Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Mica

Amendment No. 11: Page 36, line 8, after the dollar amount,

insert the following ``(increased by $15,000,000)''.

Page 62, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $15,000,000)''.

Page 62, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $15,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Mica

Amendment No. 12: Page 36, line 8, after the first dollar

amount, insert the following: ``(increased by

$131,900,000)''.

Page 36, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(increased by $131,900,000)''.

Page 62, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $131,900,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Mica

Amendment No. 13: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Mica

Amendment No. 14: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the men and women bravely defending our country against terrorism and tyranny.

Regarding U.S. and allied actions against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, I believe it was appropriate for Congress on October 16, 2002 to authorize American military action and would vote again to provide President Bush this authority.

The question of whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, WMD, is a moot point and a distraction from a host of evidence that the United States was justified in its actions against the former Iraqi regime. The facts are that Saddam Hussein had the capability to produce WMDs and had weapons in defiance of United Nations agreements to deliver nuclear, biological or chemical warheads.

In fact, neither I nor the President knew for certain whether Saddam had WMDs at the time of our actions against Iraq. Many of us suspected he did possess that capability. Let me quote a few.

``Saddam Hussein possesses chemical, biological weapons, and if events are allowed to run their course, will someday possess nuclear weapons.'' Sen. Evan Bayh (D.-Ind.), statement, Oct. 3, 2002.

``I believe that Saddam Hussein rules by terror and has squirreled away stores of biological and chemical weapon[s].'' Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.), floor speech, Oct. 10, 2002.

``The people of the United States and the rest of the world are at risk as long as Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. Last night, the President . . . made the most effective case to date that the risk of inaction is too great to bear.'' Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D.- W. Va.), statement, March 18, 2003.

``For the last 12 years he's [Saddam's] ignored UN resolutions and embargoes while rebuilding his illegal chemical and biological weapons. . . . He is dangerous. I believe he needs to be disarmed.'' Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D.-Md.), floor speech, March 18, 2003.

``In 1991, the world collectively made a judgment that this man should not have weapons of mass destruction. And we are here today in the year 2002 with an un-inspected 4-year interval during which time we know through intelligence he not only has kept them, but he continues to grow them. . . . The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new.'' Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.), floor speech, Oct. 9, 2002.

``On Monday night, President Bush, I think spoke for all of us. I know of no one who really disagrees at all. He described Saddam Hussein as a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction. It is that addiction that demands a strong response. We all agree on that. There is no question that Iraq possesses biological and chemical weapons and that he seeks to acquire additional weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons.'' Sen. Chris Dodd (D.-Conn.), floor speech, Oct. 9, 2002.

``I believe if Saddam Hussein continues to refuse to meet his obligation to destroy his weapons of mass destruction and his prohibited missile delivery systems, that the United Nations should authorize member states to use military force to destroy those weapons and systems.'' Sen. Carl Levin (D.-Mich.), floor speech, Oct. 9, 2002.

``He [Saddam Hussein] stockpiles biological and chemical weapons.'' Sen. Jon Corzine (D.-N.J.), floor speech, Oct. 9, 2003.

Furthermore, the Saddam Hussein regime was marked by brutality, fear and terror. Over 270 suspected mass grave sites have been found by Iraqis and U.S. and allied forces. On September 23, 2004, Iraqi interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi said, ``Like almost every Iraqi, I have many friends who were murdered, tortured or raped by the regime of Saddam Hussein. Well over 1 million Iraqis were murdered or are missing. We estimate at least 300,000 are in mass graves which stand as monuments to the inhumanity of Saddam's regime.''

The brutality of the former Iraqi regime knew no bounds. Victims of Saddam's torture chambers were subjected to vicious acts such as the gouging-out of eyes, severe beatings, electric shock, dismemberment and the cutting out of tongues. Documented chemical attacks by the regime from 1983 to 1988 resulted in some 30,000 Iraqi and Iranian deaths. Human Rights Watch estimates that Saddam's 1987 to 1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000. Saddam's ruthlessness even extended to his own family in which he had approximately 40 of his own relatives murdered.

Today there are many Monday morning Iraq quarterbacks. The U.S. did win the war against Iraq and captured Saddam Hussein. However, America and its allies have had difficulty in controlling insurgent attacks.

No one anticipated Islamic extremists would make a stand bringing in al-Qaeda, Baathists and others. No one anticipated civil conflict between the Shi'a, Sunni and Kurd populations. However President Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld and U.S. military leaders have done their very best in a difficult situation and deserve our support and continued backing.

Yes, we all want our troops home and an end to terrorism. Rhetoric and unwarranted criticism will not make that happen.

Mr. Speaker, due to mechanical problems and weather delays relating to US Air flights No. 232 and No. 1022, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to vote on rollcalls 289, 290, and 291. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on each of these measures.

Mr. Chairman, Chairman Knollenberg has done an excellent job in explaining the situation, and security issues raised by this amendment are in fact bogus. There are no negative security consequences resulting from the TRACON consolidation that is being proposed.

In fact, as chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, I have a report from GAO which talks specifically about the benefits of a TRACON consolidation.

Let's be frank about this issue. This is an issue that does concern some movement of personnel, and some personnel in FAA will be displaced. But what we are doing is we are modernizing the system. We are actually updating and upgrading the system. We are putting in better communications so that we can have backup systems that we don't have now.

With respect to the TRACONs in south Florida, and I represent south Florida, again we will be consolidating three of these. We will still have Jacksonville as a backup. It is just like Houston did in the case of Hurricane Katrina when they picked up the responsibility for the gulf coast.

So we can have safety, security in times of national emergency. We can also have efficiency with the limited taxpayer dollars, and upgrading this technology will do an even better job in these new consolidated TRACONs.

So they are bogus arguments. I would like to try to accommodate and we will try to accommodate replacing these personnel in the least disruptive fashion to their families and to their careers. But this is, unfortunately, a personnel matter within FAA.

It is time to modernize, upgrade and bring together the best, most efficient, safest system for the traveling public and the flying public through consolidation of these TRACONs.

Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues, I want to be polite, but let me just say that this is a terrible amendment. It is short-sighted. It is special interest legislation. It is a red herring to prevent, quite frankly, the implementation of an agreement between the United States and the European Union to have open skies.

Now, Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues, if you want to increase jobs in your district, on both sides of the Atlantic, this is not the amendment to vote for. If you want to increase service and have some shot at some international service to your district or your region, you vote for this amendment and you are killing those chances.

The great opportunities for job and expansion of aviation markets in an industry that has been so hard hit from September 11 is expanding these markets, and for the first time we can open those doors and that opportunity. This is all a red herring about investment, trying to tie this to Dubai.

The current limitation of 25 percent foreign ownership continues. It has not changed at all. In fact, we have a guarantee under this that matters of safety and security are off the table to foreign investors.

You know, I am thinking about this. If we use this mentality, Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues, if we used this mentality in the past we would still be trading beads with the Indians. We wouldn't be taking advantage of opening jobs and markets and expanding opportunities for the people in this country.

Simply stated, also, this is a voluntary process in this investment. So this is a protectionist amendment. It benefits a few people to keep things a little cozy the way they are now. And I know people are trying to do that. But it is an enormous step back for the United States aviation industry.

So I urge you to defeat this amendment, which will do great harm to, again, opening doors and opportunities in American, European, and actually all of our aviation opportunities for the future.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and let me say we are not giving away any assets. This has nothing to do with Dubai. This proposed rule does not change any statute with respect to U.S. control or foreign ownership of U.S. airlines. It now is in the law 25 percent maximum ownership. It is going to be the law after this rule passes. What part of 25 percent do these folks not understand? U.S. carriers can accept foreign investment today, up to 25 percent.

They are arguing that safety and security might be put into question. Under the current provisions, there is no enumeration of safety or security spelled out. This, for the first time, spells out safety and security.

Under the proposed rule, the U.S. carrier has the ability to agree or disagree with the terms put forth by the investor. This is just a clarification of an investor's ability to participate in the investment. Simply stated, the DOT's rule is voluntary; it is not mandatory.

Finally, we have worked closely with the Department of Defense to make certain that any of our defense interests are preserved. So this does benefit the consumer. We will have lower international airfares. It creates jobs, and it will create them throughout the country. It also increases the service to airports and locales that currently do not have the opportunity for international service on both sides of the aisle.

Now, let us face it, a small group of people do have a very vested interest in not changing this. They have got a little corner on the market. They do not want to see this changed. So I have said this is a red herring. I tried to be polite.

I urge defeat of this amendment.

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, first of all I want to thank the chairman of our Highway Subcommittee and the ranking member for their leadership and taking time to recognize our interstate system. It is one of our most important Federal assets, particularly as we pay tribute now to the 50th anniversary of our interstate system founded in 1956. You have heard some references to President Eisenhower and his vision, a conservative Republican President in 1956.

And actually some of the history of the idea and really the push for an interstate system was delivered by Vice President Nixon on July 12, 1954.

Vice President Nixon was sent to the National Governors Conference in Lake George in New York, where the Governors had assembled. At that conference, in 1954, is where he proposed to all the Governors on behalf of President Eisenhower an interstate system.

Now, you have to put this in perspective, folks, because the Federal budget was $71 billion in 1954, and he was proposing what would be probably a half a trillion dollar system and infrastructure project in that day. I am sure there must have been a couple of people who said, that is going to be a highway to nowhere.

But, again, that is the kind of vision, that is the kind of foresight leadership that has meant so much to this Nation, particularly because our roads, our ports, our airports are all the heart of our infrastructure and allow us to do the business of our country. The business of our country is commerce.

The current state of our interstate, I am sad to rise on the 50th anniversary and say that it is in disrepair. We heard Mr. DeFazio talk about it, but we are congested from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from sea to shining sea. Our interstate needs cry out for help. We need new financing. We need new projects and partnerships to move the business of this country on our interstate highways that are clogged.

We do have two problems. One is financing. We are looking, instead of a trillion-dollar system that might have been proposed in 1954, trillions of dollars in infrastructure. The other thing is regulatory reform. These projects get bogged down in delay. We need to speed up that process which in time can also have costs attached to it.

So we need a vision like Richard Nixon proposed to the Governors association in Lake George in 1954. We need the vision of Dwight David Eisenhower, a conservative Republican President who proposed an interstate system which now links one end of this country and all corners of this Nation together.

Again, this is important, not just looking at the past, but looking at the future and building on what we have inherited and the significant milestone and anniversary in the history of our interstate system.

Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, giving Amtrak more money would be like giving at this point an alcoholic another drink and asking him to sober up.

I sort of feel like I am repeating, Mr. Chairman, the Ground Hog Day. We have been through this debate over and over, and we keep putting more and more taxpayer dollars into Amtrak. And I have no problem with subsidizing mass transit or any type of long distance service or high speed service. We will need to subsidize it. But, folks, Amtrak has been and remains out of control. I served on the Rail Subcommittee for most of my time in Congress. Let us just review, if we give them a little bit more money, where that is going to go.

Right now we subsidize every ticket for $47. That is absolutely outrageous, ladies and gentlemen. In fact, some tickets are subsidized--I have the report right here, the latest information--$627. Could you imagine that type of subsidy? They will tell you, oh, we give it to airlines. That is not true. No one is subsidized like Amtrak is.

Food service. For every dollar that we take in in food service on Amtrak, it costs the taxpayers $2. That is it, just give them a little bit more money and things work out. Legal services. They spend more money on legal services than they do on equipment.

The debt has risen to some $6 or $7 billion. The maintenance backlog is between $5 and $6 billion. So even if you add additional money, whoever is in this well 1 year from now will be back here trying to feed the Amtrak monster.

We must have the reforms. Some of them are in the bill. The committee has done a great job in trying to get their attention, to try to get their finances in order. Their finances and accounting is worse than Enron's.

It is time that we demand accountability, that we demand a better operating mass transit and public long distance service; and I have no problem with underwriting that. But we should look at what the private sector can do. They have 26 million, I believe, passengers.

In England, they have a new route, north-south. They have 34 million. They actually have made a profit and turned a dividend and returned it back to the taxpayers.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the paragraph.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the paragraph beginning at the words ``to be derived from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund,'' beginning on page 5, line 23, and ending on line 24.

This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law and therefore constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill in violation of House rules.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 101.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against page 6, line 22, beginning with ``provided, that'' through line 26.

This proviso violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law, which constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill in violation of House rules.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the paragraph.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against page 13, line 1, beginning with ``; for grants'' through page 13, line 6, ending with the word ``Code.''

This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law and therefore constitutes, again, legislating on an appropriations bill in violation of House rules.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against another provision of the paragraph.

I raise a point of order against page 13, line 17, beginning with the words ``Provided further'' through line 25.

This provision also violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law and therefore constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill in violation of House rules.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 120.

Mr. Chairman, this provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law and therefore constitutes legislating on an appropriation bill in violation of House rules.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 127.

Mr. Chairman, this provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law and therefore constitutes legislating on an appropriation bill in violation of House rules.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for yielding me time on this.

I have worked on this issue for a number of years in Congress. I have seen failed policies and I have seen successful policies. The worst thing we could do today would be to cut the funds to Colombia. What a horrible message we would send. Let me just describe what is taking place, the policy of failure, the policy of success.

I chaired the Criminal Justice, Drug Policy Subcommittee. That was one of the responsibilities Speaker Hastert had before I inherited it from him. He chaired the National Security Subcommittee that had that responsibility. We did everything we could during the Clinton administration to get resources to Colombia. The liberals did everything they could to keep resources going to Colombia. The policy was a policy of failure. It was a policy of death and destruction. Thousands of people were slaughtered while the liberals in Congress and the administration denied aid to Colombia. Policemen were killed by the thousands. Members of the legislature, members of the Cabinet, people on the street, villages were wiped out because they did not want to send the necessary aid to Colombia.

President Bush, thank God for President Bush and his action and his policy of success. He took a policy of success. He put the resources there. The murders are down dramatically. The last speaker spoke about creating economic opportunity. How can you create economic opportunity or economic activity when there is slaughter and chaos in the streets?

I went down with President Pastrana, and he wanted to sing Kumbayah with the terrorists and the leftists, and that approach did not work. People continued to get slaughtered, and the drugs came into this country in unprecedented amounts.

Ask DEA about drugs, about heroin. At the beginning of the Clinton administration, you know how much heroin was produced in Colombia? Zero. Look at it now, and look at it over the past years. It flooded into our streets and killed our children and our most productive citizens and those with potential in this country by the thousands and has left thousands being destroyed in Colombia.

This is a horrible amendment. It would be a horrible step backwards to bring drugs into this country to stop a policy, and now we have been blessed not only with a President with strong determination and a good, successful policy in this country, but one in that country who just got reelected, and to cut his legs out from under him at this juncture, when he has experienced success, not only have we stopped the killings and the murders and the slaughters there and stopped people from dying in our streets, the economy has dramatically increased, almost doubled in Colombia since Presidents Bush and Uribe's policies have taken place.

This would be a step backward. This is a step towards death, destruction and drugs coming into our country. I have had it with the liberals who allowed this to happen and let thousands of people go to their deaths in Colombia, who allowed drugs to proliferate in that country and create and finance narco-terrorism which destroyed some of that region and thousands of lives there and thousands of lives here.

If we pass that amendment, it is a horrible step back. I cannot tell you how important this amendment is, not only to the lives in Colombia, but to the lives of the young men and women and those in this country that have been victims. I urge people to vote this down in huge numbers.

Mr. Chairman, once again I think the well-intended but misinformed would like to cut the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation funding.

Now, what the cafe latte crowd has in mind is that these terrorists are only misunderstood individuals, that they probably need counseling. Maybe we should send them some social assistance to straighten them out, but certainly we should not train military.

In fact, we found with narcoterrorists, narcoterrorists have better training and better equipment than the native military population that is trying to stabilize some of these countries like in Colombia. Not only do they have better equipment and training and do more destruction, but they also have the money because they mostly finance their operations through narcoterrorism.

What they want to do is tie the hands of those countries that are helping us to stabilize those countries, to bring some peace there, to bring narcoterrorism under control. So if we want to tie hands and put them right behind our back, cut the funds; and we will have poorly trained individuals who do not know the difference between human rights violations. In fact, we do insist on the very highest standards.

We have the opportunities to train these individuals and influence them to do the right thing and to conduct military exercises that are honest and open and well directed.

Again, these folks are very well intended, but I think if we just check the record of those who are trained by United States forces, you will see they are far better in executing their responsibilities. Tough enforcement does work. If you want to use examples, Mayor Giuliani down to Officer Thompson who is out here, you won't jaywalk at the corner of C street because we have tough enforcement with well-trained individuals.

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 reserve the balance of my time.

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. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate consideration of my amendment by the subcommittee.

This amendment adds the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to the list of committees to receive a report on the April 25, 2006, unmanned aerial vehicle mishap.

The operation of Customs and Border Protection unmanned aerial vehicles sometimes occurs and has occurred in our National Airspace System, and that is also taking place along our Nation's southern border, and perhaps eventually that will also occur on the northern border.

All Customs and Border Protection UAV operations are conducted now in compliance with the Federal Aviation Administration with an FAA-issued Certificate of Authorization. It sets forth various restrictions and conditions of operation.

Operations will take place within an FAA-established Temporary Flight Restriction area.

The operations of UAVs outside the restricted airspace, in the integrated airspace with manned vehicles, poses some unique safety issues for the FAA. Information indicates that the unmanned aerial system accident rate is two to three orders of magnitude greater than it is for manned systems. That is why it is important that the Customs and Border Protection UAV, which was involved in a mishap on April 25, 2006, and operating again within this space and under an FAA-issued certificate of authorization, should also be under the jurisdiction or at least the concern of this report provided to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. This accident is being investigated by the National Safety Transportation Board with the assistance of the

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

I thank the gentleman for his consideration and also for his acceptance of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we have made great progress on this important bill dealing with homeland security which is so essential for our Nation, particularly at this time in history and the challenges that we face.

The amendment that I am proposing tonight is a simple limit on some of the funding for non-screener Transportation Security Administration personnel, that is, TSA administrative personnel. What we would like to do is put some limits on those positions in some of the airports that are participating in our Screening Partnership Program.

We have had five demonstration projects in airports in varying sizes

across the country, and we have had private screening companies under Federal supervision. Unfortunately, what has happened is we have an additional layer of bureaucracy imposed by TSA and duplicate positions of the private screening companies.

For example, and I will submit for the Record a complete list of these numbers of personnel, but in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, we have 18 administrative personnel; in Kansas City we have some 39; in San Francisco, 42; and in Rochester, New York, 18.

Now, it is important that we do have TSA management, we have TSA oversight, we have TSA controlling these programs. But the duplicative administrative costs and burden is what this amendment deals with. Most of these positions are in excess of $100,000.

We can save money, we can put more people on line in screening positions and cut some of the administrative costs out.

Mr. Chairman, that is the purpose of the amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I appreciate his staff and the subcommittee working with us. I think this will make us run better, more cost-effective, put more people online and less people in the TSA bureaucracy that has been created.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time, and urge approval of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Mr. Chairman, the reason I am standing here is to engage the chairman of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee in a colloquy.

First of all, I want to just take a second to commend Chairman Hobson and the ranking member and the Appropriations Subcommittee staff for their outstanding work in the difficulty in bringing some of these measures before the floor, for their hard work.

Mr. Chairman, my Florida district includes the coastline along Flagler County, which has been dramatically devastated by recent hurricanes and damaging storms. The beach has steadily eroded; and sections of our historic and scenic national highway A1A have been washed away by the storms. Because some of the road has fallen into the Atlantic Ocean, the Florida Department of Transportation has installed a temporary seawall in those areas.

Initially, we had some problems in reaching a local consensus on the best way to restore the beach and secure this scenic and coastal highway. However, with hurricane season approaching, if this vital highway falls, our only emergency route in this area could be lost.

Earlier this month, I brought together our local leaders and decisionmakers to discuss the problem and identify solutions. A consensus has been reached that we must complete a feasibility study and cooperate with the Corps of Engineers so the critical restoration work can be expedited. State and local officials will also be working together with Federal officials to explore cost-effective alternative restoration technologies.

I would like to, finally, ask the chairman if he would continue to work with me on this very important project for my district and also in conference to provide the critical resources to protect and restore the coastal areas and devastated beaches in Flagler County, Florida.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment of my good friend and colleague from Florida here, and I am dismayed that, unfortunately, politics has not kept up with technology or good energy policy in this country.

Florida has faced an energy crisis before. Back in the 1970s, I was in the Florida legislature and I voted during that crisis to drill in the Florida Everglades for oil. You won't believe this, but today we are producing oil safely and in an environmentally sound fashion from the Everglades.

This is a myth here about this 3 miles, and we should not drill as close as 3 miles. We should look at the conditions. But today we have the technology to drill safely and in an environmentally sound manner.

Florida's population is expected to grow 29 percent by 2020. The consumption of natural gas is expected to grow by 140 percent. Why? You all were here, many of you here, during the 1990s. The Clinton administration proposed that we convert our coal and oil plants in Florida to natural gas. Well, 28 of the 34 electrical generating plants designed in Florida are going to need natural gas. We built a billion dollar pipeline across the gulf, and we need to hook up to that.

Cuba and China are going to be drilling very close to our shores, and they will be getting oil and gas. The American people and Floridians will be getting the shaft. We can do this in an environmentally sound fashion. We don't have to play politics.

What is our alternative for stable sources? Nigeria? The Mideast? I say no.