Can flogging a dead horse ever
succeed? The administration on Oct. 18 transferred the whip to the hand of
Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters as she went before the Senate Commerce
Committee and tried to resurrect the administration's FAA funding proposal. That bill had failed to get
out of the starting gate in February.
The full House and the Senate Finance
Committee have
rejected the FAA's claim that the current funding system was seriously ill
and the only cure was user fees, huge tax increases for general aviation, and a
huge tax break for the airlines.
However, Peters told the Commerce
Committee that, "the failures of the current system are not the result of
poor engineering but poor economics. There is a pressing need to overhaul the
nation's aviation system to improve economic efficiency and to maintain an
impressive record of safety performance.... We urge that any further
[congressional] action remain consistent with our February proposal."
In a way, Peters was preaching to a
sympathetic choir, because the Commerce Committee had drafted an FAA funding
bill that included some of the administration's precepts. But the tax-writing
Finance Committee disagreed.
And so does a prominent former
senator with impeccable conservative, economic, and aviation credentials. E.J.
"Jake" Garn chaired the Senate Banking Committee when he was the
senior senator from Utah and served on the Appropriations Committee. He's an
officer or board member of several large corporations, a pilot, former
astronaut, and Air National Guard brigadier general.
The Commerce Committee's original
bill "would institute an unnecessary funding system called 'user fees' for
small aircraft, in addition to tripling the fuel tax," Garn wrote in an article published Oct. 13 in The Salt
Lake Tribune. "Commercial airlines...would receive a major tax break,
while small aircraft owners and the businesses, communities and charities that
depend on small planes would be forced to shoulder a slew of new taxes and
fees."
That, according to Garn, would have a
devastating impact on small businesses and rural communities. "As planes
remain on the ground, small airports may be forced to close, sometimes cutting
off the quickest and most efficient access to rural communities. But the impact
of the proposed user fees goes beyond economics. Many doctors use private
planes to reach rural patients who need specialized treatment."
Garn wrote that the House-passed FAA
funding bill—H.R.2881—would create historic funding levels for the FAA using
the current aviation tax system. He called the Finance Committee's changes to
the Senate funding bill (S.1300) "common-sense and equitable,"
changes that didn't resort to "a risky 'user fee' scheme or a huge tax break
for the airlines."
He urged the Senate to support
passage of the Finance Committee's proposal. "If it passes, we can begin
to modernize our nation's air traffic control system and avoid giving the
airlines a massive tax break funded by those of us who fly small planes."
After the full Senate passes S.1300,
House and Senate leaders will appoint a conference committee to resolve the
differences between H.R.2881 and S.1300. The bill will then be sent back to
both chambers for final votes and then to the president.
Timing is uncertain at this point.
The Senate has not yet scheduled its FAA funding bill onto the Senate floor for
debate and final vote.
October 22, 2007