[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 8]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 10626]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 AMENDING TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. RON PAUL

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 6, 2006

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5449 changes the rules under which the 
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) negotiates with Federal employees 
unions, such as the National Air Traffic Controllers Association 
(NATCA), to make the FAA abide by the exact same process that other 
government agencies do when they negotiate with Federal employees 
unions. Contrary to the claims of its opponents, H.R. 5449 does not 
allow NATCA to indefinitely prolong negotiations. H.R. 5449 allows the 
FAA to act to end negotiations and bring their case before a Federal 
mediation board who has power to resolve the dispute. H.R. 5449 would 
prevent the FAA from unilaterally imposing a contract on the air 
traffic controllers. In contrast, the current system may provide the 
FAA with the opportunity to drag out negotiations, so it can ultimately 
declare an impasse and impose a contract. Thus, the changes made in 
H.R. 5449 seem reasonable.
  Some people, including many House of Representatives members with 
whom I usually agree, are claiming that H.R. 5449 will cost American 
taxpayers billions of dollars. This claim is based on an assumption 
that the final result of the mediation process established by H.R. 5449 
will be significantly more costly to the taxpayer then the contract the 
FAA will impose on the controllers if H.R. 5449 fails to pass. However, 
under H.R. 5449, the dispute will be resolved by a Federal mediation 
panel whose members are appointed by the president. I am skeptical that 
a presidentially appointed mediation board will give an exorbitant 
package to NATCA, especially since the difference between the FAA's 
current proposal and the NATCA's last offer is less than a billion 
dollars. It is true that a future mediation panel may be populated by 
people appointed by an administration more friendly to the air traffic 
controllers than the current administration, but it is also possible 
that a future Congress would use its leverage in the current process to 
force the FAA to accept contracts tilted in favor of the NATCA. We 
should not judge procedural issues based on uncertain predictions about 
results.
  Some opponents of H.R. 5449 complain that the air traffic controllers 
are overpaid. However, since the air traffic control system is 
government controlled and government financed, the wages of air traffic 
controllers are not set by the market. Instead, these wages are set by 
political and bureaucratic fiat. Absent a market, it is imposable to 
say the air traffic controllers' wages are too high or too low. In 
fact, given the importance of air traffic control, it is possible that, 
in a free market, some air traffic controllers may have higher incomes 
than they do now. One thing I can say for sure is that air traffic 
controllers would still have their jobs if the Federal government were 
limited to its constitutional functions since air traffic controllers 
perform a function that would be necessary in a free market.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5449 reasonably changes the process 
under which the FAA negotiates with Federal employees unions. H.R. 5449 
does not favor one party over another, and, contrary to the claims of 
its opponents, H.R. 5449 does not preordain the conclusion of the 
negotiations between the FAA and NATCA.

                          ____________________