[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10135-10145]
[From the U.S. 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     States Code, is repealed.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?

[[Page 10136]]

  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.
  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.

[[Page 10137]]

  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 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

[[Page 10138]]

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), 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

[[Page 10139]]

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 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. 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

[[Page 10140]]

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 
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.

[[Page 10141]]

     
                                  ____
                                   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.
       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

[[Page 10142]]

     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 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

[[Page 10143]]

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.
  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

[[Page 10144]]

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. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of 
Congressman LaTourette's bill, H.R. 5449. I am pleased my fellow Ohioan 
has brought this important issue to the floor of the House.
  The contract negotiations between air traffic controllers and the FAA 
that began in July of 2005 have been an arduous process for both sides. 
But the resolution of the negotiation stalemate should not be an 
imposition of the FAA's most recent contract offer on the union. 
Rather, both parties should return to the bargaining table, or make use 
of another collaborative process, such as the Federal Service Impasse 
Panel, to reach a resolution.
  News reports in recent weeks have highlighted the upcoming summer 
travel season and the expected record numbers of air passengers. With 
more travelers in the air and likely delays associated with the severe 
weather of summer, he important role of air traffic controllers is even 
more vital. We need experienced controllers to ensure safe flights and 
timely arrivals. We need controllers who are able to focus on their 
jobs and not distracted by contract negotiations.
  The result of this extensive negotiation should not be the unilateral 
imposition of the FAA's will. The negotiated contract should be a 
result of a collaborative process, as Congressman LaTourette's bill 
would ensure. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5449.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5449.
  This bill, sponsored by Representative LaTourette, will restore 
fairness and accountability to the FAA's negotiating process.
  It is time that Congress steps in to ensure that no serious damage is 
done to the integrity and safety of our aviation system. We must 
support the men and women who help keep our airways safe and on time.
  The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has been trying to 
circumvent real negotiations and to unilaterally impose a contract on 
the air traffic controllers. Increasingly, they have refused to 
negotiate in good faith in an effort to create a false impasse.
  Congress must act! Earlier this week, the FAA moved to start 
implementing its unilateral changes to the terms and conditions of 
employment for our nation's air traffic controllers.
  The system is already facing a massive staffing crisis that could 
leave fewer and fewer qualified and trained controllers guiding record 
air traffic. More than 7,000 air traffic controllers are expected to 
retire over the next nine years. Air traffic controller staffing is 
critical. We will need 1,000 new air traffic controllers per year over 
the next five years to avert a staffing crisis. These conditions will 
lead to an erosion of talent at the agency because retirement-eligible 
controllers, the FAA's most experienced, would see the imposition as a 
reason to retire. This will in turn make recruiting replacement 
controllers of quality and excellence much more difficult. Possible 
delays due to staff shortages and inexperienced staff, as well as the 
closing of severely understaffed facilities could impose hundreds of 
millions of dollars in unnecessary costs for consumers and communities.
  H.R. 5449 would encourage the FAA and the National Air Traffic 
Controllers Association (NATCA) in the contract negotiations to reach 
an agreement and turn toward other important matters, including the 
future growth and safety of the U.S. air traffic system.
  This bill would allow for the existing sections of the law to be 
utilized to solve the contractual differences--the same way disputes 
are settled for other federal workers. It would allow for this and 
future disputes to be settled in a manner that ensures a fair hearing 
for both sides.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5449 and restore fairness to 
this negotiating process and keep America's airways flowing safely and 
professionally.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, today, I take to the floor to 
reluctantly cast my vote against H.R. 5449. Although I deeply admire 
the hard work performed by our Nation's air traffic controllers and 
support their efforts to negotiate a fair contract, I cannot support 
this legislation. I believe that this bill goes too far and needlessly 
picks a winner and a loser between the Federal Aviation Administration 
(FAA) and the National Association of Air Traffic Controllers, NATCA. 
In addition, this bill will completely remove congressional oversight 
from this process.
  No workers, regardless of their profession, should be forced to 
accept a contract without having a chance to negotiate the terms. I 
believe the existing negotiating framework between the FAA and the air 
traffic controllers is broken and needs to be fixed. That is why I not 
only cosponsored H.R. 4755, the Federal Aviation Administration Fair 
Labor Management Dispute Resolution Act, but sent a letter to the 
Speaker asking for a floor vote on this bill.
  H.R. 4755 would have prevented the FAA from instituting one-sided, 
unilateral contract terms on the labor union. If negotiations were to 
stall, Congress would have 60 days to review the FAA's last proposal 
and then decide whether or not more negotiations were necessary. The 
bill would have prevented air traffic controllers from having to accept 
a contract they clearly rejected, while at the same time ensuring that 
negotiations did not remain deadlocked. I supported H.R. 4755 then and 
I support it now. Unfortunately, this is not the bill that has been 
brought to the floor today.
  H.R. 5449 goes too far and needlessly puts Congress in the position 
of picking a winner and a loser in this debate. While I agree that the 
current process is flawed, the role of Congress is to reform the 
system, not to circumvent it. This bill would further hinder 
negotiations, prevent real progress from being made, and remove 
Congress from the process. For these reasons, I cannot support this 
bill.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support putting a stop to the 
Federal Aviation Administration's abusive and dishonest tactics in 
negotiating a new contract with the nation's air traffic controllers.
  Under an unprecedented interpretation of current law, the FAA is 
claiming the ability to declare an impasse in negotiations and impose 
its terms. But such a unilateral action is patently wrong and unfair. 
It's long past time for Congress to return the parties to an equal 
footing and get them back to the negotiating table.
  I hope that my vote for H.R. 5449 will send a strong message. The 
agency ought to cease misrepresenting controllers' salaries. If, as the 
FAA claims, salaries are truly exorbitant, then the agency shouldn't 
hesitate to enter binding arbitration. The FAA's desire to avoid 
arbitration speaks volumes about the weakness of its arguments.
  Working under incredibly stressful and difficult conditions, air 
traffic controllers protect the safety of millions of Americans. I hope 
the

[[Page 10145]]

FAA will follow Congress' lead in affording them the respect they 
deserve.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 5449, which would send the Federal Aviation Administration and the 
National Air Traffic Controllers Association back to the negotiating 
table to reach a fair resolution to their contract dispute.
  On April 5, 2005, the FAA declared an impasse in its contract talks 
with NATCA. The current process for resolving an impasse in contract 
talks between FAA and NATCA allows the FAA to unilaterally impose its 
contract upon the controllers if the agency sends the contract to 
Congress and there is no legislative intervention within 60 days. On 
June 5, the 60-day window ended and the FAA announced that it intended 
to begin implementing its last contract offer.
  Not only is this process unfair, but it creates a level of distrust 
between the two parties responsible for ensuring a safe and efficient 
air traffic control system. Congress should not be in the business of 
negotiating contract disputes. Instead, we should help ensure an 
equitable resolution to this situation by sending both parties back to 
the negotiating table and H.R. 5449 does just this.
  Mr. Speaker, our nation's dedicated, highly-skilled air traffic 
controllers are on the front lines of ensuring safety for the millions 
of Americans who fly each year. Under the unfavorable terms of the 
FAA's last offer, many of them would have an incentive to quickly 
retire. Such a retirement exodus would have serious safety implications 
for the flying public. It is imperative that Congress acts now and 
sends the two parties back to the negotiating table.
  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.

                          ____________________