This week brought some outrageous developments in the legislative world.  As you recall, language existed in both the Senate and the House versions of FAA reauthorization that prohibited privatization or further contracting out of ATC.  This week, the conference committee (a group of selected Senators and Congressmen) met to iron out the differences in these two large bills to create one unified bill. 

In a shocking departure from normal protocol, the Republican conferees by use of what is called a chairman’s mark and under apparently overwhelming pressure from the White House, not only deleted our language already agreed to by both versions of the bill, but replaced it with new legislation.  The language essentially says that the larger facilities will be protected from privatization for the next four years only, and the rest (specifically the 71 towers mentioned as ripe for contracting to the lowest bidder) will be left to their own fate.  Oh, I guess I should say 69 towers because the congressman who spearheaded this is from Alaska and he exempted the two Alaskan towers from consideration.  How’s that for bald-faced cynical politics at it’s best (read worst)? 

That congressman with the hypocritical flair is Don Young (R AK), chairman of the house transportation and infrastructure committee.  To be fair, chairman Young has in the past been critical of the FAA but, generally speaking, supportive of controllers.  In fact, he is the person who encouraged John Mica, chairman of the aviation subcommittee, to put the original language in the house bill in the first place.  Now those same individuals are making an about face and the question you have to ask yourself is why? 

Well at first glance it appears that the White House, who had already threatened a veto, really turned up the heat on this and threatened the chairman to such an extent that he rolled completely on the issue.  I don’t know what political knee-to-the-groin was threatened but it must have been a doozy.  Along with the stick there usually is a carrot.  Whatever that choice trinket was I hope it was good.  I’d hate to think of our profession being sold out and our futures being pawned for political chump change. 

The next question to ask yourself is why is language leaving ATC in the Government so unsavory to the White House that they would resort to such extreme political measures (and these are very extreme) with flame thrower like bully tactics to keep it from happening.  Why are they going against the wishes of many of their Republican colleagues who are already on the record on this and voted to keep ATC in the government?  Why did they force a questionable overturning of this bipartisan language in congress?  It’s easy to understand the opposition of some airlines and the contract tower group.  They see money to be made off of your backs.  I hope none of you still believe Marion Blakey's and Norm Mineta's drivel about their having no intention of privatizing ATC; they were spearheading the drive to remove this.  But looking back to the removal of our inherently governmental status by a Bush executive order amendment all the way to the present shenanigans, it seems clear that there are some political favors to be returned and a bunch of money to be made (money and/or power are always the motivator) by someone in all this.  There are some thoughts on this that are not fit for publication at this  time.  But apparently your role is to sit back and do nothing while your profession, your career, your way of life is systematically disassembled by those not interested in you or the safety of the flying public.  Your job is to be just a chip in high stakes political profiteering and cronyism. 

Or maybe not.  Are you a PAC member yet?  Do you realize that your future welfare absolutely depends on us having a strong voice in this?  If your not giving to the PAC, if you sit back and do nothing about this, it won’t be the government or the FAA who has to explain to your family why your financial and job security evaporated one day.  If you do nothing, the job of explaining it will be solely yours. 

Here is where we stand at the moment.  The Republican conferees all signed this.  In fact they signed a blank piece of paper agreeing to go in lockstep with their leadership regardless of the text.  The Democratic conferees all refused to sign the conference markup effectively creating a near stalemate.  The house has now gone into recess and the senate will follow shortly.  This means no further action will occur until September.  We will be working hard between now and then.  It looks as though striking all of the language might be preferable.  At the moment, a grassroots activity request does not exist. 

By way of background, you should know that the conference committee makeup is not friendly to us (startling understatement).  None of the 10 Republican Senators who voted for the Lautenberg amendment are on the committee.  The house republican conferees had all previously voted unanimously for our language and include the authors, but the White House manipulation of these folks is documented above.  The house conferees are Young , Mica, Ehlers, Hayes, Rehberg, Isakson, Oberstar, DeFazio, Boswell, and Holden.  The Senate conferees are McCain, Stevens, Burns, Lott, Hutchison, Hollings, Inouye, Rockefeller, and Breaux. 

In other cheery news, the appropriations process will begin after the recess as well.  It looks like there will be attempts to go after our pay, retirement (both age and eligibility), CIC and a host of other issues.  More on that later but your profession is under hostile attack and you need to join the PAC.  We will soon have employee attitude surveys circulating again.  Please use that opportunity to tell the Administrator just what you think about her leaving the door open (heck, insuring it’s wedged open) to selling us off to the lowest bidder, her turning the LMR clock back 15 years, her wanton disregard for our contract and agreements, the condition of your facilities, the stagnation of technology improvements and deployments and whatever else is under your skin locally.  She repeatedly uses the last survey to explain how content we are and how we won’t retire when eligible because we are just so darned happy.