FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, we are here on the floor debating an amendment by the Senator from Kentucky. It is very important for the American public to understand. Everyone agrees we have to take some smart steps to cut waste and reduce our debt and deficit, but cutting back doesn't mean cutting blindly. It doesn't mean indiscriminately cutting programs that not only create jobs but, importantly, keep our country and people safe. Make no mistake about it: The Paul amendment we are considering and that we will be voting on shortly directly impacts the safety of air travel in this country.
We all know the FAA has a very specific mission. It is responsible for keeping air travel safe. It oversees the safety of our airline operations. It certifies the equipment they use to meet safety standards. It is responsible for the air traffic controllers who guide our planes, and to make sure the pilots who are responsible for our safety are fit to fly. That is what the FAA does. But under the amendment we are considering this afternoon, the FAA's ability to do that job would be dramatically hampered because under that amendment, the FAA would lose hundreds of its safety inspectors and would have to use furloughs to reduce the work hours of its entire safety inspector workforce.
The FAA controls air traffic every hour of every day. Under the Paul amendment, the FAA would have to furlough its air traffic controllers for significant periods of time because we wouldn't be able to afford to pay for the controller workforce to make sure we have safety in the skies. That doesn't make any sense. It would mean stretching a thinner workforce that bears the burden of keeping millions of air travelers safe every day.
The Paul amendment would force the FAA to continue controlling air traffic with outdated equipment. That is not what we should be doing today. We all know the FAA is currently in the midst of a long-term initiative called NextGen to modernize our air traffic control system which the Senator from Washington just spoke about--a system that will increase the capacity of our aviation system. It will reduce delays and cancellations that everybody knows are hampering our air traffic right now. It saves fuel, and it lowers emissions. It is a modernization effort that is long overdue.
Right now, our air transportation system still relies on radar technology that was developed during World War II. That is right. If you are flying today, you are relying on radar technology that was developed during World War II. The cell phones in everybody's pockets make use of satellite positioning, but we still haven't moved the FAA to a satellite-based system that could guide our planes with increased efficiency. Every one of us uses computer networks every day in our lives, but we are still making the investments to move the FAA to network-enabled operations that will help the agency coordinate more effectively with Homeland Security and the Defense Department.
We all rely on our BlackBerries to communicate with each other through e-mail and text messages, but we are still making the investments necessary to help the FAA rely less heavily on voice communication between pilots and air traffic controllers. If you are on a flight and if you listen on your headphones when the pilot is talking to the air traffic controllers, and you know they step on each other, we know the system is not efficient. Under the Paul amendment being offered today, that entire modernization effort would face significant delays. With goals for reduced delays and fuel savings in sight, we would be stepping on the brakes. Ironically, that would increase the cost of these NextGen investments over the long term, forcing all of us as taxpayers to put in more money to reach those necessary goals.
This amendment would not only impact the safety of our travelers in this country, it would create a major impact on our efforts to create jobs and boost the economy. I told my colleagues this amendment would furlough or eliminate the jobs of workers across the country, and they are not nameless, faceless bureaucrats. These are people who are air traffic controllers who are right now controlling the planes in the sky as we speak. These are the safety workers who are responsible for keeping watch over our airlines and certifying our pilots to make sure that plane they are flying and any repair that is made is done correctly. They are the researchers who are working to find cleaner and quieter aircraft technology and alternative aviation fuels.
But this amendment wouldn't just impact those workers we all rely on, and that is because when we are forced to continue flying with fewer air traffic controllers in the tower under older technology, we are going to face huge delays and inefficiencies that will lead to billions of dollars in lost revenue. Ask anybody in the hotel business or restaurant business or tourist business what happened after 9/11 when our air traffic was shut down. The impact on our economy is huge.
We need to make sure when we make cuts to our budget, we do it wisely. The Paul amendment that is before us affects our economy, affects jobs, and critically affects the safety of the American public. That is not wise or responsible.
The most recent statistics show that civil aviation accounts for about $1.3 trillion in economic activity in this country. Even more importantly, aviation provides jobs for hard-working Americans. A few years ago, 11 million Americans were employed in an aviation-related field. They earned about $400 billion. This is not the time to put this vital job sector at risk by cutting back on our effort to modernize and innovate, and we should never be willing to put the safety of our skies and our airports and Americans at risk.
This amendment is a misguided attempt at providing savings that comes at too high a cost. We all know and we all agree we need to be prudent about our spending, but we can't undermine the FAA as our first attempt out here and put the American public at risk. That is not wise; that is not prudent; it is not what we should be doing.
I urge the Senate to consider the very real danger this amendment poses to our safety and our economy and oppose this amendment.
Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source