Federal Aviation Administration Fair Labor Management Dispute Resolution Act of 2006

Mr. Speaker, I would like to request the time in opposition.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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 Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) for the purposes of entering into a colloquy.

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. 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. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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. 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. 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. Speaker, I yield back my time.

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. Speaker, I support the bill.

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. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

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 asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

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. 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.