[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 70 (Tuesday, June 6, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H3394-H3403]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AMENDING TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 5449) to amend title 49, United States Code, to modify
bargaining requirements for proposed changes to the personnel
management system of the Federal Aviation Administration.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 5449
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REPEAL.
Paragraph (2) of section 40122(a) of title 49, United
States Code, is repealed.
SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendment made by section 1 shall be effective as of
April 1, 2006, including with respect to any proposed changes
to the personnel management system of the Federal Aviation
Administration that were transmitted to Congress, on or after
that date and before the date of enactment of this Act, in
accordance with the provisions of section 40122(a)(2) of
title 49, United States Code, as last in effect.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to request the time in
opposition.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Illinois in opposition
to the bill?
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I support the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida will control the
time in opposition.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that half of my
time, 10 minutes, be yielded to Mr. Costello, and that he be permitted
to yield time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank Speaker Hastert for allowing us to
have this debate tonight and also Majority Leader Boehner. There are
some people on our side of the aisle that are not so happy that we are
doing it, but I have to tell you that when you have 80 Republican
Members of Congress supporting a piece of legislation, I think it is
important to have the debate and have it now.
[[Page H3395]]
I also want to thank Congressman LoBiondo of New Jersey and
Congresswoman Sue Kelly from New York for being my partners in this
endeavor as we move this legislation forward, and I want to thank Mr.
Costello for standing up in support of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is pretty simple. There is a contract dispute
currently going on between the air traffic controllers in this country
and the Federal Aviation Administration, and this bill simply sends
them back to the table and asks them to reach a fair and equitable
conclusion.
Under current law, the FAA has unilaterally imposed their contract
terms on the hard-working air traffic controllers in this country.
Congress is not in the business of contract negotiations, nor should it
be. The FAA is also at an impasse with four other bargaining units, and
the Congress really shouldn't be in the business of constantly
reviewing labor contracts.
When this bill passes, the sides will resume negotiating and the
existing contract will remain in place, there will be no disruption in
service.
If they are unable to bridge the gap, the matter then goes before the
Federal Service Impasses Panel. The FSIP, as it is called, will assure
that both sides are negotiating fairly, and if no agreement can be
reached, FSIP then can impose contract terms on both parties.
Some people might say, oh, man, FSIP, that sounds like a tough place
for the FAA or the administration to go to. The FSIP board is made up
of seven members, all seven appointees of this president, President
George W. Bush.
During the course of this debate tonight, we are going to hear, I
think, some facts and figures, and I want to lay some of them to rest
now. We may hear that the average salary for air traffic controllers is
$173,000. While that may be true if you include all of their benefits,
anybody that is lucky enough to have health care or a retirement
package knows that about 40 percent of that is made up in those
benefits.
The average salary is really about $127,000. I don't know a lot of
people in Cleveland, Ohio, that thinks that is too much for people that
land the millions of passengers that travel our Nation's airways. You
may hear that air traffic controller salaries have increased 75
percent, and we will explore that a little bit later.
Some people are going to criticize the FSIP board saying, oh, man,
there is no incentive for the air traffic controllers to go back and
negotiate. I will tell you I have talked to both lead negotiators.
There is a strong desire to get this done. And, again, at any time
after the passage of this bill, if either side thinks that the other
side isn't negotiating fairly, they can immediately call up FSIP and go
to this seven-member panel, all appointed by President George W. Bush.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. I hope our colleagues can support
it with the two-thirds majority necessary.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5449. Unfortunately, my
very good friend, Mr. LaTourette, the gentleman from Ohio, and Mr.
Costello, the gentleman from Illinois, support this proposal, but this,
unfortunately, is a very seriously flawed bill and piece of
legislation, and it comes at a time when we are trying to do everything
we can to stabilize and provide economic reform for the aviation
industry.
Let me talk a little bit about the history of how we got to this
situation. Mr. LaTourette has also spoken to the increases that the air
traffic controllers have received from 1998 to last year. They did
receive some 75 percent, and maybe there was need to adjust the
salaries. That translates into about 10 percent per year. But that
contract did expire last year, and the air traffic controllers were
required and FAA also began negotiations for a new contract.
Unfortunately, that drug out for some time, and by the terms of the
existing contracts and agreement, as long as no contract was in place,
the terms of the old contract prevailed, with some pretty hefty
increases in place.
What has taken place in fact is an impasse occurred. Under existing
law, when that impasse was declared by FAA, the matter was sent to
Congress. That has all taken place. That is all history. For some 60
days, Congress had an opportunity to overturn that. And it is true that
there was legislation with many Republican cosponsors sympathetic with
changing some of the procedures. However, that bill was not
retroactive, like the LaTourette proposal. This is a reach-back
provision, and it also takes Congress completely out of the process, as
opposed to the bill that others had cosponsored.
So, this is a bill, again, H.R. 5449, that, if enacted, will change
the rules of the game at the bottom of the ninth inning just because
one of the teams does not like the outcome of fair negotiations, a
legislative process that has already been completed, and, again, we
take Congress out of the process.
The Constitution provides in Article I that all bills relating to
funding and appropriations come out of the House of Representatives,
emanate in the House of Representatives. This legislation, again,
reaches back and changes the rules of the game. It allows a panel that
is not confirmed by Congress, by the Senate, again, a panel of seven,
to make appropriations and also authorization decisions that are left
to the Congress.
So, I have great concern about this procedure. I think it sets a
horrible precedent.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5449, legislation that
will send the FAA and the air traffic controllers back to the
bargaining table. H.R. 5449 seeks to ensure a fair process to resolve
impasses that arise during collective bargaining negotiations with the
FAA instead of the current one-sided process.
The FAA and NATCA started contract negotiations in July of 2005. The
FAA declared an impasse on April 5 and promptly sent the contract to
Congress just days before we went out on our April district work
period. The 60-day clock expired yesterday, June 5, with the FAA
imposing its last offer immediately.
I believe the best way to get a fair contract between the two sides
is for Members to sign Discharge Petition No. 13 to bring H.R. 4755, a
bipartisan bill with 265 cosponsors, including 75 Republicans, to the
House floor for a vote. Congresswoman Sue Kelly and I introduced H.R.
4755 which would insist on binding arbitration, ensuring an end to the
dispute, protecting collective bargaining rights and to promote good
faith, fair negotiations. One hundred ninety-five Members, all
Democrats, signed the Costello discharge petition to bring H.R. 4755 to
the floor.
Because I filed the discharge petition, the Republican leadership has
decided to bring up H.R. 5449, introduced by my good friend, Mr.
LaTourette, to the House floor today for consideration. While I would
have preferred to see H.R. 4755 on the floor today, I support H.R.
5449, the legislation before us, as a means of reversing the current
one-sided process that does not promote good faith negotiations.
I want to remind my colleagues as we hear a lot about salaries and
working conditions and other issues that this bill is about process
only, plain and simple. There are no mandates concerning salaries,
benefits or anything concerning working conditions with the air traffic
controllers. It simply gets both sides back to the bargaining table.
Today's debate really comes down to whether Members support the
rights of workers and the rights of collective bargaining. Anytime one
side comes to the bargaining table knowing that they will get what they
want at the end of the day, which is exactly what the current law does,
it gives the FAA what they want, their last proposal at the end of the
day, then there is no incentive to reach an agreement.
The current law is grossly unfair and needs to be permanently
changed. If you truly believe in collective bargaining, you will send
both sides back to the bargaining table by supporting H.R. 5449.
I urge all Members to vote ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Just for the record, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, the average
compensation for an air traffic controller today
[[Page H3396]]
is $173,000. That is average. The highest paid controller earns
$277,937. That is the highest controller. I have 1,397 controllers
earning $213,500.
Just for the record, the average median household income in Illinois,
the home State of the gentleman who just previously spoke, is $48,953.
For Mr. LaTourette, the sponsor of this legislation, the average median
household income is $42,240.
Further for the record, an air traffic controller for the military,
and we have a whole corps of air traffic control servicemembers serving
in the United States and across the world, right now a sergeant in the
U.S. Air force with 10 years experience and those in the combat zone as
we speak tonight serving in Iraq at Baghdad Airport, earn $35,919. Of
course, they get many benefits on top of this, such as housing. I want
to be fair.
But that brings some of this debate and the amount of compensation we
are talking about hopefully into perspective.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, just briefly to the gentleman's baseball analogy, that
is exactly why they make extra innings and we should have extra innings
here.
Secondly, again, this $173,000 figure, people in Cleveland, Ohio,
that are sitting on their couch know that $173,000 is a lot of money,
but again, if they are lucky enough to have health care and pension,
that is 40 percent of that cost. The average is $127,000.
Now, again, people in Cleveland, Ohio, think that that is a lot of
money as well, but I am going to tell you, they think that the guy that
walked away from Exxon with a $400 million retirement package, that
really is a lot of money.
The sum of $127,000 for someone who has dedicated his or her life to
safely landing your family at an airport is not too much money.
Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), the sponsor of the original
bill.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. I have spent
a lot of time working on aviation safety on this issue because we need
to establish more fairness in the contract negotiation process between
the Federal Aviation Agency and our air traffic controllers. When one
side is able to cut off negotiations and impose its will on its
employees at any time, it is difficult to argue that this is an
environment for fair negotiation.
Unfortunately, this is the system we have in place right now for
recruiting and maintaining America's best assets for keeping our air
safe, our air traffic controllers. It is a flawed system that would
weaken aviation safety. It is appropriate that Congress take action to
correct this situation now, before problems grow to a point where we
can no longer fix them.
{time} 2115
Our air traffic controllers are absolutely essential to protecting
our skies. We need to ensure that we are recruiting and maintaining the
best possible personnel for our really vitally important jobs. That is
why I introduced the legislation this year with my colleague, Mr.
Costello, to address this situation.
And as he pointed out, we had a bipartisan group of 267 Members
behind our legislation that seeks to establish more fairness in the
negotiation process. Well, it would be my preference that it would be
our bill that would be up for debate today. I sincerely appreciate the
leadership's recognition that this matter merits debate and action by
this body. The bill that is offered by my colleagues, Mr. LaTourette
and Mr. LoBiondo, provides us with a positive step in the right
direction.
Mr. Speaker, it does not favor one side over the other. It does not
speak in favor of one specific contract proposal over another. It
simply sends them back to the negotiating table. This is the right
thing to do to keep our negotiation process fair and our skies safe.
I support this legislation. I encourage the other 265 cosponsors that
have cosponsored this bill with Mr. Costello and myself to similarly
support this bill offered by my colleagues, Mr. LaTourette and Mr.
LoBiondo.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, just a couple of clarifying points, if I may. We heard
the gentleman from Illinois talk about sending this contract back to
the bargaining table. We heard reference by the previous speaker also
of the panel that will get this.
I had the honor and privilege of chairing the House Civil Service
Committee for some 4 years. I know a little bit about the Federal
Service Impasse Panel. The Federal Service Impasse Panel is not
confirmed by the Senate. It has no congressional confirmation. It has
seven appointees by the President. Ninety-eight percent of the issues
it has handled, and this is what the LaTourette bill would do is send
it to this panel, 98 percent of the issues that it has handled are
nonwage. That is a fact.
It deals primarily with quasi-governmental and nonappropriated, that
is nonappropriated by Congress, mostly agencies that generate their own
income through fees.
So this is unprecedented in sending it to this panel. Now, they do
not have the staff to deal with this. Maybe it will go on to the Labor
Relations Board and then maybe it will be further appealed. But
remember, the name of this game is keeping this stirred up and not
resolved as long as possible, because we have then the provisions of
the Clinton contract, which expired on Monday.
In addition, there are differences between the bill by Mrs. Kelly,
and I applaud her for her bill, first her bill did not reach back as
the LaTourette bill did, and secondly, her bill kept Congress in the
process.
The LaTourette bill takes Congress out of the process, turns this
process really over to, again, a board that has really no congressional
oversight or participation in even confirming the members in an
unprecedented fashion. So that again provides us with some statistics.
Just to also further clarify cash compensation versus total
compensation. The highest controller, if we take cash compensation,
only is $231,477 for the record. The 1,397 controllers about the
statutory cap, they receive, again without benefits, $175,366.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Costello for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, when two parties enter negotiations, it is generally
expected that both sides play by the same rules. But there is an
exception made for the FAA which enjoys a decided advantage over air
traffic controllers.
For instance, there was no penalty or consequences for FAA
negotiators when they walked away in the middle of negotiations
expecting that congressional inaction would automatically impose a new
contract with lower pay and benefits for the air traffic controllers
have earned through their hard work and impeccable service record since
the terrorist attacks.
Mr. Speaker, I would say that this is not an argument about average
compensation or cash compensation. This is an argument that is
essentially about fairness. The current process is anything but fair.
Whatever one's position might be on the underlying issue, most of us
can agree that Congress should let the process run its course and
refrain from dictating the terms of an agreement that should be settled
like any other labor dispute.
Mr. Speaker, the diligent and hardworking men and women who guide
America's air traffic serve a critically important role in our homeland
security. At the very least we should level the playing field so that
they can negotiate a fair contract.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this
resolution.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, again for the record, first of all, the gentleman from
New York just talked about this unfair process. This is the same
process that was put into effect during the Clinton administration in
1996, and in 1998 gave the air traffic controllers a 75 percent
increase, the same exact process that we are working under.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) and my good friend, the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly),
[[Page H3397]]
the average median household incomes by State that I have for New York
is $47,349. Now, I do not want anyone to think that we are cutting
existing air traffic controllers. Under the contract that went into
effect on Monday, their compensation and their benefits, they will rise
from 2007 to 2011 from $173,000 to $185,000.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a brief comment before yielding to
my friend from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).
Mr. Mica continues to talk this bill reaching back. I just want to
focus on the 60 days that was in the current law. It is inconceivable
that anybody that has been here for any period of time thinks that this
Congress can act in 60 calendar days on anything.
Mr. Speaker, I have been here 12 years. For that entire 12 years we
have been trying to repeal a telephone tax that was put into effect to
pay for a war. Now some people say, oh, was it the Iraq war? Maybe the
gulf war? Maybe Korea? No, the Spanish-American War.
The Treasury Department just announced this week that they are going
to let us repeal the tax that is 100 years old, but we were supposed to
act in 60 days.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
LoBiondo).
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5449. I would like to
thank Congressman LaTourette for his dogged determination in pursuing
this issue. Also I thank Congresswoman Kelly and Congressman Costello
for their help on this very important issue, and also Speaker Hastert
and Majority Leader Boehner.
H.R. 5449 is a fair way of resolving the contract dispute between the
controllers and the FAA. It simply brings both parties back to the
table to reach a mutually acceptable solution.
I share the concerns regarding the budget shortfall at the FAA and
the need to free up funds to modernize our air traffic control system.
But I do not think that forcing both parties back to the table to agree
to a contract will undermine those goals in any way, shape, or form.
When the talks between the parties reached an impasse, the
controllers were offering $1.4 billion in cost savings. Let me repeat
that: they were offering $1.4 billion in cost savings. I believe that
if the parties were to return to the table, consensus would be reached
in a very short period of time.
Congress should encourage both parties to continue to negotiate and
not allow the FAA to unilaterally impose their last offer. Mr. Speaker,
I urge all of my colleagues to support this good piece of legislation.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to take just a minute. I have the
greatest respect for Mr. LoBiondo. He is one of the hardest workers in
Congress. I went up to some of the Federal aviation facilities, testing
facilities and others in his district. He is one of the strongest
advocates in Congress for good, sound aviation. I am sorry we disagree
a bit. I know a lot of Members are under pressure.
I thought about this. And I thought this is one reason why we should
not even have these issues before Congress. Ninety-eight percent of the
Federal employees, in fact, have a general wage chart and schedule. You
can see why countries like Argentina, Germany and others have the tail
wagging the dog. I feel bad for Members who are in that predicament.
But our responsibility is to the taxpayer. It is also to a sound
aviation system, which I think both Mr. LaTourette, Mr. LoBiondo, Mr.
Costello, everyone agrees is important.
The dilemma that we face if we pass LaTourette, and we are working
under existing law that did give us 60 days, that did expire on Monday,
and we have a new contract. What happens is, given the nature of this
impasse panel and its lack of any experience in dealing with these
kinds of issues, this could go on and on.
Now, Mr. Knollenberg was on his way. He is an appropriator and
oversees appropriations and was to speak against Mr. LaTourette's
proposal. But what happens here, Members of Congress, Mr. Speaker, is,
quite simply put, H.R. 5449 pulls the rug out from underneath actually
our entire national aviation system and the whole funding process when
we can least deal with it.
Airport projects, and Members should be aware of this, when you have
to put 1.9, and I asked the attorneys from FAA, is this enough, at bay
for a number of years, and they said, it will probably be double that
figure that will be put at bay. I have right now $1.9 billion, Mr.
Costello knows this, left in our entire airport improvement funds at
this time.
So we put airport projects at risk with unpredictable costs and
salaries, leaving this hanging out. Then we also hurt the core of other
FAA employees. This chart shows the total compensation gap between
controllers and other FAA employees. It is a gigantic gap, some 42
percent.
So we leave them hanging out. We leave all of our projects for
funding around the country, we leave air traffic control modernization,
which is the system that gives us the very best technology for safety.
So that is of a great concern to me.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my good friend
from Florida, when a Member stands here and makes an assertion about
the pay that air traffic controllers receive, and then you make
comparisons with what the average pay is in any area, the unstated
implication is that, well, they are just getting paid so much or too
much, and the remedy is then to deny them their collective bargaining
rights. That seems to be an unstated conclusion.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that is not what my friend is saying, because if
you carry that logic forward, then we are going to be here arguing
about how much a brain surgeon makes, or how much an engineer makes or
how much an architect makes.
If we get into that argument, well, you can always get a better deal
on brain surgery, you just might end up dead. Or a better deal on a
bridge, it just might fall. Or a better deal from an architect, and
have plans with a house with no doors.
I mean, we are talking about highly specialized work here. And for
the Congress at this point to make a simple statement that all we want
to do, we are not talking about the conclusion, we are not saying that
we want to shift or tilt in favor of one side or another, we are just
saying, we stand for collective bargaining rights. Let the parties work
out their disagreements, and in doing that, we perform a public
service.
Mr. MICA. Mr Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Issa) for the purposes of entering into a colloquy.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned about the effects that
this bill or the absence of this bill might have on my own region of
California where we are, I believe in many cases at our major centers,
to be at about 80 percent staffing, meaning that we have overtime
because of shortages.
{time} 2130
What will be the effect of either having or not having this bill on
the staffing levels that we need to have to get to full staffing in
California?
Mr. MICA. Again, I do think that we have some serious consequences.
Not only would this unprecedented reach back and change in policy put
us in turmoil for financing the entire system, what will happen is--
this is simple math. If you are paying these people over $200,000 per
year on average, it allows you less entrants. And Congress is the
appropriator. We decide on how many hires.
Mr. ISSA. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to myself to make a
point.
The gentleman from Florida just stated that they are paying these
people over $200,000 on average, and I have to tell you that I do not
believe that to be an accurate statement. I would just suggest to the
gentleman that if you
[[Page H3398]]
think about over $200,000 a year on average, and I think that is very
misleading.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois for his leadership along with the gentlewoman
from New York. I rise to have hopefully supported 4755, but I support
H.R. 5449, simply to give air traffic controllers the right to return
to the bargaining table. But I really want Americans to learn as we sit
here, stand here and debate this question, the airways of America are
safe in the hands of sacrificing air traffic controllers who sit under
the most intense, stressful occupations that you can ever have.
Let us not go back to the busting of these wonderful hard-working
Americans, such was done under the Reagan administration. Let us, in a
bipartisan manner, send these good working folk back to the bargaining
table to be able to solve their problems. Is it not interesting that
most Members fly to work and they take their flying for granted because
they believe that the airways are safe because our air traffic
controllers are on the front lines of handling their responsibilities.
As I respect the opposition to this bill, let us, as Members of
Congress, not having done this timely, let us now do the right thing
and give, if you will, the sense of appreciation to hard-working
Americans, not to give them any particular benefits, but to allow them
to go back to the table and have a matter resolved in the fair and
practical way. Let us not repeat the busting of a union and let us go
back to the negotiating table. I ask for support for H.R. 5449.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Again, for the record, and I believe these figures to be correct,
that under the new contract which was put into place on Monday and
which the LaTourette reachback would actually wipe out, the average
salary with benefits would increase from $173,000 to $185,000 under
this new proposal.
If we leave the contract that was negotiated during the Clinton
administration in place, it is my understanding that compensation and
benefit would reach $211,000. That is not really the question here.
Although it is an increase, it is, again, a question of fairness.
We have gone through the process adopted under the Clinton
administration in 1996. They did receive, in fact, a 75 percent
increase in 1998. The process worked then. The same processes work now.
We had the 60 days to consider it. It was not overturned in Congress.
The LaTourette proposal is, in fact, different than the Kelly proposal.
The Kelly proposal would have gone forward before the Monday deadline.
The LaTourette proposal, it is in his legislation. It reaches back to
April 6, the date of the impasse. It would overturn, again, all
precedents, all laws. I am for fairness in dealing with labor, fairness
in dealing with everyone.
I might point out for the record that the median household income for
the State of Texas, the gentlewoman who just spoke, is $41,759.
There is great concern about this proposal because again it leaves
our safety, it leaves our airport projects, it leaves the future really
of bringing on new hires which is so important and an aging workforce
all in limbo. It would be an unprecedented reachback.
This is so serious that this afternoon the administration, the
President, I am sure, checked off on this. It says, if a bill such as
H.R. 5449 that changes or negates the impasse resolution process or the
revised terms and conditions of employment that were presented to the
President, the President's senior advisors would recommend that he veto
the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the President but on this
issue, quite frankly, he is wrong. I think that if he talked to his FAA
administrator, we might have a different conclusion.
I want to tell you what has my dander up this evening because Mr.
Mica is right. This is an unusual procedure. This has happened once
before since this legislation went into effect. The last time, 60 days
went by, the Congress didn't do anything. Just like we didn't do
anything this 60 days. The administrator of the FAA waited 19 months
before she imposed the contract. This, the deadline was up Monday, the
5th of June. You get the feeling she was sitting with one of those desk
calendar for left-handers that people get for Christmas and she could
not flip to the 5th of June fast enough. I assume she reads the
newspaper. She knew this debate was going to take place this week and
that action of imposing that contract on the very first day that she
could, in my mind, is a direct affront to this people's House and the
300 million people that are represented by it and shame on her.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman.
Well, surprise, the political appointees at the Bush Federal Aviation
Administration and their supporters in Congress want to undermine the
safest, most productive air traffic control system in the world by any
measure. Why? Because there is one basic flaw. There is an agenda no
one is talking about here tonight. It is not privatized. It does not
provide a profit for Halliburton or some other contractor. That is what
this is all about. Let's kill off the existing FAA and the air traffic
controllers and then the private sector will save us.
Well, in the three countries where the private sector has come in, it
has not worked out so well, neither for the safety nor for the
taxpayers. They have all had to be bailed out. They are all more
expensive. They are all less productive and they are nowhere near as
safe.
Now, the gentleman from Florida complains about the salaries. The
salary he is talking about with benefits is less than a Member of
Congress like himself or me or the gentleman there or any of the rest
of us. Now, I could not handle 20 planes on approach with obsolescent
equipment and keep people alive day in, day out across America and in
our skies. Could he? I think not.
Now, I am not going to complain about that salary. In fact, I don't
find anybody at 30,000 feet or 40,000 feet that is complaining about
that salary. And if we said, well, let's talk about the productivity.
Well, they are handling 20 planes at once on approach, death defying
air time here. That is about $8,000 per plane. That is even less than
the Republicans mandated federal minimum wage. Now, is that where they
want to drive this or do they maybe want to outsource it to India so we
could send the data over there and they could do it for even less?
This is about safety, security, air space, the American public and,
yes, it is about fairness. There has been a little bit of talk about
fairness. Let's talk about fairness. 265 Members out of 435 have co-
sponsored the Costello-Kelly bill; but the chairman of the committee,
the operatives at the White House, and the Republican leadership will
not allow a bill supported by an overwhelming majority of the House of
Representatives, Democrats and Republicans, to come up for an up or
down vote. Instead, they give us this option. We will give you a vote
and then we will complain about the terms of it because it is
retroactive and has all these other problems. We will complain about it
here and we will require, guess what America? A two-thirds vote for
passage.
This is not a straight deal for the people who keep us alive every
week in the skies, who have an unparalleled record of safety and
security for the American traveling public. Yeah, you can quibble and
complain about the salaries and you can get up and talk about the
average salary in my district, but I know the air traffic controllers
in my district. There is not a single one of them earning $173,000.
They would be living in the mansions on the hill if they did and they
do not live in the mansions on the hill. So they can come up with the
mythical air traffic controller somewhere.
And then the gentleman from Los Angeles comes up and feigns concern
[[Page H3399]]
about the number of air traffic controllers. Where is someone going to
move and relocate and live in the Los Angeles area on the new $50,000 a
year salary?
Vote for this bill. We need a two-thirds vote. And if it does not
pass then come down to the well. I invite my Republican colleagues to
come down here, sign the discharge position, and bring up the Kelly-
Costello bill for a straight up vote, simple majority.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 3\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I do not see Mr. Knollenberg or Mr. Shadegg and try to wrap up for
opposition side, and if they come, I will be glad to yield.
First of all, from Oregon, the average median household income is
$41,794.
I have the greatest respect for Mr. DeFazio. He was my ranking member
on aviation. He does a great job, but I disagree with him on this
issue.
First let me talk about the fairness. I have been here in the
minority. I have been here in the majority. I have never seen anything
fairer than this. How would you like to be me, chairman of aviation. We
had a bill with 250 co-sponsors, many Republicans. That bill was not
brought out but people co-sponsored it. Everyone was open to co-
sponsor. We had a discharge petition. Mr. Costello, I believe he had
195, not even every Democrat signed it, no Republicans. So that
procedure ended last week. And then I get the notice that of course the
new contract is going into effect on Monday and there is going to be a
vote, it was supposed to be today. It will be tomorrow.
I feel like the guy that is trying to carry the ball down the field.
I get to the end of the line, the goal line, and now they moved the
goal for me out into the parking lot. So I do not think I would
complain.
Again, I think this has been a very fair and open process. And I
admire the Speaker and Majority Leader and others who have
participated, Mr. LaTourette.
We do want, again, the very best system but we want fairness for the
taxpayers. I do not think this is all about fairness for the taxpayers.
And I have to go back to John Carr, again, a good friend and he
represents the air traffic controllers as well. These are his words,
March 31, 2006: ``There is absolutely no reason for NATCA to end talks.
The current contract is better than our last concession-laden contract
proposal at the bargaining table and stays in effect until there is a
new contract. We could literally talk forever.''
That is what this is about. If you reverse the contract that went
into effect on Monday and we go back to talking forever, that is the
plan because again these huge increases that were allowed under the
Clinton administration do continue.
{time} 2145
We still have increases, but we have a limit on those increases.
Now, many groups have looked at this. The National Taxpayers Union
has strong opposition. Here is a letter I would like to submit for the
Record. The Citizens Against Government Waste, they oppose it.
Americans for Tax Reform, they oppose it. The National Chambers of
Commerce, your chambers of commerce have looked at it; they oppose it.
The American Conservative Union. If you are on that side of the aisle,
the American Association of Airport Executives will be impacted by
this. Our airports oppose it.
Vote No on H.R. 5449
As representatives of the aviation industry, we strongly
urge you to oppose legislation, H.R. 5449, that would
intervene in the negotiation process between the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) and the air traffic controllers
union.
The law governing this process was passed nine years ago
and was in place when the air traffic controllers union
successfully negotiated its 1998 contract and 2003 extension
of that contract.
Current law requires that if Congress wants to intervene,
it has 60 days from the Administration's submission to do so.
The deadline for Congressional action was June 5.
H.R. 5449, unfairly changes the rules of negotiation nine
months into the process. To apply a new process retroactively
does not comply with the current law. All parties entered
into these negotiations knowing the statutory rules and
impasse processes well in advance.
The continued health of our industry depends on the Federal
Aviation Administration's ability to effectively and safely
manage the national airspace, control costs, achieve
efficiencies and expand capacity.
H.R. 5449 changes the rules of a process that has been in
place for a lengthy period. This would create uncertainty in
terms of cost and efficiencies. The impact would be
significant at a time that the industry is facing enormous
problems.
Please vote ``NO'' on H.R. 5449.
Sincerely,
James C. May,
President and CEO, Air Transport Association.
Charles Barclay,
President, American Association of Airport Executives.
James K. Coyne,
President, National Air Transport Association.
Ronald N. Priddy,
President, National Air Carrier Association.
Stephen A. Alterman,
President, Cargo Airline Association.
Deborah C. McElroy,
President, Regional Airline Association.
Edward P. Faberman,
Executive Director, Air Carrier Association of America.
____
National Taxpayers Union,
Alexandria, VA, June 5, 2006.
National Taxpayers Union Vote Alert
NTU strongly opposes any attempt to interfere with the
negotiation process between the Federal Aviation
Administration and National Air Traffic Controllers
Association and, as such, our annual Rating of Congress will
include any roll call votes on H.R. 5449. Negotiations are
taking place under existing law and should not be subject to
legislative fiat. The controllers' proposal would cost
taxpayers $3.7 billion more than the FAA plan. In lieu of
needed reforms to privatize air traffic control (and follow
the example of our free market friends in Canada, Germany,
and the U.K.), money should be devoted to modernization and
safety, not ever-higher air traffic controller salaries. For
that reason, we urge you to vote ``NO'' on H.R. 5449.
____
American Association of Airport
Executives,
Alexandria, VA, June 2, 2006.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House,
Washington DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: On June 6, the House is scheduled to
consider under suspension of the rules, H.R. 5449, a bill to
modify bargaining requirements for proposed changes to the
personnel management system of the FAA. I am writing to
inform you that the American Association of Airport
Executives (AAAE) opposes this legislation. AAAE is comprised
of the thousands of men and women who manage our nation's
airports.
It is our view that the existing law governing the
personnel management system of the FAA should not be modified
at this time. Further, we believe it unfair and unwise to
change the ``rules'' governing the current dispute between
the FAA and the National Air Traffic Controllers Association
(NATCA) at this very late point in the process.
Sincerely,
Charles Barclay,
President.
____
The American Conservative Union,
June 5, 2006.
An Open Letter to All Republican Members of the United States House of
Representatives
OPPOSE H.R. 5449
On behalf of the American Conservative Union, the nation's
oldest and largest grassroots conservative lobbying
organization, I urge you to oppose H.R. 5449, which would
interfere in air traffic control labor-management
negotiations.
In September of 2005, the existing controller contract
expired. Despite recent negotiation efforts by the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National Air Traffic
Controllers Association (NATCA), the discussions have reached
an impasse.
The FAA took steps to get the negotiations back on track by
involving the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service
(FMCS). The process again was brought to a standstill, as
negotiations broke down in early April 2006.
The Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996, (P.L.
104-264) allows controllers to bargain over pay. In return
for this right, the law required that in the event of an
impasse, the FAA could implement its final offer after a 60-
day congressional review.
Next year, Congress will reauthorize the FAA. A key
component of the legislation will be to modernize the
nation's air traffic control system and continue to make
airport investments to meet growing aviation demands. All
elements of the aviation industry, including the controllers,
support the modernization and improvement of the nation's
aviation system. Securing the funding for the modernization
will be one of the biggest obstacles during the
reauthorization process.
[[Page H3400]]
The American Conservative Union strongly supports and
appreciates the efforts air traffic controllers make every
day to safeguard the skies. But the facts are that since the
last labor agreement in 1998, controllers have received a 75
percent pay increase. The average controller now earns
$173,000 in pay and benefits. The current FAA proposal would
fully protect the salary and benefits of every current
controller. It would control costs for new controllers by
offering up to $127,000 in salary and benefits in the first
five years.
If the FAA cannot have the ability to follow existing law
in negotiating this controller contract, its ability to
modernize the air traffic control system is diminished.
Additionally, the efforts of FAA Administrator Marion Blakey
to manage the agency like a business, with higher
productivity and accountability, would be severely
compromised. We believe sending this matter to the Federal
Services Impasses Panel would do a disservice to both the FAA
and NATCA.
The applicable law, ratified less than ten years ago,
provides a process by which disputes between the FAA and
NATCA are to be reconciled. No compelling reasons have been
presented to justify departing from the mandated process and
to do so would undermine the basis of the ongoing
negotiations. The established legal process should be
followed to mediate the contract impasse. Stated simply, the
legal process should be followed. The precedent this
legislation would create, in terms of involving Congress in
collective bargaining negotiations would be extremely
troublesome.
The American Conservative Union strongly urges you to vote
``No'' on H.R. 5449, and will consider using votes on, or in
relation to, this issue for inclusion in our annual Ratings
of Congress.
Sincerely,
J. William Lauderback,
Executive Vice President.
____
Chamber of Commerce of the
United States of America,
Washington, DC, May 31, 2006.
Hon. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Hastert: On behalf of the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, the world's largest business federation
representing more than three million businesses and
organizations of every size, sector, and region, I urge you
to oppose a bill sponsored by Congressman Steve LaTourette
(R-OH) [H.R. 5449], that would interfere in air traffic
control labor-management negotiations.
Since the existing controller contract expired in September
2005, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the
National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) have
made efforts to negotiate a new contract. Unfortunately,
those discussions reached an impasse. The FAA then invited
the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) to join
the discussions to help reach a deal. Even with the
involvement of FMCS in the negotiation process, the impasse
persisted, and negotiations broke down in early April 2006.
Under the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996,
(P.L. 104-264), the controllers were allowed to bargain over
pay. In return for this right, the law required that in the
event of an impasse, the FAA could implement its final offer
after a 60-day congressional review.
Next year, Congress will reauthorize the FAA. A key
component of the legislation will be to modernize the
nation's air traffic control system and continue to make
airport investments to meet growing aviation demands. All
stakeholders in the aviation industry, including the
controllers, support the modernization and improvement of the
nation's aviation system. Securing the funding for the
modernization will be one of the biggest challenges during
the reauthorization period.
The U.S. Chamber strongly supports and appreciates the
efforts air traffic controllers make every day to ensure that
our airways are safe. But the facts are that since the last
labor agreement in 1998, controllers have received a 75
percent pay increase. The average controller now earns
$173,000 in pay and benefits. The current FAA proposal would
fully protect the salary and benefits of every current
controller. It would control costs for new controllers by
offering up to $127,000 in salary and benefits in the first
five years.
If the FAA cannot have the ability to follow existing law
in negotiating this controller contract, its ability to
modernize the air traffic control system is diminished. Also,
the efforts of FAA Administrator Marion Blakey to force the
agency to operate like a business, with higher productivity
and accountability, would be severely compromised. We believe
sending this matter to the Federal Services Impasses Panel
would do a disservice to both the FAA and NATCA.
The applicable law, enacted less than ten years ago,
establishes a process by which disputes between the FAA and
NATCA are to be settled. No compelling reasons have been
presented to justify departing from the mandated process and
to do so would undermine the basis of the ongoing
negotiations. Stated simply, the legal process should be
adhered to and the precedent this legislation would set, in
terms of Congress interfering in collective bargaining
negotiations on a politically driven basis outside of the
legal process, would be extremely troublesome.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce strongly urges you to vote
``No'' on H.R. 5449. and will consider using votes on, or in
relation to this issue for inclusion in our annual How They
Voted ratings.
Sincerely,
R. Bruce Josten.
____
Americans For Tax Reform,
Washington, DC, June 2, 2006.
Hon. Dennis Hastert,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Hastert: Next week, HR 5449 is slated to be on
the suspension calendar. This misguided bill would take away
the ability to the Federal Aviation Administration to resolve
its current labor dispute with the air traffic controllers
union in a timely manner. This costly bill, which is little
more than a sop to corrupt labor unions, is too controversial
and has no place on the suspension calendar.
In 1996, Congress wrong-headedly allowed air traffic
controllers to collectively-bargain with the FAA. In the
event of a labor impasse, the FAA would be allowed to
implement its final offer after a 60-day review. Removing
this 60-day protection for taxpayers is tantamount to
changing the rules in the middle of the game--and in favor of
the National Air Traffic Controllers' Union.
This bill is expensive (costing taxpayers $1.9 billion over
five years), a sop to our opponents, and divisive. At the
very least, it should have to proceed via regular order. With
the average air traffic controller making $173,000 in pay and
benefits, Congress doesn't need to stack the deck in the
union's favor by using special rules and gimmicks.
President Reagan knew back in 1981 that the controllers'
union was holding air traffic hostage with labor gimmicks--
does our Republican Congressional majority today?
Sincerely,
Grover Norquist.
____
Council for Citizens Against
Government Waste,
June 5, 2006.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative, Soon you will have the opportunity to
vote on H.R. 5449, which would amend Title 49 of the U.S.
Code and modify bargaining requirements for proposed changes
to the personnel management system of the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA). This is an unwise piece of legislation
that would turn over contract negotiations to a third party
and take away any legislative or executive authority over a
$6 billion annual payroll for air traffic controllers. On
behalf of the more than 1.2 million members and supporters of
the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW), I
ask that you oppose this bill.
The FAA recently declared a deadlock in contract
negotiations with the National Air Traffic Controllers
Association (NATCA). The union wants a new five-year contract
that includes an 18 percent pay increase, which would
increase cash earnings from $128,000 to $151,000, with total
compensation amounting to $200,000 by the last year of the
contract. The FAA is attempting to slow the growth of
controller compensation costs, comparable to patterns found
in the private and government sectors, a commendable action
and one appreciated by taxpayers.
According to a law passed during the Clinton
Administration, NATCA was given the ability to bargain for
wages and benefits, making it one of the few federal unions
that are allowed to do so. However, since this law was
supposed to encourage savings and increase productivity, it
also included a provision that if the FAA and NATCA could not
reach agreement on a contract, the two offers would be
reviewed by Congress. If Congress makes no decision on the
opposing offers within 60 days, the FAA is allowed to
implement its final offer. But if H.R. 5449 is passed, it
will force the parties into a long arbitration process that
would allow NATCA to operate under its current contract with
automatic pay raises and old work rules. Considering air
traffic controllers have already received a 75 percent pay
increase since 1998 and are among the highest paid federal
employees--the average salary is $173,000 including
benefits--it is no wonder NATCA would prefer a long, drawn-
out negotiation.
Congress should not allow a third party to settle this
matter. At a minimum, Congress should revisit the idea of
wage negotiations before it arbitrarily alters the impasse
process found in the 1996 law. Passing this legislation would
prevent the FAA from saving $1.9 billion in salaries over the
next five years that can be used to modernize the air traffic
control system and improve safety. Again, I ask you to oppose
H.R. 5449. All votes on H.R. 5449 will be among those
considered in CCAGW's 2006 Congressional Ratings.
Sincerely,
Thomas Schatz,
President.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
A couple of points very quickly. Number one, the average air traffic
controller in the United States does not make over $200,000 a year.
Number two, the 75 percent increase that has been referred to by the
chairman of the subcommittee, 60 percent of that came through the
normal process when every government employee received a raise.
Finally, let me close by asking our colleagues to support this
legislation
[[Page H3401]]
and I would ask my friend, the chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee,
and the 75 Republicans who cosponsored the Kelly-Costello bill, that if
this legislation fails tomorrow, if it does not get two-thirds vote and
pass in this House tomorrow, then we want to see just how many
Republicans who are supporting this legislation today will go up and
sign discharge petition No. 13.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time, and I
will close.
Just a couple of observations. One, Mr. Mica, as the chairman of the
Aviation Subcommittee, does a great job, and a lot of the advances in
this country are due to his leadership and Mr. Costello's leadership.
So I do not want anybody to leave the floor thinking they are having
some kind of tiff, but there are some things that need to be
straightened out.
What both sides do agree on is that the air traffic control
population is aging. Both sides agree that in 2007 between 4,000 and
7,000 of the 15,000 air traffic controllers are going to retire, and we
do not have a farm team. We do not have a pipeline that is really
working. For instance, through May of this year, the FAA has only hired
one controller. Last year, they hired 762, but since they hired that
762, 400 have retired. It is a program and it is a process that is
serious. You just do not show up at work one day and say I am going to
be an air traffic controller and I am going to guide your family into
Cleveland or Chicago or Washington, D.C.
Secondly, I would say that the reason that the Kelly-Costello bill
did not come to the floor is because things are scheduled on the floor.
For anybody who is not familiar with our process, things have to be
scheduled by the majority leader. The majority leader chose not to
schedule the Kelly-Costello bill on the floor. That is why I began my
remarks by thanking Speaker Hastert and Mr. Leader Boehner for having
the courage to put this on the floor tonight so that Republicans and
Democrats could talk about it.
Lastly, there has been some discussion that somehow the Federal
Services Impasse Panel is not competent to handle this complicated
matter. I would say just from their Web page, the panel resolves
impasses between Federal agencies and unions representing Federal
employees arising from negotiations over conditions of employment under
the Federal service labor management relations statute and the Federal
Employees Flexible and Compressed Work Schedules Act.
I do not know what other body is capable of doing it; and I have to
tell you, I would have preferred the Kelly-Costello bill. I would have
preferred that it be brought up to a vote, but when the administrator
of the FAA was flipping through her desk calendar so fast just so she
could implement this contract, when she waited 18 months when given the
same tools and the same opportunity, the only time that this has ever
happened, I think, and I am a pretty calm guy, but I really think that
she just took her finger and stuck it in the eye of 268 Members of this
House and 75 of them happen to be Republican, 75 of them happen to be
members of this President's party. I am insulted.
And I hope tomorrow when this vote occurs, everybody that cosponsored
that bill, everybody that signed our letter has the courage to not only
be a cosponsor of legislation but has the courage to defy the President
of the United States on this vote because, quite frankly, although I
admire him, he is wrong on this issue.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5449,
introduced by the Gentleman from Ohio, Mr. LaTourette, which would
ensure fair treatment of air traffic controllers, by allowing their
contract dispute with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to be
resolved by the procedures that govern collective bargaining for pay at
other federal agencies.
While I appreciate that the Gentleman from Ohio has taken these steps
to ensure that air traffic controllers are given a fair shake in this
contract dispute with the FAA, I am disappointed that the Republican
Leadership has forced this vote under Suspension of the Rules, which
requires two-thirds of the House to vote for passage--a threshold much
higher than the majority vote required under regular order. Members of
this Body have co-sponsored legislation similar to Mr. LaTourette's and
this substantial, bipartisan majority should be given a chance to work
its will.
On April 6, the FAA declared an impasse in its negotiations with the
National Air Traffic Controllers Association and sent the dispute up to
Congress under a provision that FAA argues gives it the right to
unilaterally impose its contract terms if Congress does not act within
60 days.
FAA's interpretation of the law gives it an inherent, unfair
advantage to impose its contract terms on its employees. Such a one-
sided process has been an impediment to good faith negotiations that
could lead to a voluntary contract. Under H.R. 5449, the parties would
return to the bargaining table and, if a settlement could not be
reached, the Federal Service Impasses Panel (FSIP) would have
jurisdiction to resolve the dispute, including the power to impose
binding arbitration on the parties.
Other federal agencies that have collective bargaining for wages must
use the FSIP procedures and, as recently as 2002, the NTEU, on behalf
of the Security and Exchange Commission employees it represents, went
before the FSIP to settle several issues regarding pay.
The FAA has gone to great lengths to try to persuade the general
public that the highly-skilled air traffic controller workforce is
overpaid. I can recall no other instance in which a federal agency has
gone so far in disparaging its workforce. Air traffic controllers
deserve better. They are responsible for the 24/7 operation of the most
robust and complex air traffic control system in the world. In 2005,
for example, they moved more than 700 million airline passengers. Each
day, the federal controller workforce safely and efficiently manages
approximately 130,000 take-offs and landings in a system whose
passenger volume is expected to grow to one billion by 2015. Our lives,
and those of our constituents are in their hands, and I believe that
they deserve their current pay.
Under the FAA's proposal, many controllers are being asked to take a
reduction in their take home pay. FAA is proposing to limit or
eliminate differential pay for controllers at some of the Nation's
busiest airports, such as New York's JFK and Chicago's O'Hare airport.
The average federal controller at one of these facilities could see a
pay reduction of more than $10,000 per year.
Moreover, the FAA has misrepresented the facts regarding the
controllers' compensation package. First, the FAA states that the
current average controller pay is $173,000. This is misleading because
approximately 40 percent of the controllers' compensation is in the
form of federal health and retirement benefits that all government
employees and Members of Congress receive. In addition, the FAA argues
that the controllers have received an average 75 percent increase in
salaries since 1998. However, this statement blatantly ignores the fact
that nearly 60 percent of these increases are attributable to
government-wide pay raises. Most of the remainder comes from a
reclassification to recognize the responsibility of controlling traffic
in busy facilities.
I am also concerned that if the FAA is permitted to unilaterally
impose this contract there will be a mass exodus of highly-skilled,
senior controllers that are eligible to retire. This exodus could cause
severe understaffing at our Nation's towers, negatively impacting the
safety as well as the efficiency of our air traffic control system. It
is therefore imperative that we send the parties back to the
negotiating table to hammer out a voluntary agreement to avoid any
disruptions to air traffic control operations.
Accordingly, I strongly urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5449, and
restore fairness in the bargaining process between the FAA and its
labor unions.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of H.R. 5449, which requires
the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Air Traffic
Controllers Association to return to the bargaining table and negotiate
a contract.
If this legislation is not passed, the FAA can impose unilaterally
its contract on the union. By passing this legislation, Congress is not
choosing sides, but is simply asking the two sides to come to a
mutually agreeable contract solution.
I believe Congress must encourage employers and unions to come to
amicable solutions. I recently introduced legislation to improve the
negotiating process at the National Labor Relations Board because many
union employees feel that employers have an unfair advantage because
they can hold out as long as it takes to get favorable terms in the
contract.
It seems to me Congress can lead by example by putting the air
traffic controller contracting process on a more level playing field.
Under current procedures for the FAA and the air traffic controllers,
the FAA would have an advantage by holding out because they can
eventually unilaterally impose their contract offer. It seems to me
this legislation is fair to both sides.
[[Page H3402]]
Our Nation's air safety relies on the men and women who work in air
traffic control towers. I am hopeful both sides will work diligently
towards a solution.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong objection to
H.R. 5449, a bill to modify bargaining requirements for proposed
changes to the personnel management system of the Federal Aviation
Administration.
I currently serve as the Chairman of the Appropriations Sub-Committee
on Transportation, Treasury, HUD and other agencies. This legislation
today would put an enormous strain on my committee's resources and
force all programs under my jurisdiction into greater budgetary peril.
Simply put, a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 5449 could cost the FAA $1.9
billion over the next 5 years. The FAA would be forced to divert funds
from critical safety initiatives--such as air traffic control
modernization--to cover the cost of sky-rocketing controller salaries.
I understand that air-traffic controllers provide a valuable service
to the flying public and that they work hard to ensure safety and
security. I also understand that due to the unique ability of their
union--an ability that is not available to every other federal employee
union--they have negotiated some of the highest wages in federal
service.
The average air-traffic controller earns $173,000 per year, and their
salaries have gone up 75 percent in the past 8 years. The top 100 NATCA
union members earn an average salary of $197,000.
How does this compare with other federal employees? Well, quite well
I would say. These controllers make more than Members of Congress
($165,200), Cabinet Secretaries ($180,100), and almost as much as
Supreme Court Justices ($199,200) and the Vice President of the United
States ($208,700).
The comparison is even more striking when we weigh their salary
levels against other critical safety, security, and health professions.
In my home area of Detroit, an average NATCA member makes $118,490.
Compare that to the average firefighter ($42,100), police officer
($48,770), or registered nurse ($59,380). And, this kind of pay
disparity is not unique to my home area, but is consistent across the
Nation.
At a time when our federal workforce is stretched at home and abroad
to protect our Nation, there is no justification for air traffic
controllers to enjoy unparalleled salary hikes, especially when our
military personnel, homeland security officials, first responders, and
other government employees do not receive the same treatment.
Some may try to indicate that a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 5449 would be a
``free'' vote to give to the unions. However, nothing could be further
from the truth.
If H.R. 5449 is enacted, it will effectively render the new FAA/NATCA
control null and void, and cause FAA costs and salaries to spiral out
of control. The new NATCA/FAA contract would be superseded by the
previous contract, reached between the Clinton Administration and NATCA
in 1998, and the continuation of the 1998 contract would cost tax-
payers $1.9 billion in the short-term, and $3.8 billion in the long-
term.
It should be obvious that a cost of $3.8 billion tax-payer dollars is
far from ``free.''
A vote for this bill is not about protecting workers wages and
stopping the FAA from slashing controllers' salaries. To be crystal
clear: the FAA has offered to protect the compensation of each and
every current controller. A new contract would only apply to new hires,
and not affect the salaries of existing controllers.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose H.R. 5449--a bill that would ban the
FAA from reigning in out-of-control controllers' salaries and cost tax-
payers and my committee billions of dollars. I strongly urge a ``no''
vote on this financially reckless legislation that will set a dangerous
precedent for years to come.
Mr. FITZPATRICK of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support
of H.R. 5449; legislation that will strengthen the negotiation process
between unions and the federal governments. As many of my colleagues
know, the Federal Aviation Administration recently declared a deadlock
in negotiations with the National Air Traffic Controllers Association
(NATCA). The issue is simple; on one hand, the air traffic controllers
unions want to increase the pay package for their employees and on the
other, the FAA wants to cut the pay package. On June 5, 2006, the 60
day period for Congress to take action on the FAA's contract offer to
the NATCA officially expired. Under current law the FAA would now be
able to unilaterally impose the contract because Congress has not
acted.
The legislation being considered tonight would provide air traffic
controllers with a fair negotiation process. H.R. 5449 would break the
current impasse by sending negotiators to the Federal Service Impasse
Panel (FSIP), a neutral third party, for a final resolution instead of
keeping them bound to the FAA.
Mr. Speaker, American workers must be provided with the opportunity
to participate in a fair bargaining process. Contracts should be the
result of a fair deliberate process that ensures that the rights of
workers are protected through a full hearing of their grievances in
front of a neutral third party. Congressional inaction and the forced
acceptance of one sided contracts are not the way to settle employment
disputes.
There has been a lot of talk about this bill interfering with the
FAA's ability to budget its compensation packages. Opponents say that
this legislation will cost the FAA $1.9 billion over the next 5 years.
This bill does none of these things.
H.R. 5449 does nothing to modify or manipulate the compensation
scheme of air traffic controllers. It only deals directly with the
bargaining process itself by reaffirming the meaning of good faith
bargaining by requiring the parties to submit their impasses to the
Federal Service Impasses Panel (FSIP) for final resolution--the natural
course for employment disagreements and negotiations at the federal
level.
I call on my colleagues to cut through the clutter that this issue
has created. The ability for American workers to fairly negotiate with
the federal government is at stake here and Congress has a chance to
stand up for our Air Traffic Controllers. I call on my colleagues to
support and pass H.R. 5449.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5449,
which would move current and future contract disputes between the FAA
and the air traffic controllers to the Federal Services Impasse Panel.
Current law has an extremely unusual disadvantage for our Nation's
air traffic controllers: if their union negotiators cannot reach a
contract agreement with FAA, then the FAA can impose a contract unless
Congress says otherwise within 60 days.
The FAA declared an impasse in the negotiations and has stated that
they will be imposing their terms unilaterally within a matter of days
in the face of majority opposition in Congress.
This is an extreme burden that few other American workers, if any,
must meet in their contract negotiations. Current FAA contract law
grants too much power to the FAA management and makes a mockery of the
collective bargaining process.
H.R. 5449 is a good compromise, because we as Congress are not taking
sides and picking the air traffic controllers contract offer or pick
the FAA's contract offer.
The bill is good policy because Congress is not the best place to
negotiate the details of employment contracts. Instead, this
legislation would place the decision in a specialized board that has
plenty of experience mediating federal workers' contract disputes.
The Federal Services Impasse Panel is fair--they resolve numerous
disputes in favor of different sides, sometimes going with the
agencies' positions and sometimes with federal employees.
The air traffic controllers in the Houston Center and the Houston
TRACON and throughout Texas deserve the same fair shake in arbitration
that other federal workers receive.
Much of the opposition to this legislation and to air traffic
controllers in general comes from groups that voice knee-jerk
opposition to any and all federal spending. They fail to offer any
answers to the simple fact that air traffic controllers have a hard,
complicated job with extremely high stakes.
I doubt that many of the opponents to this bill have ever been in an
air traffic control tower, or a control center or a TRACON when a large
bank of flights comes into a major hub airport.
We want our skies to be safe, and you don't get safety by cutting
corners and nickel and dimeing the workforce.
Our air traffic control system is about to experience a wave of
retirements. If we want to recruit quality employees to keep us and our
children flying safely into the future, we should approve H.R. 5449.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 5449.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this question will
be postponed.
[[Page H3403]]
____________________