the long-term house f.a.a. reauthorization bill does not create a new hurdle to unionization. instead, it restores the long-standing ability of airline employees to make decisions for themselves and not just a few of them but all of them. in a few minutes, i'm going to ask unanimous consent for an amendment that includes the n.m.b. language from the original house-passed long-term f.a.a. and this whole problem would go away. so in a few minutes, i'm going to ask unanimous consent for an amendment that includes the n.m.b. language from the original house-passed long-term f.a.a. reauthorization. now, my critics will point out that both times i have previously asked consent, it has been for legislation that did not include the removal of the n.m.b.'s heavy new hand. however, i have spoken frequently on this issue and i bet my position is very well known. i was hopeful that my earlier requests for consent would

stimulate discussion on a long-term reauthorization and the issues preventing a long-term reauthorization from taking place. my concern is that the white house and their allies in congress will continue to hide behind a perpetual series of short-term extensions rather than working towards an actual bill. this is why i've decided to ask unanimous consent for an amendment containing the n.m.b. language because it is clear that this is the only way to move this issue forward, by n.m.b. language, getting the law back to where it really has been for 75 years. as my critics will point out, this wasn't my first choice but as my critics have made clear, this is the only way to actually acknowledge and deal with the issue. so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 2553, which was received from the house. i ask unanimous consent that the hatch amendment which is at the desk be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and

passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table and that any statements relating to the bill appear at this point in the record. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. rockefeller: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. rockefeller: if i might make one further comment. the presiding officer: the senior senator from west virginia. mr. rockefeller: i made one mistake in my remarks. very unusual. but the repeal of the national mediation board decision language did, in fact, pass the house. i said it didn't. but it never passed the senate. it's never been debated in the senate. the committee of jurisdiction has never brought it up, never had a hearing, it was not raised during any of the floor considerations in the senate. and, mr. president, i would suggest to you if -- if we were operating under the rules of t the -- rules of senator utah, what he wants to see happen, i don't think any of us would be

here, i don't think there would be any mayors, there wouldn't be any governors, there wouldn't be any senators because most people don't vote so they'd all be voting "no." so one way or another we wouldn't be here. it's -- it's ludicrous and i regret very much that this card is being played but i regret even more the fact that the business community and the airline community in particular, led by delta, was so quiet during all of this. i got a message in the middle of the afternoon -- of this afternoon that the american transportation association, which is the legacy of the big airlines association, and that delta in particular wanted to have a -- pass a clean bill of extension. well, see, that doesn't work, mr. president. you can't just say -- so easy to say, we'd like to have it pass. but it's much too late to do anything about it. there were no phone calls to any people. so the whole thing is really a sham. it's very painful. it's potentially very threatening to west virginia.

and i, therefore, object. mrs. hutchison: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, i have not wanted to pursue this issue because the debt ceiling issue has absorbed all of the air in the room and in the united states, as it should. it's a huge priority. but i have to set the record straight a little bit about how this came about. first of all, let me say, i agree with the house position. i would reverse the n.m.b. decision because i think it's wrong. however, what happened here is that after 20 extensions of the f.a.a. bill because of disagreements on several issues, the house decided to put this

one -- well, actually, to be honest, the house didn't even bring up n.m.b., they put another issue on the extension language and it's the essential air service language, which we have been trying to negotiate but have not yet come to a full agreement among all of the parties. but it's really the n.m.b. issue that is causing the house to shut down the f.a.a. so the entire f.a.a. -- not the air traffic controllers, thank goodness, but 3,492 employees of the f.a.a. have been shut down. this affects 35 states. and they are on furlough without pay through no fault of their own. and interestingly, airports that were in the midst of building

runways or adding to their infrastructure or repairing their infrastructure also have had work stoppages because of the house action. and the associated general contractors of america has estimated that 70,000 -- 70,00 70,000 -- construction and related jobs are at risk because the house put an essential air service amendment on a clean extension of the f.a.a. now, mr. president, i am -- i want the house position to prevail, but we're getting ready in the next day or so to leave probably for the month of august and come back after labor day. we should not shut down the

f.a.a. because of a rider put on the extension of the f.a.a. legislation that has not been negotiated. in fact, mr. president, the house has not even appointed conferees. the chairman of the house committee has not called a meeting of the chairman of the senate, plus the two ranking members. there has been no full negotiation with the principles, and yet the house put this extraneous amendment on the bill and the f.a.a. is shut down. and 70,000 people's lives are at risk. we got a letter from boeing because they are trying to get their new boeing 747-a

certification. but the workers are not there to do it. so in addition to the work stoppages and the f.a.a. has now issue add total of 219 stop-work orders across the country, in addition to those, we also are seeing that the certification of a great new airplane is also on hold, so that we may start disrupting the capability for the airlines that have purchased these planes to be able to start flying the airplanes and upgrading their services. , oh, mr. president, this just does not -- oh, mr. president, this just does not make sense. we have -- we're going to lose $1 billion in the aviation trust fund if we leave this congress for the month of august and we

don't extend the f.a.a. -- $1 billion of revenue paid by passengers in the ticket tax -- and they're paying it, but it's just not going to the aviation trust fund. it is going to the airlines in the form of a higher ticket price. it should be going to the aviation trust fund because that's what we use to build the runways and to make the repairs and to keep our airports operating. so we are going to lose $1 billion in revenue. now here we are on the brink of cutting spending and raising the debt ceiling and trying to put our fiscal house the senate will come t-- and tryingto put our pl house the senate will come to order, and we're going to let $1 billion be lost that rightfully

should go to the airport trust fund and the users are going to pay for it anyway, but that money is going to have to be made up. so how is it going to be made up? it's going to have to come from general revenue, because contracts have already been let. that money is going to have to be spent. i cannot think of anything more fiscally irresponsible than to tax the users, not put it in the aviation trust fund, and to have to replace that money at some point. and, you know, i -- i'm a conservative, i'm a fiscal conservative, i'm trying to make the cuts that are necessary, trying to do the things that are right, but i have to question

those who are saying that we are going to not be for essential air service, which has a total budget of about $200 million, oh, but we're going to waste $1 billion to not let a bill go through that keeps the aviation trust fund and the f.a.a. going. you know, um, that just doesn't add up. and if we're going to be sincere about wise use of our taxpayer dollars, i don't think that taking money from people who are traveling on the airlines right now and thinking that that money is a ticket tax to pay for

airport infrastructure but in fact it's going into the airline pockets and then the taxpayer is going to have to make up that money because the contracts have already been let. now, is that fiscal responsibility? here we are on the eve of trying to show fiscal responsibility and do the right thing for our country. i don't think so, mr. president. it doesn't pass the smell test. and i hope that my colleagues, before we leave here, and the house of representatives and the people who are supporting them in the senate, i hope that they will relent and let the f.a.a. keep operating. let us come back in the month of september and negotiate an f.a.a. bill, like we normally do in this congress, and then, you know, if we can't come to an

agreement on the n.m.b. -- and i'm certainly going to support changing the decision that was made -- but if we can't come to that agreement, then maybe we can talk harshly and throw down the gauntlet, but not with no notice, adding it to an f.a.a. extension without ever gocialtinnegotiating on it, that the way we ought to operate on it. it's enough to make the people of our country think, you know what? we expect better. we expect better, and i expect better. and i cannot believe my colleagues would let the f.a.a. shut down and jeopardize 70,000 jobs and take money from airline travelers and on their ticket it

says ticket tax for aviation trust fund and defraud them because it is not going to the aviation trust fund. mr. president, is that going to make the people of our country believe that congress is doing the right thing? mr. president, it doesn't pass the smell test. and it is time for the airlines of this country to stand up and say, we need a clean extension of the f.a.a., and we need for the house and senate to meet, like we normally do in a conference, and take up the issues. and i'm going to support the reversal of the n.m.b. decision. and i'm going to support a reform of the essential air service. and the context of negotiating

the perimeter rule and other issues that are in contention, which is the honorable way to proceed. and i don't feel very good right now about what the senate is doing in supporting the house in an irresponsible position that is defrauding the airline passengers of this country right now because they are collecting a ticket tax that is not going to the aviation trust fund. it's wrong, mr. president. and i hope that in the next few hours our colleagues will come to their senses, do the right thing, pass a clean extension, and send it to the house, where i hope they, too, will act so that we can have a conference committee and work out the issues with honor and integrity.

thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor. mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: is not frr utah. mr. hatch: i understand the anguish of my dear friend from texas, and i don't disagree with her, except for one thing. the tax is not being charged. and that should be a savings to the customers and consumers who are using air services. whether it is or isn't, that take away from the major issue here that i think the house -- and there may be another issue here on the essential air services. i don't know, because i'm not on these committees. i've been asked by our leadership to make these objections. what is important here -- and it's not some itty-bitty little thing -- is that you have labor law regulators out of control.

when the n.m.b. -- the national mediation board, because it's run by a bunch of democrats -- comes out and does away with a 75 years of labor law, with just the stroke of a pen, and makes employee votes not important, that's not some little itty-bitty issue. that's a big-time issue. for 75 years unions have been winning union elections by getting a majority of the employees in the firm, not by getting a majority of those who vote. those other people, whether they

vote or not, they may have been sick or i will or may not have been able to be there, and when they don't vote, the unions have always had to get a majority. and they've done that year after year after year in most situations, in most union elections. but to now make it so that, let's say you have a company with 1,000 employees, and only 100 show up, and 51 of them vote for the union. is that right to bind all 1,000 employees in the company itself and only 51 out of 1,000 employees have voted for it? of course it's not. this is a very, very important issue. and all that the -- that those who propose getting this

long-term extension or even a short-term extension have to do is correct the national mediation board, get union elections back to where a majority of employees are requisite in order to have a union, and i don't think there'd be any problem. -- any problem in solving this problem. it would be solved in a nanosecond. now maybe this extended essential service language is something that might cause problems. well, i would suggest that both sides get together and try to resolve those shalls. but this is not some little small issue. this is a big issue. and it even becomes bigger when you consider that the national labor relations board, run by democrats -- they will not appoint -- the president will not appoint the recommended republican to make it even 3-2.

3-1 they are running ramshackle fast over labor laws in this country, and this kind after precedent is something that they'll do if they can in a nanosecond. they've been saying they'll do t they've been trying to enact card-check for years. in fact, they've been trying to enact labor law reform, which i fought back in 1977 and 1978, for years. so that they can give the unions a decided advantage that should not be given under any circumstances. -- in union elections. and if this gets through, the n.m.b., then what would stop the national labor relations board that handled millions of employees, millions of employees, from doing the same and continuing to do things that are just outrageous, like they're doing? they are esupperring -- they are

usurping the ability of this legislature, the congress of the united states, to run these issues the way they should be rufnlt and they should not be acting as a superlegislature, enacting laws from a partisan board. to do these things. this is not some little issue. this is a big issue, and i want to -- i wish i wasn't in the middle of it. i just happened to be here one day when i was the last one here and had to object. but i knew that when i did object, it was the right thing to do under the circumstances. if we allow these boards to usurp our powers of the legislative branch of government and just do anything they want to do because they have a supermajority, a super partisan

majority, then this country can't last and the freedoms we all value won't last. i don't want to see anybody not pay. i don't want to see anybody not be able to do their job. by gosh, i don't want to see a runaway national mediation board either or a national labor relations board that would use a precedent like this in ways that really shouldn't be used. so these are not small issues. i hope we can get together. i hope that the two committees will get together and resolve this issue. i'm not on either of the committees. i'm just someone who around here has had to stand up on some of these labor union issues. i'm not against unions. i'm one of the few persons in this whole country who actually earned a union card and became a skilled tradesman and worked for ten years in the building construction trade union. i'm proud of it. i have got to say i'm going to call on both sides to get this

problem solved, get rid of allowing the national mediation board to usurp the powers of the legislative branch of government and get the law back where it was, where it's more fair and where it makes sense. if we do that, i don't see why this would be held up for ten seconds. so i come on both sides to try and resolve this issue. i don't feel good being in the middle of it. just because i happened to be on the floor at the wrong time. all i can say is having gotten in the middle of it, i have to say as much as i love and admire the distinguished senator from texas and appreciate and admire and love my friend from west virginia -- and i do -- this could be resolved, and there's no reason why we shouldn't resolve it. this is an important issue, and all i can say is that i'd like to help get it resolved if i can. and if i can, i will. but both sides have got to get

together, and this includes both sides of capitol hill, and i think this problem could be resolved, but these are not little issues, let me tell you. with that, i -- i yield the floor. mrs. hutchison: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mrs. hutchison: i would just say that i appreciate the senator from utah and i appreciate his passion for the issue. i agree with him on the issue. the way for us to get together and resolve it is to have a conference committee, to have the conferees appointed on the house side. the conferees are appointed on the senate side already, and we are ready to negotiate this bill, and i'm going to be for the same position as the senator from utah because i don't think n.m.b. made the right decision and i think it is a terrible

over -- overstretch, overreach of that board to change the law or change the regulation about what is a union election. i think they're wrong. but we cannot solve the issue with the house sending an extension of the f.a.a. with a rider that is completely separate from that issue. n.m.b. is not in the rider. it's not in the rider at all, but that is the issue that everybody is negotiating unilaterally here. the house has sent over a bill that has an essential air service amendment that also has not been negotiated, but what they are negotiating on is the national mediation board. well, if that's confusing, there's a reason.

because it's confusing. so why don't we unconfuse and have a conference committee like we normally do here and let's hash out these issues. if we have had a chance to actually have a conference, negotiate all the issues and then if someone's not satisfied, there are procedures that are honorable to blow up a bill that you don't like. but, mr. president, it is not honorable for the house to send an extraneous amendment on an f.a.a. extension and shut down airports that are being repaired and built in our country, jeopardizing an estimated 75,000 jobs, jeopardizing the certification of a major new

airplane that wants to get out there and start being used, and an airport trust fund, an aviation trust fund that will lose over $1 billion because we're not collecting the tax and the airlines are pocketing the money by having a higher ticket charge, mostly. they may not all be doing that, but most of them are. and, mr. president, that's just not right, and we're going to have to make that up because there are contracts pending that are going to have to be paid for. it's not fiscally responsible and it's not honorable, and it is time for us to pass a clean extension of the f.a.a. let's negotiate until september 30, and then if we can't agree, then we won't sign

a conference report and it won't come back. you know, i'll stand there and not sign a conference report, but it's kind of hard to do that if you are not doing the right thing by sitting down and talking. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: before the distinguished senator from texas leaves the floor, i want to express my appreciation to her for her bipartisanship in working through this difficult issue. everyone understands the labor issue. it's something that is overhanging this important piece of legislation, but it shouldn't be hanging over an extension of the bill. tens of thousands of people are

not working because of this. the actual airport of our airports are of concern to me. now, f.a.a. is doing everything they can to make sure they are safe and sound, but 4,000 people who work for the department of transportation are off work, in addition to the tens of thousands of people who have construction jobs. we have a new airport tower, control tower in las vegas that is being constructed. they have worked about two weeks and they are now all laid off. it's not fair. this extension should go forward and resolve this issue, as we should resolve all issues, in conference with the other body. it's so unfair that they are standing, but it's -- this is not the last word. there will be more said about this. this is wrong. we're going to be leaving town, leaving up to 80,000 people out of work who are construction workers. we