FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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, 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source