a Member of the Senate, I know that is the 
way they would feel.
  I know my wife's parents, who came to this country speaking a 
different language, having their children here in the United States and 
having stood with Marcelle and me and my parents when I was sworn into 
the Senate, and then watching these children and grandchildren, 
understand what a wonderful country this is.
  We are a great and good country. But we are also a country that 
becomes greater and better because of the diversity brought to our 
shores. That is true from the beginning of this country to today. Let's 
make it possible.

                          ____________________