FAA REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2007 -- (House of Representatives - September 20, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chairman, I am pleased to be here this morning to bring to the floor the FAA reauthorization legislation that is before us. As Members know, and those who follow this subject, our authorization runs out, I believe, the end of next week. That is our Federal policy and projects' financing ability to run our Nation's air traffic system. We had a responsibility to move forward legislation to renew that Federal law, and that's why we are here today. I think that is an important responsibility.
I have tried to work with Mr. Oberstar, who now chairs the full committee. He chaired the Aviation Subcommittee, ironically, when I was a freshman in Congress. And as he mentioned, I had the opportunity to chair that subcommittee for the past 6 years and developed a great working relationship with him.
I am pleased to work with my ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), who has done yeoman's work to try to bring this legislation forward in a responsible manner, working with the now-chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), who likewise has put his full efforts towards this important reauthorization.
We have been fortunate, too, to have great staff on both sides of the aisle working together to meet that responsibility. I am pleased that we could bring the bill forward.
However, I have to say, in all honesty, I have some mixed emotions. I must also state that when we come to final passage, and I have told Mr. Oberstar and Mr. Costello and others, that I will cast a vote not in support of this FAA reauthorization, and really for two reasons.
First of all, when we introduced the bill, there were several objectionable provisions that had been proposed that I opposed, and I do respect the gentlemen from Minnesota and also Illinois, in working cooperatively to introduce the bill without those objectionable provisions. However, right after we introduced it and we marked up the bill, we started sort of piling on, and there are two provisions which I cannot support, two major provisions, and I made them aware of my opposition.
The first one involves an unprecedented reach-back, and it is for the air traffic controllers. Let me say there are men and women, some 15,000 of them, who do an incredible job serving our air traffic control system. And back in the 1990s, I believe that they were underpaid, undercompensated for their responsibilities. But through a contract that was negotiated then under the Clinton administration, they did receive for the next 7 years an average increase of about 10 percent a year. In fact, it totals 75 percent over those 7 years.
Now, I would love to have it 10 percent guaranteed increase. I think people who work here in the Congress would like to have a 10 percent pay increase every year; 1.2 million Federal employees, maybe another 20,000 that work at FAA would all like to have this deal, and that deal wasn't to be.
This past Congress had the difficult task of receiving the contract that was being negotiated and the final offer that was made by FAA because the contract reached an impasse. And in an
[Page: H10637]
unprecedented fashion also, the terms of that contract offer was brought to Congress, and the air traffic controllers lost in that vote here on the floor.
Now, I sympathize with Mr. Oberstar and also with Mr. Costello. The appropriators turned down the air traffic controllers in the House. We had several CRs where they attempted to reopen this contract; it was turned down. It was turned down by the appropriators in the Senate. It was turned down in the bill that is now before the other body. Each time that they have gone to the Democrat side, which now controls this body, they have been turned down.
Now, they did manage to put this provision to which I object in the bill, and it is unfortunate. It has a huge financial impact. It is estimated to be $1.9 billion, if this is allowed to go forward. And the money is one thing, but reaching back in an unfair manner to other Federal employees. We have some 20,000 professionals, engineers, people with Ph.D.s, a whole host of staff in FAA that aren't going to be treated in an equitable manner.
And then the bad precedent it sets for Congress. Folks, any time you get into a labor dispute, just bring it to Congress and we will up your salary when we are pressured. That can't be the way we operate. I have agreed to change the mechanism. Nobody in Congress likes to be the negotiator of salaries or contracts, and we shouldn't be, and I am committed to that.
[Time: 11:45]
I will also say that since we took up this bill and knowing that this is a pending controversial matter, I have worked day and night to try to get the administration and NATCA union representatives together to resolve those differences. I appreciate the work of all of those involved. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) has also joined the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and myself and the Democrat members in that effort. Unfortunately, it's jammed into this bill and that's not fair.
There are other provisions that have been put in here for big labor. Now, I know labor won a big vote with the election and is attempting to increase its membership. I respect that, but I think that the grab they have attempted here goes beyond what I feel is reasonable, not only in expanding organizational opportunities that I think go beyond again a reasonable level but some of the other provisions in here that will add cost, that will add regulations, that will add complications to operating our system and not give us a fair return. Not only do we have a responsibility to bring forth this legislation that runs this system but we have an obligation and responsibility to taxpayers and others, the travelers who finance the system, that their funds be spent wisely.
I do also have some reservations about provisions that will be added in the manager's amendment. Again, it's not always how much money you spend, but how you spend that money, and we have a responsibility to spend that wisely and very efficiently for hardworking Americans who are paying in to also help finance this system.
And then, of course, the final point is the President has issued a veto statement, and he will veto this based on spending, based on the overreach by labor for their contract and other terms that have been put into this legislation. Even though I have opposition, I have pledged to work to move the process forward and continue to renew that pledge at this time as we move forward with the bill.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT