FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007

Floor Speech

FAA REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2007 -- (Senate - May 01, 2008)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the provision related to the New York liberty zone that appears in the FAA reauthorization bill. A few of my friends on the other side of the aisle have called this provision an earmark. They have called it a fund to create a train to Kennedy Airport, even though that is not even mentioned in the legislation.

I wish to fill in on the facts. First, after the devastating attacks of 9/11 which scarred my city and our country, Congress and the President generously agreed to provide $20 billion in assistance toward the rebuilding of lower Manhattan. It was a promise the President made to me and Senator Clinton the day after the attacks. It is a promise that, to his everlasting credit, the President has kept and has never wavered from. The President understood, I think all of my colleagues understand, what happened in New York. But we still live with the scars. That downtown has not recovered. There are fewer square feet of office space today than there were then in downtown. And the families who lost loved ones still grieve every day, as does just about every New Yorker.

There has always been talk about wearing flags. I put this flag on my lapel on 9/12/2001. I have worn it every day since and, God willing, I will wear it every day for the remainder of my life in remembrance of what has happened.

Now, of the $20 billion, the money was divided for various purposes. Some, of course, was to help the families who have lost loved ones. Some was for the cleaning up of the World Trade Center site. It was a massive undertaking--to visit the rubble a day later, to smell death and the burnt flesh in the air, and then to realize that people, not only from New York but from around the whole country came to help us help heal those wounds.

Some of the money was put aside specifically so that downtown would recover; incentives to bring business back and money for transportation, because the entire subway nexus had been destroyed. At that point in time, people worried that people would desert downtown and never come back.

New Yorkers, through efforts and valiance, have struggled, and so that is how the $20 billion came about. Was any part of the $20 billion an earmark? Is there any reason to equate it with a bridge to nowhere? Please. Please, my colleagues, I do appreciate that my friend from New Hampshire--I do consider him my friend--has retracted that specific statement. But to call the $20 billion, or a significant part of it, an earmark is unfair labeling, to be kind. Or the tax preferences for the gulf opportunity zone after Katrina, were they earmarks? They were a benefit, a large benefit, designated for a specific region. When we help a disaster area, is that an earmark? No. And all the hallmarks of earmarks done for only one member, slipped in in secrecy, none of that applies here.

In fact, this exact proposal is in the President's budget this year in the light of day for all to study because the President himself, as I said, has kept his word. Has it been done secretly? Obviously, no. This provision has been around for a while.

As I will show in a few minutes, many of my colleagues who oppose it now have voted for it in other legislation. Why has New York had to wait so long for this provision? It is because it has passed the House a couple of times, it has passed the Senate once, but the bills that passed never hooked up and never made it to the President's desk.

Are we going to tell those who argue that this is an earmark that any aid to any region, no matter how publicly talked about, no matter how desperate the need, is an earmark? With all due respect to my colleagues, it is not fair. It is not right. It is not up to the level of this body or this discourse. It is using a word that has a bad connotation and inappropriately labeling something that has been part of America's nobleness since 9/11.

Let me give you a little bit of history here. After the $20 billion in aid was passed, some of the provisions were not fully realized, others were, and exceeded the amounts of money. So the New York delegation had talked with the President and with OMB leaders about how to make sure those dollars were most wisely spent, and in some places, the amounts of money changed.

A consensus emerged as we went through this that the best way to support private enterprise, or one of the best ways to support private enterprise and rebuild lower Manhattan, was to improve transportation in and around the liberty zone.

As a result, the city and State proposed supporting improvements in transportation infrastructure in or connected with the liberty zone. If you look at the Treasury blue book, my colleagues, it is on pages 47 to 49. This is not something that was slipped in by any Member of the Senate, not by me or anyone else. It was the President who proposed it in this budget, as he has proposed it in previous budgets.

It is not something that was slipped into the bill in the middle of the night. And to equate it with wasteful porkbarrel projects is an in insult to the families of those who survive, to every New Yorker, and I believe to every American.

When New York was struck, we all rallied together. We have sort of kept that tone since, when it comes to helping areas that need help. So this is not about funding porkbarrel projects. This is about keeping our promises and our faith.

Second, my colleague insists that this is a train to Kennedy Airport. I refer him to the language in the FAA bill. There is no reference to a train to Kennedy Airport. There is no reference to an air rail. As I said, it sounded good, but I appreciate the fact that the Senator from New Hampshire has pulled back from calling it a train to nowhere. I personally called him 2 days ago and read the language of the bill to him. It does not mention a rail project. There has been talk in Manhattan, among the mayor and Governor and the city leaders who would be in charge of spending this money, that that is a possibility. But there are many other possibilities as well.

The one thing the legislation states is about improving and rebuilding transportation in the liberty zone. That is all. There is no specific project mentioned in the language. There is no particular project or projects I am supporting. To say otherwise is untrue. It would be totally within the law to use this for some subway improvements or other types of spending. That will be what the city will decide, in consultation with the Governor and the appropriate legislative bodies.

As for the mechanism of funding which allows the city and State to keep part of the Federal income taxes withheld from city and State workers, we have tried various ways of designing this aid, and this is what the administration came up with, with our agreement and consent. If any of my colleagues would like to suggest another way for fulfilling the promise they would support, I am happy to listen. But I remind them that this is a solution supported by the administration. In fact, the Bush administration has supported the $2 billion trade-in for the liberty zone in four consecutive budget proposals. The details of how to do it, again, of how to spend the money, will be left up to the city and State. This is not new money, I remind my colleagues. It is the last part of a solemn promise made by President Bush and supported by this Congress in 2001.

The current version of the language passed the full House in the most recent energy bill. It was part of a Senate energy bill that received 59 votes last year and 58 votes earlier this year. It was also part of the FAA reform package that passed out of committee by broad bipartisan vote. This is not something that was snuck into the bill as it reached the floor of the House. It was passed and debated in the Finance Committee. In fact, two of my colleagues who have raised questions about this--my friends from New Hampshire and South Carolina have both voted for legislation in favor of enacting the liberty zone provision, when it has been previously considered as part of other legislation.

So now to object to this, to the whole FAA bill because it has this provision in it, is a change of view. There was no objection to other legislation that had it on that basis.

The junior Senator from South Carolina voted yes on final passage of two bills in the 109th Congress--S. 2020, and H.R. 4297--that both contained the liberty zone provision. Unfortunately, the provision was not in the final versions of these bills, and the remaining funds for Ground Zero were not allocated. By advocating against this current position, it is clearly a change. There was no specific vote on this rail link, but there were votes on larger packages that contained it, just as this FAA package is a larger package that contains it. The senior Senator from New Hampshire has voted in favor of the liberty zone tax provisions at least three times: First, in favor of the original bill, H.R. 3090; again, in favor of two separate bills--S. 2020 and H.R. 4297--to complete the funding in the 109th Congress.

So it is hard to understand, since this is not an earmark. This is not a specific project. This is supported by the President. It fulfills a promise that, frankly, this Nation made to New York, the last part of it. It is hard to understand why the views have changed. We have been working 4 years to finally complete this promise. Each time objections are raised. If someone doesn't like it on this bill, then make a commitment on what bill we can finally get it done because I am going to try to get this on any piece of legislation that moves in the Senate until the promise to the people of my city and, frankly, the people of America is finally fulfilled.

I say this to the 98 other Senators not from New York: If 9/11 had happened in your State, you would be down here on the floor of the Senate making the same fight we are making. You would not allow anything to get in the way of a promise that had been made to a city or State, particularly when the arguments made don't really apply--not an earmark, not a train to nowhere, and not something that was done in the dark of night.

I want to note again that the Bush administration has been supportive. I have many disagreements with the White House on a host of issues, but they have been helpful and true to their word on this issue. President Bush himself has. I have thanked him for it repeatedly. The President believes it is important to keep his promise. This body should feel the same way. That is why he put his proposal in four consecutive budgets. That is why when the administration issued its statement of administrative policy on this bill, they did not note any objection to this provision.

I know there can be objections. That is part of what we do around here. But I haven't seen a good argument against this other than you don't believe New York City should get the money that was promised to it. This is about keeping a promise. I am going to make sure, to the best of my ability in this body, that this promise is kept. My constituents demand it. Fairness demands it. If this were about your State, you would demand it too.

I yield the floor.

Source