FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007

Floor Speech

FAA REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2007 -- (Senate - May 06, 2008)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we are in a situation where a couple hours from now we will have a vote. I am sure people across the country watching this debate might be wondering what is going on, on this Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill. I would like to shed some light on where we are. As I shed some light, I wish to respond to some of the fiction that has taken the guise of debate.

On Wednesday of last week, two Senators, one Republican and one Democrat--Senator Hutchison and Senator Durbin, respectively--offered an amendment to strike a provision in the substitute amendment then before the Senate. The substitute then pending was the product of extensive staff negotiations and Member discussions between two committees with jurisdiction over the Federal Aviation Administration program. The two committees were the Finance Committee, on which I serve, and the Commerce Committee, on which I do not serve.

People who may not understand how the Senate works or does not may wonder what the situation is. I would like to explain there are certain elementary things about the Senate that are fundamental. First, nothing gets done in the Senate that is not somewhat bipartisan because of the benefit of debate for minorities to hold up legislation until things are accommodated--meaning compromise. It is often difficult to get one committee's Republicans and Democrats together to get agreement to bring something to the floor that can get passed. It is difficult to get Republicans and Democrats on one committee together, but then we have the added benefit of the Commerce Committee getting together for a compromise, and then working out compromises between the Finance Committee and the Commerce Committee makes it doubly or, in a triple manner, difficult to get things done on the Senate floor. So we have two committees that reach accommodation bringing a bill to the floor. After it gets here, then it runs into trouble.

The Finance Committee's involvement in this is determining the aviation excise taxes, and it controls the airport and airway trust fund. We have to raise revenue. Without that money, there would not be much the Federal aviation program could ever accomplish. On the other hand, the Commerce Committee develops all the policy and all the programs that involve airports and aviation. So that is how you get two committees working together to get a bill to the floor. The Finance Committee works out its differences between Republicans and Democrats on financing. The Commerce Committee works out its differences between Democrats and Republicans on the policy of airports and aviation. Then you have to get these two committees together to move things to the floor of the Senate.

Last year, the Commerce Committee acted first. The Finance Committee acted a few weeks later. The Finance Committee, as part of its compromises, addressed airline pensions. We have heard many arguments pro and con about the merits of the Finance Committee provision. I addressed the merits myself at length last week so I will not repeat them now. But in a few moments I wish to respond to some of the points made by opponents of the Finance Committee provision.

As I said earlier, the substitute that was before the Senate until last Thursday was a product of a compromise between the Finance Committee and the Commerce Committee. Under that compromise, the Federal Aviation Subcommittee chairman and ranking Republican were managing the bill. They were, however, at a minimum, under the obligation to consult with the Finance Committee chairman who is Senator Baucus of Montana and the ranking member who happens to be this Senator with respect to Finance Committee matters in that substitute. That compromise and understanding was violated when the Democratic floor manager unilaterally modified the substitute. Under the rules of the Senate, he had that right. The modification was directly adverse to the interests of the Finance Committee members' compromise among themselves. So the managers breached that compromise, plain and simple. That compromise was breached.

What matters worse is the Democratic leader backstopped the Democratic floor manager's violation of the Commerce-Finance Committee compromise by filling the amendment tree. Basically, for those watching, that means nothing is going to be brought to the Senate floor as an amendment without the unanimous consent of somebody who has that responsibility on the other side of the aisle. So with tremendous power in one person, what we call the amendment tree is filled.

Now, we all know the proponent of the amendment, the Democratic whip, has a lot of power. That power was displayed when the offending narrow pension provision I have already referred to--the pension provision the Finance Committee was trying to correct--was airdropped into a conference report on Iraq spending last year. There were no hearings. There was no markup. There was no committee process. There was no transparency, just airdropped in a war supplemental conference committee report, something that everybody knew was going to pass and be signed by the President. So airdropped, wam, bam, here it is, take it or leave it, special interest provisions cooked up in the offices of leaders of the Democratic caucus. It is not the way we ought to legislate.

We have been told that by people on the other side of the aisle many times. I wish to make reference to at least one of those times. I seem to recall a lot of outrage when these kinds of narrow provisions were airdropped into a conference report when we Republicans were in the majority. No one was louder than the proponent of the amendment that was last week on the Senate floor than the Democratic whip. If we had a C-SPAN checker, you could roll the tape back a few years. But I will have to settle because I am not going to roll C-SPAN back to demonstrate the inconsistency of what is going on here, for a New York Times article I wish to refer to.

I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the record.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. It is dated September 11, 1997. That article deals with a very successful effort on the part of the present Senate Democratic whip to remove any extraneous matter that had been airdropped into a conference report on a popular tax relief bill by the then-Republican majority of the Senate. The offensive measure was a tax credit for payments made by tobacco companies in the tobacco court settlement. The Democratic whip successfully repealed that airdropped provision. I happened to think he did the right thing then because I supported his efforts. The Democratic whip noted his victory by saying, quoting from the New York Times article of September 11, 1997:

Don't try this type of backroom deal and deception in the future. It is really an example of the old school of politics, the old style of politics.

That is a quote from the very same person who is involved in this effort we are speaking about now and that we will be voting on this afternoon.

The distrust of the public for the old school of politics, the old style of politics, is something the junior Senator--not the senior Senator but the junior Senator from Illinois has eloquently raised on the Presidential campaign trail.

To be bipartisan, I might say, the senior Senator from Arizona, also a candidate for the Presidency, has also touched a nerve about the old school of politics and the old style of politics as well.

The Democratic whip was right 12 years ago. I agreed with him 12 years ago. I voted with him 12 years ago. Unfortunately, with respect to this airdrop pension provision, the old school of politics, the old style of politics was applied.

Now, what do I mean? In this case, old school, old style power politics was at play. A powerful member of the Democratic leadership, a key member of the Appropriations Committee, did an end run around the Finance Committee and also the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.

Forget about the nearly yearlong conference negotiations that went on to get a pension bill passed in 2006 as well. It was bipartisan and involved the work of two committees, which I have spoken to--that it is often difficult to get one committee together without getting two committees going in the same direction. Forget about the nearly yearlong conference negotiations on that pension bill. Forget about all the hearings the House and Senate tax-writing and labor committees held on pension reform in the year 2006. Forget about the delicate compromise worked out on the way the funding rules affected airlines.

All of a sudden none of that mattered. The Democratic whip noted his victory. None of that mattered. So, consequently, here we are: a person who 11 years ago found fault with the majority party airdropping something--in other words, stuffing something--in conference without debate, without hearings, without committee markup, doing the same thing 10 years later.

What he was able to successfully correct in 1997, we are trying to correct now. We have obstacles put in the way: things such as having a very unusual compromise worked out, junked by the managers of the bill, and backed up by an amendment tree being filled so nobody can get a vote on issues that ought to be voted upon. Compromises that were worked out in 2006 ought to be maintained and backed up, as they overwhelmingly passed at that particular time.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source