The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“FAA SEQUESTRATION DELAYS” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Transportation was published in the Senate section on pages S2912-S2914 on April 24, 2013.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
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.
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.
____________________
