Age 60 Rule Almost Gone

[I Hate Freight]

It's going to happen people. Get used to it. The US now one of only FOUR countries on Earth to hold onto it.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/biztravel/2006-11-12-pilots-usat_x.htm

By Dan Reed, USA TODAY
A pending change in international aviation rules could soon lead to older pilots at the controls of airliners flying within the USA.

Next week, commercial airline pilots in all but four countries will be allowed to continue flying until age 65. In most nations, pilots now must retire at age 60.

The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), which sets world aviation standards, issued the policy change two months ago. It cited the lack of evidence that pilots in their 60s are more prone to mistakes than younger pilots, provided they're in good health.

Since the dawn of the commercial jet age, airline pilots in the USA and most other nations have been required to step down at 60. With the change in the international standard, effective on Thanksgiving Day, only the USA, France, Pakistan and Colombia will hold fast to the age 60 retirement rule.

But that could change soon. Pilots facing what many view as premature retirement have fought for years to push the retirement age to 65. But Congress, the courts and the Federal Aviation Administration have refused to order the change.

They argue that economics, not human physiology, underlie the rule. With the ICAO changing the world standard, U.S. opponents of the current rule gain a powerful argument for change. A report from a panel of experts is due later this month to FAA Administrator Marion Blakey. Blakey formed the panel in September after ICAO adopted its new standard.

FAA spokeswoman Alison Duquette said Blakey is awaiting the panel's recommendation. If Blakey decides to order a change in pilots' retirement age, a new rule could take effect by spring. And if she doesn't, Congress may order her to do so.

A measure sponsored by Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., and attached to the Senate's transportation appropriations bill, stands a good chance of surviving a Senate-House conference report expected to be dealt with in the upcoming lame duck session.

Since the late 1980s, the FAA has conducted at least five formal reviews of the mandatory retirement rule. The agency says those studies have not disproved its position that the skills and judgment of the average airline pilot diminish after age 60. But neither do studies prove it, opponents of the current rule say.

"There's no medical evidence" supporting (the FAA's) position, says Ike Eichelkraut, president of the Southwest Airlines Pilots' Association. SWAPA has broken ranks with most other pilots unions and advocates a retirement age of 65.

Says Eichelkraut: "We let pilots with known medical conditions under the age of 60 continue to fly, but not pilots who are in absolutely great health who happen to be over 60. It makes no sense."

Management at Southwest strongly favors a higher retirement age for pilots, but U.S. airlines as a group have no uniform position on the issue.

 

[schafjet]

So what's everyone's best guess when this will take effect? This article leads me to believe that if if goes into effect, it will be the spring of 07. Anyone care to make another guess? Also, what do you guys think will happen to the current over 60 group?

 

[DAL737FO]

I was indifferent to the rule changing until I read this article. Now I say we change it just to be out of the same category as France. (TIC) sorta.

 

[fly4funcrj]

IMO pilots over 60 are prone to more mistakes. Just look at how many times pilots have taken off with the pitot covers on.. Taking off without getting fuel. Forgetting to close the external covers.. These have happened at netjets and other fractionals Im sure. It is human nature to be a little slower the older you get.. Nothing wrong with that, but I think you'll see more airline incidents/accidents as guys over 60 stay.. Just an opinion, but only time will tell

 

[AAflyer]

It seems the most vocal are pilots who will retire in the next half year to year. You can bet they pull the typical "american citizen" and sue to get reinstated.

I think this new rule should mimic the new BK laws, for our friends like undauntedflyer. Since this is about hardship and money, sell your large house, and airplanes, and toys first. I found his comments some of the most unprofessional yet. This is a man who purchased his son a pitts, owns a second plane for himself, makes an addional 50k-75k a year as DE on top of his UAL wide-body captain pay. He then has the balls to tell the USA today he doesn't know how he is going to pay for his son's college. It actually sounds like he doesn't know how to budget.

Lastly, I would get your union involved on where you want to put these new "ropes" on your seniority list.

AA

 

[AAflyer]

I was indifferent to the rule changing until I read this article. Now I say we change it just to be out of the same category as France. (TIC) sorta.

Looks like some of your guys have done a 180.

Pension Termination, Retirement, and Age 60
Doug McDuff
ATL 777 Captain

The termination of the pilots' defined benefit pension plan has been a blow to all Delta pilots, active and retired, old and young, junior and senior. As we seek to recover from this setback, one thing is perfectly clear—the change from a defined benefit plan to a defined contribution plan requires a new way of thinking as we plan for retirement.

Under the defined benefit plan, a pilot needed to fly until age 60 and have 25 years service in order to get the full 60% benefit. Anything less resulted in a penalty. Anything more didn’t add a nickel. The common method used to maximize retirement income was to fly as much as possible during the last three years of one’s career by whiteslipping, geenslipping, cashing in vacation bank, etc. in order to increase Final Average Earnings, thereby increasing the 60% retirement benefit. But those days and those methods are gone forever.

The question for all of us now is this. What is the best method to maximize retirement income under our new contract with our new defined contribution plan?

After spending quite a bit of time researching and consulting with financial professionals, the answer I get is always the same. Save as much as possible as soon as possible and, most importantly, allow as much time as possible for your assets to grow before you start withdrawals to provide retirement income. The end years are the most important because that is when your assets and associated investment earnings, which are plowed back into the assets, are greatest.

As a pilot approaches age 60, he or she will hopefully have accumulated a significant sum in tax deferred retirement accounts including his or her 401K, Defined Contribution Plan, and distributions from the MPPP and LOA 51 claim/note in IRAs or other accounts. As an example, let’s assume a PC4 pilot (male so I only have to type “he” instead of “he or she”) who retires at age 60 with a total of $1,000,000 in these various accounts. Most financial planners advise a withdrawal rate of around 4% of assets annually for income so that one’s principal can continue to grow to allow for inflation. For our 60 year-old retiree, this yields $40,000 per year plus the PBGC PC4 guarantee of $30,000 for a total of $70,000 per year—hardly the retirement income most of us anticipated.

However, what if the pilot in our example was able to delay retirement for five years to allow his assets more time to grow? An additional five years employment before retirement will allow all his investment earnings to continue to be returned to principal. Additionally, he will continue to accumulate defined contribution and 401K plan company contributions; he will earn an additional five years salary; he will continue to contribute to his 401K plan; and as a PC4 pilot his PBGC guarantee will increase by $16,000 per year upon retirement.

The surprising result as confirmed by American Financial Advisors—assets at age 65 of over $1,600,000 (compared to $1,000,000 at age 60) and annual income of $110,000 per year upon retirement (compared to $70,000 per year retiring at age 60), for a total of over $3,000,000 in additional salary, retirement income, and accumulated assets over his lifetime using a conservative 7% Return On Investment (ROI) and a life expectancy of 92 as recommended by AFA and Fidelity. (According to the experts, if you reach age 50 without any incidence of heart disease or cancer, the average individual has a better than 50% chance to live to be 92. If you retire at 60, that probably means more years in retirement than you worked for Delta.) Additionally, if the pilot saves and invests a portion of his salary from age 60 to 65, the difference will be even greater. Once again, the key to maximize retirement income with a defined contribution plan is to allow as much time as possible for your assets to grow before you start withdrawals.

On November 23, 2006, the ICAO standard of age 65 will take effect in the United States for just about every pilot in the world except American pilots working for American carriers. Foreign pilots whose countries have accepted the ICAO standard will be allowed to command their aircraft in and out of U.S. airports until age 65, while American pilots will continue to be forced into a retirement they cannot afford at age 60. Most of our pilots served their country in the armed forces. Surely we have earned the same privileges in our own country's airspace that pilots from almost every other country on earth will enjoy as of November.

Two quotes from the newly elected, but not yet installed, president of ALPA on the age 60 issue are germane:

"I believe the basis of the safety foundation for ALPA’s present policy has been eroded and believe the ICAO standard should and will be adopted by the FAA." Captain John Prater

Pilots in the U.S. are forced to retire at age 60 based on an FAA rule implemented in 1960, while pilots for almost every other country on the planet fly safely and effectively until age 65 under ICAO rules. If age 60 was safe in 1960, when the overall life expectancy in the U.S. was 67 and pilots often smoked and drank to excess, age 65 is certainly safe today, when the overall life expectancy is 75 and most pilots have a much healthier lifestyle. The Aerospace Medical Association, Civil Aerospace Medical Association and the National Institutes of Health all say there is no medical evidence to support the Age 60 Rule.

"Competing interests among our members are based upon the economics of failed retirement plans and wage concessions and lengthened careers versus the economics of seniority upgrades." Captain John Prater

In an effort to objectively measure these competing economic interests referred to by Captain Prater, one must first look at the loss of seniority upgrades for a given pilot should the age 60 rule be changed to 65. At Delta, we have a window of opportunity in that the vast majority of the pilots in the 55-60 age bracket have already retired. In fact, there are only 365 pilots out of 6839 on the seniority list who will retire in the next five years should the age 60 rule stay in effect. And all of these may very well not be senior to any given pilot. Just because a pilot is older than you doesn’t mean he or she is necessarily senior. (To find out how many of these 365 pilots are senior to you, one can go to the Delta MEC personal home page and look at your projected seniority over the next five years.)

There has never been a better time to raise the age limit, nor will there be again in the foreseeable future, since seniority upgrades for active pilots will be minimally impacted because of the massive number of early retirements over the last few years.

As far as the economic impact of an age 60 retirement vs. an age 65 retirement for an individual pilot, I believe the example above speaks for itself. I recommend you run the numbers for yourself or have your financial planner do it. After you do, regardless of your age or seniority, I expect you will reach the same conclusion that I have—you must allow as much time as possible for your assets to grow before you start retirement withdrawals. And the best way to do this is to support adoption of the ICAO age 65 standard so that you will have the opportunity to continue working and accumulating assets for an additional five years before retirement.

What can you do personally about this issue? If you are opposed to adopting the ICAO standard of 65, you need do nothing because your company and your union, having joined together in LOA 51 to set the stage for the termination of your defined benefit plan, are now both working together to make sure you don’t have sufficient time to increase your retirement savings so that you and your spouse might have a decent retirement. The MEC maintains that termination of our defined benefit plan and transition to a defined contribution plan were necessary, and they may well be right. But, having made the transition, they need to realize that the one best thing they can do FOR the pilots in order to maximize their retirement benefits is to support rather than oppose the age 65 standard.

Delta ALPA and Delta Air Lines each have a seat on the Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) appointed by the FAA to examine this issue. The MEC, along with ALPA National and outgoing ALPA president Duane Woerth (who is co-chair of the committee), are opposed based on the membership vote taken several years ago when Delta and other carriers still had defined benefit plans. Though ALPA has maintained in the past that its position is based on safety, most members voted with their pocketbooks based on their perception of the economics involved, with younger members opposed and older members in favor. Now that our defined benefit plan has been terminated, I expect that many will reevaluate their position, and I know from experience that most will certainly reconsider when they approach age 60 with insufficient funds available for retirement.

Delta, though officially “neutral,” has unofficially pledged its vote on the ARC to the MEC. The real irony is that both of these institutions, who should be working FOR the best interests of their employees and members, are working against us on this issue. And Delta knows it. Jerry Grinstein is well aware that age 65 is in the best interest of Delta’s pilots and believes it should be adopted. However, he has deferred Delta’s vote to the MEC in order to promote better relations with ALPA.

 

[AAflyer]

Part II



If you are for adoption of the age 65 standard, let your MEC reps and your Chief Pilots know ASAP. The ARC will be issuing their recommendation soon, but hopefully it’s not too late to turn the MEC around. In their defense, they are merely reflecting the previously expressed will of the membership. But, times have changed and it is time we change with them! The danger is that the ARC will recommend against age 65 and Congress and the FAA will accept that recommendation. The matter may then be laid to rest for a long, long time—perhaps until you, too, are over 60 with an inadequate retirement. Email your Senators and Congressman and ask them to support HR 65 and S 65, two identical bills which will implement the ICAO standard in the United States. Hopefully, Congress will address these bills when they return for their lame duck session after the elections.

I urge each of you to support adoption of the ICAO age 65 standard. It may very well mean an additional $3,000,000 during your lifetime in exchange for continuing in a job most of us really enjoy for an additional five years at the peak of your seniority. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

 

[LJDRVR]

The age sixty thing is as good as dead with the Democrats in charge. Talk to the legislative affairs guy or gal from any pilot union.

There's no way in hell I'm going to take mini-astronaut physicals, cognitive testing and work for free until I'm 63 just to recover the part of my pension that I'll lose if this rule goes into effect. (Just so somebody else can continue earning for a few years.) There's no rational, scientific argument that can be made for extending the rule.

It's not age discrimination
There's nothing wrong with it being arbitrary, we have lots of arbitrary rules in our profession for issues that can't be quantified because of differences in individuals.

Not done flying? Need the money? NetJets is hiring. I love being a pilot, but I don't want to do it till I die.

"You can still retire when you're sixty."

No, the changes in pension law that would have occured the moment this thing was voted in would have required me to work an additional three years to recoup my lost funds.

 

[Huck]

Doug McDuff makes the idiotic assumption that we'll all get 5 more years as captains.

Those of us not yet captains will merely get 5 more years as F/O's (or even S/O's at my airline).

Others will get 5 more years at the job before their final job.

So which one are you?

 

[ultrarunner]

I don't have a dog in this fight as this law does not effect me anymore, but I do read it with interest.

Ultimately, IMO, it will be the pilots on property themselves that will lead ultimately to the rule change....

The continued votes in favor or reducing compensation and the subsequent approvals by the pilot rank and file to allow the termination of the pension plans, etc..., will essentially be the factors justifying an increase in the current age 60 law.

And the final nail in the coffing was ICAO. It's a done deal at this point....

The unfortunate part is that likely there will be another large round of furloughs when it does take effect, making the decision to bypass all that more important for those that have good gigs nows.

 

[SWA/FO]

IMO pilots over 60 are prone to more mistakes. Just look at how many times pilots have taken off with the pitot covers on.. Taking off without getting fuel.

You're talking about private pilots

 

[XJTAv8r]

A report from a panel of experts is due later this month to FAA Administrator Marion Blakey. Blakey formed the panel in September after ICAO adopted its new standard.

FAA spokeswoman Alison Duquette said Blakey is awaiting the panel's recommendation. If Blakey decides to order a change in pilots' retirement age, a new rule could take effect by spring. And if she doesn't, Congress may order her to do so.

A measure sponsored by Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., and attached to the Senate's transportation appropriations bill, stands a good chance of surviving a Senate-House conference report expected to be dealt with in the upcoming lame duck session.

Better get busy:

The comment period is STILL OPEN until Nov. 15. Below is information on an alternate site for submitting your comments.

To send your comments, which must be received on or before November 15, 2006,

1. Go to http://dms.dot.gov
2. Click on one of the buttons: "Comment/Submissions."
3. There is no need to register, click on the "Continue" button.
4. The Docket ID Number is: FAA-2006-26139
5. Operating Adminstration is: FAA
6. Document Title is: Age 60 Aviation Rulemaking Committee; Request for Comments
7. Fill in the rest of the form as needed, click "Continue" at the bottom.
8. Page will open up allowing comments to be typed into a text box. Click "Submit."

You can also still send comments via fax or US mail or hand delivery. To use any of these methods, identify your comment by including the Docket Number FAA-2006- 26139.

US Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street , SW., Nassif Building , Room PL -401, Washington , DC 20590-0001 .

Fax: 1-202-493-2251.

Hand Delivery: Room PL -401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building , 400 Seventh Street , SW., Washington , DC , between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

 

[warbirdfinder]

AAflyer wrote:
As an example, let’s assume a PC4 pilot (male so I only have to type “he” instead of “he or she”) who retires at age 60 with a total of $1,000,000 in these various accounts. Most financial planners advise a withdrawal rate of around 4% of assets annually for income so that one’s principal can continue to grow to allow for inflation. For our 60 year-old retiree, this yields $40,000 per year plus the PBGC PC4 guarantee of $30,000 for a total of $70,000 per year—hardly the retirement income most of us anticipated.

Considering the confusing regulations I can understand this conception.
I did retire at 60 and received a lump-sum of 1 million, however, my PBGC benefit (as calculated by DAL) is "zero". Which is exactly what I and 1400 other retired pilots have been getting as of October 1.

 

[AAflyer]

Doug McDuff makes the idiotic assumption that we'll all get 5 more years as captains.

Those of us not yet captains will merely get 5 more years as F/O's (or even S/O's at my airline).

Others will get 5 more years at the job before their final job.

So which one are you?

I am AGAINST raising the age of 60.

AAflyer

We all knew the rules of the game when we signed on.

 

[AAflyer]

AAflyer wrote:
As an example, let’s assume a PC4 pilot (male so I only have to type “he” instead of “he or she”) who retires at age 60 with a total of $1,000,000 in these various accounts. Most financial planners advise a withdrawal rate of around 4% of assets annually for income so that one’s principal can continue to grow to allow for inflation. For our 60 year-old retiree, this yields $40,000 per year plus the PBGC PC4 guarantee of $30,000 for a total of $70,000 per year—hardly the retirement income most of us anticipated.

Considering the confusing regulations I can understand this conception.
I did retire at 60 and received a lump-sum of 1 million, however, my PBGC benefit (as calculated by DAL) is "zero". Which is exactly what I and 1400 other retired pilots have been getting as of October 1.

I didn't write that. I signed your petition for the pension, however I am not for raising age 60. You or anyone else could say whatever you want, it will not change my mind.

AAflyer

 

[Bake]

I did retire at 60 and received a lump-sum of 1 million, however, my PBGC benefit (as calculated by DAL) is "zero". Which is exactly what I and 1400 other retired pilots have been getting as of October 1.[/quote

Did you do any other type of investing on the side? Just curious if you put all of your eggs in the Delta basket. If you did, well, life sucks sometimes. If you didn't and you did invest in other places (other than multiple women) you should be just fine.

 

[COpilot]

I don't belive that the over 60 group has thought just how hard the medical exams are going to be, or what kind of cost it will be out of pocket.

Just for starters, I looked into Congnitive testing; starting price at 2 doctors I called was $3000! Will I be able to write that off?

 

[warbirdfinder]

Bake wrote:
Did you do any other type of investing on the side? Just curious if you put all of your eggs in the Delta basket. If you did, well, life sucks sometimes. If you didn't and you did invest in other places (other than multiple women) you should be just fine.

Luckily I did invest all right and I am not bad off. Unfortunately I have a few friends who invested in multiple women and most of them are flying corporate or overseas.

The best investment advice I ever received was from a old Captain when I was very junior. He said, "If two or pilots are involved in an investment and you will be one of them, don't do it."

That little bit of advice saved me a bundle.

 

[warbirdfinder]

COpilot wrote:
Just for starters, I looked into Congnitive testing; starting price at 2 doctors I called was $3000! Will I be able to write that off?

If the FAA requires that type of testing to obtain your medical, then it can be written off.

 

[gearjockey]

Thanks XJT, this is so usefull I will bump




The comment period is STILL OPEN until Nov. 15. Below is information on an alternate site for submitting your comments.

To send your comments, which must be received on or before November 15, 2006,

1. Go to http://dms.dot.gov
2. Click on one of the buttons: "Comment/Submissions."
3. There is no need to register, click on the "Continue" button.
4. The Docket ID Number is: FAA-2006-26139
5. Operating Adminstration is: FAA
6. Document Title is: Age 60 Aviation Rulemaking Committee; Request for Comments
7. Fill in the rest of the form as needed, click "Continue" at the bottom.
8. Page will open up allowing comments to be typed into a text box. Click "Submit."

You can also still send comments via fax or US mail or hand delivery. To use any of these methods, identify your comment by including the Docket Number FAA-2006- 26139.

US Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street , SW., Nassif Building , Room PL -401, Washington , DC 20590-0001 .

Fax: 1-202-493-2251.

Hand Delivery: Room PL -401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building , 400 Seventh Street , SW., Washington , DC , between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.[/quote]

 

[Andy]

Ah, there's nothing like an article in the USA Today.
The FAA will not be changing the rule anytime soon. Word is that the ARC is making zero progress on a consensus.
The Senate is in no hurry to get appropriations bills passed. HR 5576 will almost certainly never make it to the Senate floor.
The 110th Congress is not going to be pushing this issue; if it couldn't get passed in the 109th, it doesn't stand a snowball's chance in Hades during the 110th.
And while this issue may be a huge subject for debate within the pilot community, there is little interest or concern outside of the aviation community. Hey, we're not talking stem cell research here. Or Iraq. Or oil prices.
Now that Gibbons is out of Congress, who's going to champion this change in the House? Likely no one.

 

[a10hogplt]

andy, you seem very confident in your statements? can i ask where you get your information from? im keeping my fingers crossed that age 60 does not change.......and when i read your posts it gives me the confidence, just wondering where you are hearing your info from.

 

[Falcon Jet 1]

Well I can back up what Andy is saying as far as the ARC, our swapa guys that are on the commitee are posting the same thing on the swapa forum. Thank GOD all of us at SWA wont have to listen to PE bs anymore and hopefully he will be gone in a couple of years

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

XJTAv8r: Thanx for the great info!

cliff
YIP

 

[vetteracer]

Doug McDuff makes the idiotic assumption that we'll all get 5 more years as captains.

Those of us not yet captains will merely get 5 more years as F/O's (or even S/O's at my airline).

Others will get 5 more years at the job before their final job.

So which one are you?

EXACTLY -

The only benefit is for the now 58-59 year old pilots that will stay at their current rate and position, as everyone behind them stays in their position, for another 5 years. Also the re-clocking if you will of the retirement age will force many to work past 65 to obtain full benifits. Again, the ME generation at work! If you are 60 and broke, then it is to late for you to make it up now!

 

[Andy]

andy, you seem very confident in your statements? can i ask where you get your information from? im keeping my fingers crossed that age 60 does not change.......and when i read your posts it gives me the confidence, just wondering where you are hearing your info from.

HogPilot, if you look back on my posts over the last few months, you will see that I wasn't concerned about HR 65/S 65 passing because HR 65 was stuck in the House aviation subcommittee since the day that Rep Gibbons sponsored it. It was never going to come out of House subcommittee. So even though S 65 was put under General Orders awaiting floor action, the likelihood of S 65 being put on the calendar for a floor vote was near zero. No way would Frist bring to a floor vote with a companion bill in House stuck in subcommittee.
However, I got VERY concerned when Sen Stevens attached the text of S 65 to HR 5576. It had a much larger chance of slipping through the quagmire of the legislative process. That's why I posted for everyone to write their Senators to try to have a point of order made to have it removed from HR 5576.
Now that the Dems have captured the House and Senate, the chances of a change getting through over the next two years is very small. I no longer expect HR 5576 to hit the Senate floor before the Senate is adjourned and I know that there is not enough support for the GOP to stuff an omnibus appropriations bill past the Dems in the 109th.

If you're concerned about this, I'd recommend writing your Senators and ask to have it stripped from HR 5576 on a point of order. But I don't think that HR 5576 will go to the Senate floor. I'll watch the Senate calendar and let the board know if HR 5576 is added to the Senate floor schedule.

 

[Cobra]

andy, you seem very confident in your statements? can i ask where you get your information from? im keeping my fingers crossed that age 60 does not change.......and when i read your posts it gives me the confidence, just wondering where you are hearing your info from.

Yeah, bye the way hog it goes both ways. Both sides, thinking their crystal ball is more legit.

I'm calling out all the POS 58 year-ish something dudes to call your furloughed bretheren from within your own airline and explain to them that your plight takes preference over their own... I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.

 

[Andy Neill]

The Senate is in no hurry to get appropriations bills passed. HR 5576 will almost certainly never make it to the Senate floor.

Anyone know how DOT is currently being funded with their FY07 Authorization bill still pending? SOME form of the Transportation Authorization HAS to pass (perhaps without the age provisions - but it still has to pass in order to authorize DOT funding). I presume they have been on a continuing resolution since September 30th. Anyone know?

 

[Andy]

Anyone know how DOT is currently being funded with their FY07 Authorization bill still pending? SOME form of the Transportation Authorization HAS to pass (perhaps without the age provisions - but it still has to pass in order to authorize DOT funding). I presume they have been on a continuing resolution since September 30th. Anyone know?

CRs (continuing resolutions).
There are nine appropriations bills that need to be passed. They will have to pass those bills with the House in session and be reconciled prior to adjournment in order for the bills to not die. As for an omnibus appropriations bill, there's no way that the Senate Dems will allow that to occur.

 

[Andy]

duplicate