Dependable Air Service Act of 2013

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.

Mr. President, I strongly support the Robert C. Byrd Mine and Workplace Safety Act. This bill brings the Nation's mine health and safety laws up to date, gives mine safety officials the ability to effectively investigate and shut down habitually dangerous mines, and holds mine operators accountable for putting their workers in unnecessary danger.

It has been over 3 years since April 5, 2010, when a massive explosion ripped through Massey Energy's Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia, tragically killing 29 miners. As the son of a coal miner, I continue to feel these losses very deeply, on a very personal level. My heart goes out to the family and coworkers of every worker who is killed or injured on the job. Too many of these tragedies are preventable, and we should not rest until the day comes when no hard- working American has to sacrifice his or her life for a paycheck.

The Upper Big Branch catastrophe spurred numerous investigations, and the resulting reports have yielded insight into specific ways that the government can act to improve the health and safety of our Nation's miners. Under the leadership of Joe Main, the Mine and Safety Health Administration has already taken many such important steps. One of their bold new safety initiatives that flowed from the Upper Big Branch explosion was to overhaul the ``pattern of violations'' process, which targets the worst actors in the mining industry. The pattern of violations regulation addresses a root cause of the Upper Big Branch disaster by strengthening worker protections at mines where operators are repeatedly and flagrantly disregarding safety rules. It is a substantial step forward that will help address the problems at our most dangerous mines before disaster strikes. And MSHA has made similar progress on other recommendations stemming from the Upper Big Branch disaster. Indeed, according to a March 31, 2013, report from the Labor Department's Office of Inspector General, MSHA has already implemented or is on track to timely address all of the 100 recommendations with deadlines from the investigative teams that studied the Upper Big Branch explosion.

I applaud these efforts wholeheartedly, and I am pleased to mark our Nation's progress in mine safety reform. On-the-job deaths of miners reached a record low in 2012 of 35. But 35 deaths means 35 brothers, sons, uncles, and fathers were stolen away from their families last year--a number that is still far too high. Catastrophes like the Upper Big Branch explosion make it clear that our work here is unfinished.

To prevent yet another disaster and more unnecessary deaths, Congress must do its part. It is time for the Senate to take action and ensure that a disaster like the Upper Big Branch explosion will never happen again. We need to strengthen the oversight system for the most dangerous mines, fortify penalties for operators who willfully put miners at risk, and make sure miners are protected if they raise safety concerns. And that is why I strongly support the Robert C. Byrd Mine and Workplace Safety Act of 2013. This bill is an important step in making good on an obligation we have to health and safety of our courageous miners and their families.

This bill stands for some fundamental principles I believe are shared by all Americans.

We believe that every American deserves to go to work without fearing for his or her life.

We believe that responsible businesses that put safety first shouldn't have to compete with businesses that prioritize a quick buck over the safety of their employees.

We believe that employers who put workers' lives at risk should face serious consequences that will force them to change their ways.

We believe that companies shouldn't be able to hide behind high priced lawyers and convoluted corporate structures to avoid being held accountable for their actions.

We believe that the critical agencies charged with protecting workers' lives should have all the tools they need to get the job done.

We believe that whistleblowers are the first line of defense in safe workplaces and deserve strong protection from discrimination and retaliation.

The Robert C. Byrd Mine and Workplace Safety Act of 2013 reflects these core principles and includes effective policies to achieve them. Its passage would be a major step forward for workplace safety.

This legislation also makes common sense reforms to the Occupational Safety and Health Act, OSHA, which has not been significantly updated since it was passed over 40 years ago. For example, whistleblower protections under the OSH Act are toothless and unfairly tilted against workers

who risk their career to protect the public welfare. This bill makes essential changes to ensure that workers are protected, including lengthening OSHA's 30-day statute of limitation for whistleblowers, providing for reinstatement while the legal process unfolds for cases with an initial finding of merit and giving the worker the right to file their own claim in court if the government does not investigate the claim in a timely manner.

The bill also strengthens criminal and civil penalties that, at present, are too weak to protect workers. Under current law, an employer may be charged--at most--with a misdemeanor when a willful violation of OSHA leads to a worker's death. Under the Robert C. Byrd Mine and Workplace Safety Act of 2013, felony charges are available for an employer's repeated and willful violations of OSHA that result in a worker's death or serious injury. The bill also updates OSHA civil penalties--which have been unchanged since 1990--and sets a minimum penalty of $50,000 for a worker's death caused by a willful violation.

In addition to toughening sanctions for employers who needlessly expose their employees to risk, the bill makes sure that the government is responsive to workers when investigating charges. It guarantees victims the right to meet with the person investigating the claim, to be notified of and receive copies of reports or citations issued in the investigation, and to be notified of and have the right to appear at proceedings related to their case. Victims of retaliation should not suffer the double indignity of being ignored by government officials charged with protecting them.

I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support the Robert C. Byrd Mine and Workplace Safety Act of 2013. This important bill would take a tremendous step forward for mine safety and could ultimately save the lives of thousands of hard-working Americans.

Mr. President, I rise this morning to introduce legislation. The legislation is entitled the ``Dependable Air Service Act.'' It is a very simple, straightforward solution to the issue of the furloughs of air traffic controllers, and I would like to take just a few minutes to describe it.

This is bipartisan legislation. I would like to start out by thanking my cosponsors. The lead cosponsor is Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, but other cosponsors are Senator John Cornyn of Texas, Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, Senator Kelly Ayotte, Senator Risch of Idaho, and also Senator Jean Shaheen of New Hampshire. As one can see, it is bipartisan legislation. These are original cosponsors on the bill with me, and we will have more, as we are talking to others.

As I said, this is a very simple, straightforward solution to the issue we face of delays in our airports across the country because of the furloughs to air traffic controllers. What the bill does is to say to the Administrator of the FAA--the Federal Aviation Administration, Administrator Huerta--that he can use dollars within his budget, move them around as he needs to move them around, and that is what he needs to do--to move dollars around within his budget so he does not have to take $206 million out of the salary line of the air traffic controllers. He can then decide what reductions he can make in those salaries and what level of furloughs he can make to air traffic controllers but still maintain air service on an on-time basis, so we have dependable on-time air service across this country for our citizens.

Further, it provides that if for any reason the FAA Administrator, within his budget, cannot fully accomplish that, then the Secretary of Transportation, Mr. LaHood, can work with him to utilize funds within the budget of the Department of Transportation. It provides the authority, quite simply, to move the dollars around within the budget of the DOT--Department of Transportation--and gives the Secretary that authority to make sure they do not furlough more air traffic controllers than are needed to keep our air flights on time, to keep service, of course, safe and dependable so the traveling public can be assured their flights are going to be on time.

The FAA has announced they are furloughing about 1,500 air traffic controllers, which is about 10 percent of their total air traffic controller workforce. They are doing this to save $206 million of the roughly $630 million to $640 million the FAA is reducing under sequestration. They have the authority to move 2 percent of their operating budget without congressional approval, and they have the authority to move up to 5 percent of their operational budget around with congressional approval, which means coming to the Appropriations Committee and getting approval to move up to that 5 percent. But FAA Administrator Huerta has said that is not a sufficient amount to make the adjustments he needs to make within the FAA budget to address the furlough issue.

So what this bill does, quite simply, is it says: Look, you can move the dollars as you need to within your budget. You have the flexibility and the authority to do that. Do that. And if for any reason that isn't sufficient, then Secretary LaHood can backstop that through the Department of Transportation dollars.

To put this into perspective, the total budget for the Department of Transportation is $72 billion--$72 billion--and the total cuts throughout DOT, which includes the FAA, under sequestration is about $1 billion--$1 billion. The FAA is taking $637 million of that reduction. Of course, the real issue we are dealing with in terms of flight delays is that about $206 million comes out of the air traffic controller salary line. So what we are saying is: Look, make some reductions, find some economies, do what you can within the air traffic controller line, just as you are doing across the budget. We should all be doing that because the Federal Government has a huge deficit. We have a huge debt. We have to find ways to reduce spending. So we are all in this together and we have to find sensible, commonsense ways to minimize the impact to the public. We have to, with that approach, find savings. So find the savings you can in terms of how many air traffic controllers you can truly furlough and then move the dollars you have to in order to be sure we do not impact the traveling public.

Again, this is a bipartisan bill. This is a simple--straightforward solution to the issue, and we need to do it. We need to do it.

On Monday, reports were there were 1,200 flights delayed across the country. At airports in New York, in Dallas, and in Los Angeles, some of those flights were up to several hours. What the FAA has indicated is that up to 6,700 flights a day out of the roughly 23,000-plus flights a day may be delayed because of these air traffic controller furloughs. There is no reason for that. So I want the public to know we are putting forth a simple, straightforward bipartisan solution that still saves the dollars we need to save but gives the simple, straightforward flexibility that is necessary--both within FAA and DOT, if necessary--to make the adjustments, to make sure those flights are on time for the traveling public.

I called Secretary LaHood yesterday. I said: What do you think? He said: I think that will work fine. Great. Let's work together. Let's do it.

We talked to the airlines association. We talked to the FAA Administrator and said: What do you think? The air traffic controllers union: What do you think? They all seemed to say: Commonsense, simple, straightforward. Let's do it.

Let's make sure we solve problems for the American public. They need to know that not only are their flights safe, they need to know they are dependable. They need to know when they show up at the airport that airplane is going to leave when they expect it to leave. It is important for our families, it is important for our businesses, it is important for the economy of this country, and it is easily solved. So let's do it.

I ask my colleagues to join me in this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise this morning to introduce legislation. The legislation is entitled the ``Dependable Air Service Act.'' It is a very simple, straightforward solution to the issue of the furloughs of air traffic controllers, and I would like to take just a few minutes to describe it.

This is bipartisan legislation. I would like to start out by thanking my cosponsors. The lead cosponsor is Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, but other cosponsors are Senator John Cornyn of Texas, Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, Senator Kelly Ayotte, Senator Risch of Idaho, and also Senator Jean Shaheen of New Hampshire. As one can see, it is bipartisan legislation. These are original cosponsors on the bill with me, and we will have more, as we are talking to others.

As I said, this is a very simple, straightforward solution to the issue we face of delays in our airports across the country because of the furloughs to air traffic controllers. What the bill does is to say to the Administrator of the FAA--the Federal Aviation Administration, Administrator Huerta--that he can use dollars within his budget, move them around as he needs to move them around, and that is what he needs to do--to move dollars around within his budget so he does not have to take $206 million out of the salary line of the air traffic controllers. He can then decide what reductions he can make in those salaries and what level of furloughs he can make to air traffic controllers but still maintain air service on an on-time basis, so we have dependable on-time air service across this country for our citizens.

Further, it provides that if for any reason the FAA Administrator, within his budget, cannot fully accomplish that, then the Secretary of Transportation, Mr. LaHood, can work with him to utilize funds within the budget of the Department of Transportation. It provides the authority, quite simply, to move the dollars around within the budget of the DOT--Department of Transportation--and gives the Secretary that authority to make sure they do not furlough more air traffic controllers than are needed to keep our air flights on time, to keep service, of course, safe and dependable so the traveling public can be assured their flights are going to be on time.

The FAA has announced they are furloughing about 1,500 air traffic controllers, which is about 10 percent of their total air traffic controller workforce. They are doing this to save $206 million of the roughly $630 million to $640 million the FAA is reducing under sequestration. They have the authority to move 2 percent of their operating budget without congressional approval, and they have the authority to move up to 5 percent of their operational budget around with congressional approval, which means coming to the Appropriations Committee and getting approval to move up to that 5 percent. But FAA Administrator Huerta has said that is not a sufficient amount to make the adjustments he needs to make within the FAA budget to address the furlough issue.

So what this bill does, quite simply, is it says: Look, you can move the dollars as you need to within your budget. You have the flexibility and the authority to do that. Do that. And if for any reason that isn't sufficient, then Secretary LaHood can backstop that through the Department of Transportation dollars.

To put this into perspective, the total budget for the Department of Transportation is $72 billion--$72 billion--and the total cuts throughout DOT, which includes the FAA, under sequestration is about $1 billion--$1 billion. The FAA is taking $637 million of that reduction. Of course, the real issue we are dealing with in terms of flight delays is that about $206 million comes out of the air traffic controller salary line. So what we are saying is: Look, make some reductions, find some economies, do what you can within the air traffic controller line, just as you are doing across the budget. We should all be doing that because the Federal Government has a huge deficit. We have a huge debt. We have to find ways to reduce spending. So we are all in this together and we have to find sensible, commonsense ways to minimize the impact to the public. We have to, with that approach, find savings. So find the savings you can in terms of how many air traffic controllers you can truly furlough and then move the dollars you have to in order to be sure we do not impact the traveling public.

Again, this is a bipartisan bill. This is a simple--straightforward solution to the issue, and we need to do it. We need to do it.

On Monday, reports were there were 1,200 flights delayed across the country. At airports in New York, in Dallas, and in Los Angeles, some of those flights were up to several hours. What the FAA has indicated is that up to 6,700 flights a day out of the roughly 23,000-plus flights a day may be delayed because of these air traffic controller furloughs. There is no reason for that. So I want the public to know we are putting forth a simple, straightforward bipartisan solution that still saves the dollars we need to save but gives the simple, straightforward flexibility that is necessary--both within FAA and DOT, if necessary--to make the adjustments, to make sure those flights are on time for the traveling public.

I called Secretary LaHood yesterday. I said: What do you think? He said: I think that will work fine. Great. Let's work together. Let's do it.

We talked to the airlines association. We talked to the FAA Administrator and said: What do you think? The air traffic controllers union: What do you think? They all seemed to say: Commonsense, simple, straightforward. Let's do it.

Let's make sure we solve problems for the American public. They need to know that not only are their flights safe, they need to know they are dependable. They need to know when they show up at the airport that airplane is going to leave when they expect it to leave. It is important for our families, it is important for our businesses, it is important for the economy of this country, and it is easily solved. So let's do it.

I ask my colleagues to join me in this legislation.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, what is in the parliamentary situation?

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.

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.