    [House Hearing, 110 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

          THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION'S AGING ATC FACILITIES:
       INVESTIGATING THE NEED TO IMPROVE FACILITIES AND WORKER CONDITIONS

    =======================================================================

                                    (110-63)

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                                    AVIATION

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                       TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JULY 24, 2007

                                   __________

                           Printed for the use of the
                 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    36-964                      WASHINGTON : 2008
    _____________________________________________________________________________
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
    Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001

                 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                     JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman

    NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia    JOHN L. MICA, Florida
    PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon             DON YOUNG, Alaska
    JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois          THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
    ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of   HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
    Columbia                             JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
    JERROLD NADLER, New York             WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
    CORRINE BROWN, Florida               VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
    BOB FILNER, California               STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
    EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas         RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
    GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi             FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
    ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland         JERRY MORAN, Kansas
    ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California        GARY G. MILLER, California
    LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa             ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
    TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania             HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
    BRIAN BAIRD, Washington              Carolina
    RICK LARSEN, Washington              TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
    MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts    TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
    JULIA CARSON, Indiana                SAM GRAVES, Missouri
    TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York          BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
    MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine            JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    BRIAN HIGGINS, New York              SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
    RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri              Virginia
    JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado            JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
    GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California      MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
    DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois            CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
    DORIS O. MATSUI, California          TED POE, Texas
    NICK LAMPSON, Texas                  DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
    ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio               CONNIE MACK, Florida
    MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
    BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa                York
    JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania          LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
    TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota           CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
    HEATH SHULER, North Carolina         Louisiana
    MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York           JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
    HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona           CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
    CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania  THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia
    JOHN J. HALL, New York               MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
    STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin               VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
    STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    JERRY McNERNEY, California
    VACANCY

                                      (ii)

    ?

                            Subcommittee on Aviation

                     JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois, Chairman

    BOB FILNER, California               THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
    LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa             HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
    RICK LARSEN, Washington              JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
    RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri              VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
    JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado            STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
    DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois            FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
    NICK LAMPSON, Texas                  JERRY MORAN, Kansas
    ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio               ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
    BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa                SAM GRAVES, Missouri
    HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona           JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    JOHN J. HALL, New York               SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
    STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin               Virginia
    STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
    NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia    MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
    PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon             CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
    ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of   TED POE, Texas
    Columbia                             DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
    CORRINE BROWN, Florida               CONNIE MACK, Florida
    EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas         JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
    ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California        York
    TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania             LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
    MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts    MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
    DORIS O. MATSUI, California          VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
    MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              JOHN L. MICA, Florida
    VACANCY                                (Ex Officio)
    JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
      (Ex Officio)

                                     (iii)

                                    CONTENTS

                                                                       Page

    Summary of Subject Matter........................................    vi

                                   TESTIMONY

    Brantley, Tom, President, Professional Airways Services
      Specialists, AFL-CIO...........................................    30
    Forrey, Patrick, President, National Air Traffic Controllers
      Association....................................................    30
    Gilbert, Patricia, Chair, National Legislative Committee,
      National Air Traffic Controllers Association...................    30
    Johnson, David B., Vice President for Terminal Services, Air
      Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation Administration..........    10
    Zaidman, Steven B., Vice President of Technical Operations
      Services, Air Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation
      Administration.................................................    10

              PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

    Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois.............................    49
    Matsui, Hon. Doris O., of California.............................    57
    Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona..............................    59
    Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota............................    62
    Salazar, Hon. John T., of Colorado...............................    66

                   PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

    Brantley, Tom....................................................    69
    Forrey, Patrick..................................................    80
    Johnson, Bruce...................................................    96

                            ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD

    Federal Aviation Administration, response to questions from the
      Subcommittee...................................................   104
    FAA Aging Facilities Conditions, chart...........................   107
    FY-2007 Ops Funded Sustain Projects_by Service Area/District,
      chart..........................................................   109
    Asbestos Survey Report Form......................................   137
    Eastern Service Area Prioritized List FY-07 Ops Funded Projects,
      chart..........................................................   138
    Eastern Service Area Prioritized List FY-07 Facilities and
      Equipment Projects, chart......................................   172

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.002

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.003

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.004

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.005

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.006

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.007

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.008

       HEARING ON FAA'S AGING ATC FACILITIES: INVESTIGATING THE NEED TO
                    IMPROVE FACILITIES AND WORKER CONDITIONS

                                  ----------

                             Tuesday, July 24, 2007

                      House of Representatives,
        Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                      Subcommittee on Aviation,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
    Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Jerry
    F. Costello [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Mr. Costello. The Subcommittee will come to order.
        The Chair will ask all Members, staff and everyone to turn
    electronic devices off or on vibrate.
        The Subcommittee is meeting here today to hear testimony on
    the FAA's Aging Air Traffic Control Facilities: Investigating
    the Need to Improve Facilities and Worker Conditions.
        I will give a brief opening statement and then call on the
    Ranking Member to give an opening statement as well.
        I want to welcome everyone here to our hearing today on the
    FAA's aging ATC facilities and the need to improve facilities
    and conditions for the FAA workers.
        The FAA provides air traffic control services at over 400
    Agency-operated air traffic control facilities throughout the
    Nation. Many of these facilities are over 40 years old,
    exceeding their useful life expectancy and not meeting current
    operational requirements. This has resulted in a General
    Services Administration Facility Condition Index rating of fair
    to poor.
        Further, this Subcommittee and other interested
    stakeholders like NATCA and PASS have expressed concerns as to
    whether the FAA has adequately funded the much needed facility
    repairs and improvements, given the Agency's capital account
    has remained flat over the past several years. The
    Administration consistently proposes a level of F&E funding
    well below the authorized level.
        In 2003, the FAA requested and received from the Congress
    an authorization of approximately $3 billion per year for its
    capital program. Yet, for the past three years, the
    Administration has requested roughly $2.2 billion per year for
    its F&E capital program, well below the authorized level.
        The fiscal year 2008 budget is no exception. The
    Administration is once again requesting $2.46 billion for
    capital spending.
        According to the capital investment plan estimates,
    approximately half of the F&E budget is set aside for equipment
    and modernization. Yet, the FAA has not requested additional
    F&E funding for routine maintenance and repair of aging FAA
    facilities.
        I have said before that we cannot put the cart before the
    horse when it comes to modernization. While the FAA continues
    to lay the groundwork for modernization, it must also ensure
    that the current system can continue to operate in a safe and
    reliable way by properly investing in the maintenance and
    upkeep of existing infrastructure. The FAA must also provide
    safe, healthy working conditions for its employees.
        That is why in H.R. 2881, the FAA Reauthorization Act of
    2007, we provide historic funding levels for the FAA's capital
    programs including nearly $13 billion for F&E, over $1 billion
    more than the Administration requested.
        I am disturbed by the employee reports of excessive
    unhealthy levels of mold and asbestos, leaking roofs and other
    infrastructure issues, insufficient ventilation, and improperly
    housed conditions and equipment.
        Both PASS and NATCA report, the FAA is in direct violation
    of safety regulations including those mandated by OSHA. To
    illustrate the point, we are going to show a very brief video
    clip from the Grand Rapids tower at this time. This clip was
    actually filmed in the Fall of 2005.
        I would ask at this time to show the clip.
        [Video shown.]
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks Mr. Miller for showing the
    clip.
        Obviously, again that was taken in the fall of 2005 at the
    Grand Rapids facility. It is alarming to see the water coming
    through the roof and actually on the counter of the control
    tower. This is just one facility. I believe that there are
    others that could have been filmed then or today.
        Again, it is alarming and disturbing that we allow our
    facilities to deteriorate to this extent. No one should have to
    work in these conditions, and it is unacceptable.
        I am interested in hearing our FAA witnesses' response to
    this clip and some of the other facilities that we will be
    discussing today.
        I question whether the FAA has a comprehensive strategy to
    effectively manage the replacement, repair and modernization of
    its air traffic control facilities and equipment and whether
    sufficient funds are being used to carry out these important
    health and safety functions.
        Finally, in the Administration's FAA reauthorization
    proposal, they provide for a BRAC-like process to consolidate
    and relocate facilities. A BRAC process is an abdication of
    responsibility on the part of the Congress. Congress has always
    made decisions and provided oversight based on recommendations
    and analysis from Federal agencies. In consolidating and
    realigning the FAA facilities, that process should be no
    different.
        The FAA should not only engage with Congress but with the
    stakeholders affected. If the FAA identifies facilities that
    are truly not needed, then the FAA should identify those
    facilities, put them in their budget and come here and explain
    to the Congress where the facilities are located and why they
    should be consolidated or closed.
        In our reauthorization bill that passed the Full Committee
    and is on its way to the Floor of the House, we created an open
    continuous and defined process, something which the FAA should
    have done from the start. Contrary to statements that may be
    made here today, the bill does not--and I repeat--the bill does
    not impose a moratorium.
        Instead, our bill allows affected stakeholders to work
    together with the FAA to develop criteria and make
    recommendations that will be submitted to the Congress and
    published in the Federal Register for proper review and
    oversight. Any objections or changes made to those
    recommendations must again be submitted to the Congress.
    Congress does not relinquish its role but instead can provide
    thorough review, oversight and input.
        With that, at this time, I welcome our witnesses here today
    and look forward to hearing their testimony.
        Before I recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Petri, for his
    opening statement, I ask unanimous consent to allow for two
    weeks for all Members to revise and extend their remarks and to
    permit the submission of additional statements and materials by
    Members and witnesses. Without objection, so ordered.
        At this time, the Chair recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr.
    Petri, for his opening statement.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        We are meeting to discuss the current condition of our
    Nation's air traffic control facilities and equipment.
        While the FAA is ultimately responsible for the upkeep of
    its facilities, it is not alone in the responsibility for the
    current condition. Over the past years, Congress has authorized
    funding for the FAA to maintain and improved their facilities,
    yet it has continually been under-appropriated and earmarked by
    Congress. By the time the money reaches the FAA, the Agency
    ofttimes does not have the adequate discretion it needs on how
    to spend it.
        The FAA has over 400 air traffic control facilities for
    which they are partly or wholly responsible for maintenance.
        Clearly, no one here today is in denial that FAA tower
    facilities are in need of constant upkeep and repair. In fact,
    there are some that actually need immediate attention. However,
    their average facility condition level as determined by the
    scorekeeper, the General Services Administration, is 93.2
    percent which earns a fair condition rating under the GSA's
    scorecard.
        For comparison purposes, many other Government facilities
    earn lower grades. According to the GSA, the FAA headquarters
    building itself, where two of our witnesses are located, has a
    rating not of 93.2 percent as the average facility condition
    level but rather of 76 percent. The average Government family
    housing earns a rating of roughly 77 percent, and the average
    Federal office space has a rating of roughly 63 percent, fully
    a third lower than the facility rating for the average air
    traffic control facilities.
        These numbers demonstrate that less than desirable facility
    conditions are not FAA-specific. Rather, they are government-
    wide, and we have a bigger problem than just this one.
        According to the FAA, it receives a $100 million to $150
    million annually for replacement costs. While it sounds like an
    ample amount of money, I understand that it is only enough
    funding to complete just one-third of the replacements every 10
    years. At this rate, a facility commissioned in 2006 would not
    be replaced until 2093, 87 years later.
        Even if the FAA received $200 million a year, double what
    it is currently receiving for maintenance, the replacement
    schedule would still take more than 40 years per facility.
        In an environment where resources are scarce, integrated
    planning and budgeting are needed, and so I am looking forward
    to hearing about FAA's plans going forward.
        The fact remains that FAA's maintenance backlog for
    terminal facilities is not declining. Rather, it is growing. In
    2006, it was $124 million, and it will reach $182 million
    backlogged by 2020.
        The FAA needs the authorized funding levels made available
    to it and more in the future. It is unrealistic to think that
    the FAA can keep all of its facilities in excellent condition
    if they are not provided the money to do it.
        Perhaps the most important factor in the state of our air
    traffic control facilities is the relation to the modernization
    effort. As we progress into the NextGen system, it will be
    vital that we update our facilities and keep them in the best
    possible condition and continue to update them with a mindful
    eye toward future needs. We cannot put our brand new and costly
    systems into buildings that are simply unfit to house them.
    Delaying the replacement and renovation of our air traffic
    control facilities will delay NextGen's implementation, and we
    all know that that is a cost that the Nation and the traveling
    public cannot afford.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and yield back any
    time remaining.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the Ranking Member and now
    recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Lampson.
        Mr. Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be quite
    brief. I do appreciate you all holding this hearing.
        The fact that we have such a significant need for
    maintenance in our Nation's air traffic control system and
    facilities is obviously critical.
        I have been fighting these battles with TRACON for a number
    of years in southeast Texas and was opposed to much of the
    consolidation that has been going on. We have lost one facility
    in one of the districts that I represented at one time and now
    in another district. I think that there is continuing aging and
    disrepair of any of these facilities in the area where there is
    such significant growth.
        The Hobby Airport which is in my district, Houston Hobby
    Airport, and the Bush Intercontinental Airport which is nearby,
    is the eighth largest passenger airport in terms of enplaned
    passengers, and they are showing a 67 percent increase of the
    past 10 years. Considering the vast amount of traffic at these
    airports, we truly have to make certain that every piece of
    equipment used to control these airplanes is maintained and in
    working order at all times.
        Again, part of the reason why I opposed that consolidation
    is we have to take the responsibility to make sure that the
    equipment is working and that our passengers who are flying are
    safe.
        I appreciate your holding the hearing, Mr. Chairman, and
    look forward to hearing from this distinguished panel.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman from Texas and
    now recognizes the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr.
    Mica.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Costello. I appreciate your
    hosting and conducting this hearing today.
        I think that it is important that the working conditions
    for our air traffic controllers, problems we have experienced,
    are addressed. It has been a concern of mine. The professionals
    that keep our airways safe and all FAA employees should have a
    safe, comfortable and modern equipped workplace.
        However, it is important to recognize that aging physical
    infrastructure is a government-wide problem that we face. The
    problem has accelerated in recent years because most Federal
    buildings were built over 50 years ago and are reaching the end
    of their useful lives. Other Government agencies including the
    State Department, NASA and GSA have maintenance backlogs
    totaling over $16 billion which is $6 billion more than we saw
    in the year 2005.
        I put up a little chart to show you, and this is my chart.
    GSA did a review of FAA's air traffic control facilities, the
    first bar we see there. This is an index of facility
    conditions, and it shows that the average condition on a scale
    I guess to 100 is 93.2 for FAA air traffic control towers. For
    the FAA headquarters, it shows a 76 which is a lot lower in the
    quality of the conditions.
        For hospitals, including our Veterans' hospitals which are
    Government facilities, air traffic control working conditions,
    tower conditions are actually better. If you skip over one to
    family housing which includes our military family housing,
    77.59 percent. Unfortunately, we see a problem.
        Our Committee deals with GSA and government housing in a
    number of areas and government facilities in a number of areas.
    As the authorizing Committee, the Transportation and
    Infrastructure Committee has consistently authorized funding
    levels consistent with the demands of the system.
        Unfortunately, we have seen the funding levels reduced or
    earmarked in the appropriations process. This has made it
    difficult for the FAA to adequately perform the mandates
    sometimes issued by Congress and has created a lengthy backlog
    of repairs and replacement needs. I have a list of appropriator
    earmarks that reprioritize facilities and equipment.
    Replacement earmarked items that were relatively low on the
    FAA's attention list were moved to the top and ahead of higher
    priority facility needs.
        Unfortunately, by Congress' constant meddling with the FAA
    repair priority list, it is no wonder we are having maintenance
    and we hear about some of these repair problems. Equally
    problematic as Congress' overriding repair assessments is
    Congress' interference in FAA's decision regarding airspace
    design and facility management and consolidation or closure.
        Where is today's paper that I gave you earlier?
        Here is a great example: FAA is Targeting Airline Delays.
    This is today's headline. It talks about how the FAA wants to
    deal with this.
        Unfortunately, we see that even today on the House Floor,
    we will have measures that end up trying to close down some of
    the efforts for airspace redesign and we will also, I think,
    see an effort, at least I saw one amendment crafted, to thwart
    some of the consolidation.
        Critical to the success of Next Generation and the day
    solvency of the FAA's facilities and equipment budget is the
    ability to realize the cost savings that consolidation and
    relocation can provide. We can provide new centrally located
    modernly equipped facilities that enable FAA to take advantage
    of new technologies and also take great steps towards the Next
    Generation air traffic control system. It does not make sense
    for FAA to continue to maintain old, obsolete facilities or the
    equipment housed there.
        However, in a fit of parochial politics, again some Members
    are against seeking to put a moratorium on consolidations even
    today. I urge my colleagues to refrain from such actions and
    continue to allow FAA to manage the Agency's resources
    properly.
        It also applies to FAA's attempts, as I said, to redesign
    our Nation's air space system. We have an air space system in
    the northeast that was designed, what, in 1987. Here, today, we
    are going to see another attempt to thwart a long process that
    we have tried to do in bringing in folks from around that
    region to come up with a new air space redesign.
        One way to eliminate this sort of protectionism in dealing
    with the situation that I have proposed is a BRAC-like vote on
    a comprehensive plan for consolidation. I proposed that
    legislation similar to the one proposed by the Administration
    that would establish a realignment and consolidation board and
    a process for aviation experts to recommend to the President
    and Congress how best to align FAA's facilities and personnel
    in a manner that most effectively advances the capabilities of
    our Nation's air system and best serves the traveling public.
        I would like to continue to work with my colleagues in the
    future on that provision. I hope we can adopt something.
        Another option to create efficiencies under a tight Federal
    budget without risking safety is utilizing the private sector
    where and when deemed appropriate. Since 1982, the FAA has been
    contracting out air traffic control jobs to the private sector
    at VFR airports, visual flight rule airports. These airports
    that would not otherwise have a tower have service. Currently,
    235 air traffic control towers are staffed by contract
    controllers, each of whom is certified by the FAA.
        The FAA's contract tower program provides cost effective
    services--these aren't my words--``cost effective services that
    are comparable to the quality and safety of FAA-operated
    towers'' according to then Inspector of the DOT, Ken Mead.
        We found in another study before I became Chair of the
    Subcommittee that validated this and then one that I asked for
    validated these findings that the operational air deviation
    rate at contract towers is 2.5 times better than at similar all
    FAA-operated VFR towers.
        In addition, in that September, 2003 report, the IG
    compared the cost to operate the 12 FAA towers to the cost of
    12 contract private sector operated towers of similar size and
    operations and found that each and every contract tower would
    save about a million dollars in operational costs than the all
    Federal towers. That is an average of $992,000 less per tower
    annually. These savings could be freed up and use the resources
    towards making certain that those facilities and all our
    facilities are in adequate repair.
        I defy anybody here to walk into the halls, in fact, of
    Congress or walk into the halls of any public building,
    government-run public building, and just look at the
    maintenance and the repair and the conditions and then go
    downtown and walk into almost any private sector building. You
    can immediately tell the difference in the repair.
        Finally, I am not sure who does all of the maintenance and
    repair at these facilities, but if they aren't keeping it up,
    they should be fired or if it is a contractor that is doing
    this, a private contractor, their contract should be terminated
    because our facilities, when we are paying taxpayer money to
    keep them up and repaired, they need to be in the best repair.
        I did visit at NAV CANADA--we don't have a witness here
    today--which privatized their entire system which I am not
    advocating, but I saw some of the best working conditions. I
    think we have some photos. You showed leaks and repairs. I
    don't know if we have these, but I have got plenty that I will
    be glad to show you about awesome facilities that the private
    sector provides their air traffic controllers in Canada.
        Our air traffic controllers, our professionals, should have
    no less in facilities, accommodation or working equipment than
    these folks to the north of us.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the Ranking Member and
    recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Salazar.
        Mr. Salazar. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this
    important hearing.
        You know, Mr. Chairman, I find it disturbing that the FAA
    has substantial maintenance backlog for repairs of many of
    their facilities. The current system I think, should be able to
    operate in a reliable manner while providing a safe and
    productive working environment for FAA employees. We simply
    cannot afford to wait on the current system as it deteriorates,
    and I agree that the 401 TRACON facilities need immediate
    detention.
        I have been talking to my constituents back in Pueblo and
    different parts of Colorado, and they also believe that we need
    to focus on the 9,000 smaller buildings and the 13,000 tower
    structures that need attention because that is where the user
    is going to see the biggest impact. It is those 22,000
    structures. In my district, for example, the flying public has
    raised many concerns with the decommissioned VORs, with the ILS
    shutdowns and numerous maintenance issues which directly affect
    the Colorado aviation system.
        Transitioning to NextGen will require significant
    investment by every user in order to save taxpayer dollars to
    maintain legacy equipment. Users will be able to effectively
    budget the investment necessary to have access to the NAS if
    the FAA will clearly articulate and publicize the plan.
        This was not the case when I approached the FAA about the
    concerns I had with a rumored co-location of the Pueblo TRACON.
    It took numerous letters, meetings and phone conversations
    before the FAA reluctantly provided me with rough details about
    their proposed plan.
        The FAA's initial efforts to decommission Nav-Aids and
    consolidate facilities suggest that the Agency is aware of
    current and future budget problems they face, but I firmly
    believe the solution lies in working with the stakeholders
    instead of surprising them with emergencies.
        I don't think it is too much to ask that every state has a
    clear idea of what the FAA plan is to decommission or
    consolidate facilities as a way to modernize the system. The
    key lies in communication. The FAA needs to work with the State
    and users instead of delivering a plan at the end of a long
    process that becomes the only available option.
        I would also like to stress how vital the F&E program is to
    the users of the system in maintaining the existing
    infrastructure. It is critically important to being able to
    successfully move to NextGen.
        I can't emphasize the point enough: When changes need to be
    made, communications with stakeholders is critical.
        I look forward to the testimony today, and I thank the
    panel and the Members for being here.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Costello. Thank you, Mr. Salazar.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina,
    Mr. Hayes.
        Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    holding the hearing today and our witnesses for being here. We
    need to hurry up and get to the witnesses, don't we?
        I think this is a unique opportunity for the FAA and
    NextGen, the controllers, the stakeholders, the users to get
    themselves together. As Mr. Salazar said, communication will be
    critical.
        The FAA has assured me, and I have no reason to disbelieve
    them, that this is a new generation of cooperation,
    coordination and communication between themselves and the
    controllers and other folks. That is a great thing and I am
    convinced that they are going to do that, and I am going to
    enthusiastically encourage them to do that.
        Having said that, Next Generation holds tremendous promise
    for the aviation community, everybody involved. If we do this
    right, it will be the FAA doing something for the aviation
    community instead of the FAA doing something to the community.
    As we move forward with that and making sure that facilities
    are appropriate whether it be combination, and communication
    with the folks who may be affected in a reasonable time to do
    that will assure that.
        So, having said all that, Mr. Costello, I think this again
    is a unique opportunity to bring all the players to the table
    in the right frame of mind and come up with something that at
    the end of the day will be a tremendous improvement and a cost
    savings to everybody concerned.
        I thank you.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes
    the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Poe.
        Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank both of
    you for being here today.
        I represent that area of Texas that has Beaumont, Texas
    with a TRACON, and we border Houston Intercontinental Airport.
        As you know, Mr. Johnson, people are very concerned in
    Beaumont, Texas. I want to thank you at the outset for your
    willingness to come to Texas in August and go into the lion's
    den and explain to folks in Beaumont the FAA's concerns. I
    don't think it will be as vicious as maybe you are expecting,
    but I want to thank you for coming there.
        I am not convinced that fewer TRACONs will be safer or more
    efficient, and I am also not convinced that having more
    airplanes in the air and having fewer TRACONs will be safer. I
    am also concerned about consolidation and whether it is really
    going to save anybody any money. We heard all that with the
    BRAC closings. Now we are learning that maybe some of these
    closings of military bases didn't save the taxpayers any money
    at all include Ellington Field in Houston, Texas.
        As a side note, we have air traffic controllers that are
    getting old, and I am very concerned about the future of that
    profession because I do think it is a profession.
        One other thing, just in my limited experience of being in
    Congress, FAA seems to have a reputation with me and my office
    and other offices, maybe Mr. Salazar's, of not being quite as
    easy to deal with in communication. It is interesting that FAA,
    of all things, cannot seem to communicate very well about what
    their positions. I hope that that reputation does change with
    some action.
        I think one step, Mr. Johnson, is the fact that you are
    willing to come to Texas and state a position to the
    stakeholders down in southeast Texas who are very concerned
    about the loss of that facility in Beaumont.
        So thank you both for being here, and I yield back, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
        Do other Members have opening statements?
        If not, the Chair will go to our first panel of witnesses.
    Let me introduce the witnesses on our first panel: Mr. David
    Johnson who is the Vice President for Terminal Services, Air
    Traffic Organization with the Federal Aviation Administration
    and Mr. Steven Zaidman who is the Vice President of Technical
    Operations Services of the Air Traffic Control Organization
    with the FAA.
        Gentlemen, I would ask you to summarize your statements.
    Your entire statement will be submitted for the record.
        I would like to follow up on Mr. Poe's comment because I
    share his view concerning consolidation of some of the TRACONs,
    I think there has been a lack of communication on the part of
    the FAA communicating not only with Members of Congress but
    also the stakeholders as well to solicit their input.
        That is one of the reasons why in the reauthorization bill,
    the House bill, that we put a mechanism in place that, in fact,
    has the stakeholders involved in the process, solicits their
    opinions, and it is a process if, in fact, it becomes law that
    I believe that everyone, not only the stakeholders but everyone
    who is affected, will have the opportunity for their input.
    That is something that has been lacking.
        Let me also mention that the Ranking Member of the Full
    Committee, Mr. Mica, made a couple of points that I agree with.
    One is that the amendments that will be on the Floor today, one
    dealing with both air space redesign and consolidation of
    facilities, I intend to go to the Floor to oppose both of those
    amendments. There is no question, as the headlines suggested,
    we have a major problem in the New York-Philadelphia-New Jersey
    area, and we should let the FAA move forward with the air space
    redesign and we shouldn't stop the process in my judgment.
        Secondly, with the consolidation of the TRACONs, again
    there is a process that we would like to see in place in the
    base bill, and we need to move forward with that process.
        Finally, before I turn to you, Mr. Johnson, let me say that
    I am concerned. While there is no question we have heard from
    Members in their opening statements that there are Federal
    facilities outside of the FAA that are rated as poor, similar
    to many of the facilities that we will be discussing today, the
    fact is that the Federal Aviation Administration has an
    authorized level of $3 billion per year for the facilities and
    equipment account. The Congress saw fit at the request of the
    FAA to approve an authorization of $3 billion a year.
        I will be interested in hearing from you as to why the
    Administration has requested less than the authorized level
    every year, knowing that many of these facilities need to be
    upgraded.
        Finally, I would be interested in hearing from both of you.
    Everyone wants to see modernization as Mr. Mica and Mr. Hayes
    and everyone has commented on, but we all recognize that it is
    going to be a long process, that it may be as long as 10 years
    before it is implemented. The point that I made in my opening
    statement is that while we are focusing on NextGen and we all
    recognize that we need to move forward and we also know that it
    is going to take 10 years or so in order to get the system up
    and running, we cannot continue to neglect our existing
    facilities.
        So what I would be interested in hearing from you is, one,
    why the Agency has not requested the full authorization level
    every year for the past three years and, two, my concern about
    all of the focus is on NextGen and neglecting the existing
    facilities that we are going to have to operate out of and from
    for the next 10 years.
        With that, Mr. Johnson, you are recognized under the five
    minute rule.

      TESTIMONY OF DAVID B. JOHNSON, VICE PRESIDENT FOR TERMINAL
         SERVICES, AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION, FEDERAL AVIATION
    ADMINISTRATION; STEVEN B. ZAIDMAN, VICE PRESIDENT OF TECHNICAL
    OPERATIONS SERVICES, AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION, FEDERAL AVIATION
                             ADMINISTRATION

        Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Chairman Costello, Congressman
    Petri, Members of the Subcommittee. We are pleased to appear
    before you today to discuss the Federal Aviation
    Administration's efforts to improve aging air traffic control
    facilities and the worker conditions at those facilities.
        Again, my name is Bruce Johnson, and I am the Vice
    President of Terminal Services in the ATO. I am responsible for
    all the towers, TRACONs and radar systems around the Country.
        With me today is Steve Zaidman, the ATO's Vice President of
    Technical Operations, and Steve is responsible for the
    maintenance of the entire National Airspace System.
        As you know, the FAA faces some tough challenges with some
    of our aging facilities. We have hundreds of air traffic
    control facilities around the Country and over 22,000 unmanned
    facilities and structures, and we recognize that we have
    maintenance and repair backlogs at a number of those
    facilities. We are addressing those on a continual basis.
        We also have the challenge of making sure that the FAA will
    be able to reduce air travel delays by continuing on the path
    to a smooth transformation the Next Generation air traffic
    control system or NextGen.
        To achieve these goals, we have developed the multi-tiered
    approaches below. First, we have our sustainment program which
    covers all maintenance and repair work. We also have a
    replacement program where we assess our facilities and replace
    them with new facilities when needed. Last, but by no means
    least, we are continuing our transition to NextGen by updating
    our equipment and technology.
        As our facilities age, we strive to get the most mileage
    out of them. We complete hundreds of maintenance and repair
    projects at our staffed facilities every year. Maintenance and
    repairs impacting worker and operational safety, as always, are
    our first priority. Other high priority needs such as a leaking
    roof or an air conditioner outage during the summer are
    addressed immediately while lower priority needs such as new
    paint and carpet are planned through the normal budget cycle.
        Additionally, we are taking steps to reduce the large
    maintenance and repair backlog. We are continually doing
    building condition assessments for various type facilities to
    determine what repairs are needed and how to budget for them.
        Our transition to NextGen is also helping to address this
    backlog. As we move forward with NextGen, we are developing
    individual facility life cycle plans which will allow us to be
    more proactive in planning which of our facilities move
    forward. Additionally, we have facilities in our system that
    have so many issues that to repair and remediate them
    indefinitely would be financially unsound and, in some cases,
    completely at odds with NextGen.
        A central element of the FAA's transformation into NextGen
    intersects with our work on replacement and consolidation of
    our facilities. Consolidation helps improve safety and
    efficiency by making new technologies available for
    controllers. These savings and improvements mean fewer air
    traffic delays and lower costs.
        The FAA has proven that we can safely and efficiently
    consolidate both air space and facilities. For example, in
    2002, the FAA consolidated the air space that used to be
    managed by five separate facilities in the Baltimore-Washington
    Metropolitan Area into one brand new facility called the
    Potomac Terminal Approach Control. The Baltimore-Washington air
    space consolidation has been extremely successful, saving
    millions of dollars in fuel, reducing carbon emissions,
    reducing noise exposure and reducing delays.
        However, we must note to the Subcommittee that H.R. 2881 as
    currently drafted would impose a moratorium on any FAA
    consolidation plans and prohibit FAA from managing our assets.
    This would halt our transition to NextGen at the time it is
    most needed. Additionally, it would affect numerous FAA
    programs including airport redevelopment and expansion.
        We recognize that consolidation is a highly emotional and
    sensitive issue which is why the Administration proposed a
    process whereby objective recommendations would be made
    regarding which facilities to consolidate. Then public input
    would be considered. Presidential review would be required, and
    ultimately Congressional action would be necessary.
        We believe this approach is the fairest way for FAA to make
    objective, informed decisions about facility consolidation.
    However, we must be able to continue forward with this initial
    group of consolidations while this process is being developed.
        We strongly urge the Subcommittee to reconsider the
    Administration proposal when H.R. 2881 goes to the Floor for
    consideration. We are keenly appreciative of the uncertainty
    and concern change can cause, but it is simply unrealistic to
    expect that a major overhaul of the Nation's air traffic
    control system can result without it.
        FAA's mission is to ensure aviation safety, and we want to
    do that in conjunction with minimizing delays as much as
    possible. As you all know, today's aviation system is operating
    at full capacity, making our transition to NextGen an absolute
    necessity.
        At every phase, we are taking steps to minimize worker
    disruption and ensure smooth transitions. Wherever possible, we
    do not require anyone to relocate. In those cases where
    relocation is unavoidable, workers will be offered a fully paid
    move and notified well in advance of the transition.
        In fact, worker conditions are always a major concern.
    Maintenance and repairs, replacement of facilities and
    transitioning to NextGen are all conducted with worker
    conditions in mind. We have procedures in place to protect
    worker safety as construction projects get underway.
        FAA's transition to NextGen is a lengthy phased process.
    Until we achieve our final goals, we are committed to working
    on remedies available to us, whether that entails further
    maintenance and repairs or replacement of a facility. Our
    multi-tiered approach to maintaining, improving and replacing
    our aging facilities is designed to get us NextGen without any
    compromise in safety and with maximum levels of efficiency.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes our testimony. We will be very
    happy to answer any questions the Subcommittee may have.
        Mr. Costello. Mr. Zaidman, do you have an opening
    statement.
        Mr. Zaidman. No, I don't.
        Mr. Costello. So you have no testimony to present. You are
    here to answer questions?
        Mr. Zaidman. Yes.
        Mr. Costello. You will take the difficult questions, right?
        Mr. Zaidman. Absolutely.
        Mr. Costello. Okay.
        Mr. Johnson, let me ask you. In your FCI, the Facility
    Condition Index, the assessment of the TRACONs and towers, it
    is my understanding that the FAA has only conducted and
    approved the FCI assessments on 89 of the 401 TRACONs and
    towers. Is that correct?
        Mr. Johnson. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Costello. You have really only done an assessment on 89
    of 401, so the vast majority of these TRACONs and towers have
    not been assessed.
        Mr. Johnson. That is correct.
        Mr. Costello. I am wondering are you really in a good
    position to testify before this Subcommittee today or for the
    FAA to come here and talk about these facilities if you have
    only done an assessment on a small portion of that. Would you
    like to comment?
        Mr. Johnson. Absolutely. What we did with the FCI program
    is we took a representative group of facilities which included
    this 89. We took examples from every type of facility that we
    had in the system. So we actually went through the entire list.
    We pulled out these as examples and did the full assessment on
    these 89.
        We will continue to do 12 additional assessments every
    year, and again we will do different types and kinds of
    facilities as we do the assessment.
        We think that the 93.2 percent rating that came out through
    the FCI is pretty indicative of the entire system as it looks
    now. We know that there are going to be outliers on that. But,
    in fact, the cost of these assessments, we felt like the 90
    that we did was a fair assessment without burdening the budget
    to do every facility.
        Mr. Costello. When you say that you will do 12 a year, how
    do you determine which 12? How do you select those facilities?
        Is it based on complaints? What is it based on?
        Mr. Johnson. The planning group that we have will go
    through and, again, make sure that they take facilities from
    every group. It could be, in fact, that some of these are
    indicative of what may have happened during the case and in the
    case we had issues with some of the facilities, then we would
    put those on the list to be assessed.
        Mr. Costello. If there are a number of complaints at a
    particular TRACON or air traffic control tower, you would
    definitely put them on the priority list, is that what you are
    saying, versus a facility where there are no complaints?
        Mr. Johnson. Right. We would want to look at those where we
    knew that we had issues.
        Mr. Costello. Do you have a process for investigating
    complaints from controllers concerning health complaints?
        I think we will hear testimony in the next panel and I have
    read testimony about mold and other conditions and that these
    conditions are causing health problems with employees and with
    controllers. What is the process to make an assessment of a
    controller's health based upon any complaint that may be made?
        Mr. Johnson. Well, there are, of course, always forms that
    are filled out by the controllers if they feel like that there
    was cause to do so, especially in the facility. At that time,
    the facility manager would confer with the tech ops managers,
    and they would look at whatever condition it was that might
    have caused the complaint to be filed or the CA1 or CA2 forms
    that we call them if a controller is seeking medical attention
    or has an issue in facility.
        Mr. Costello. Can you or Mr. Zaidman tell the Subcommittee
    today how many forms have been filled out and filed with the
    Agency from controllers or any employees that have complained
    about health problems that they believe are a result of these
    unsafe and unhealthy conditions in the last year?
        Mr. Johnson. I am sorry. I can get that for you, Mr.
    Chairman, but I don't have that information with me today.
        Mr. Costello. You must have some idea if there has been a
    complaint filed in the last six months. You have to have some
    idea. I don't expect the exact number.
        Mr. Zaidman. I can tell you specific to facilities but not
    a total at this time, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Costello. Can you move your microphone a little closer?
        Mr. Zaidman. Yes. For instance, we have had issues at
    Jacksonville. We have had issues at Dulles Tower, for example,
    and we have had between 5 and 15 controllers fill out this
    form, which is called in our parlance a CA1, indicating some
    health issues as a result of some unsatisfactory conditions in
    the facility.
        Mr. Costello. Walk us through the process. Once the form is
    filled out by a controller or an employee who says that they
    believe that they have a health problem related to the unsafe,
    unhealthy conditions, what is the next step after they fill the
    form out?
        Mr. Zaidman. Yes, and whether or not the form is filled
    out, it is the same process.
        We have trained people called environmental and safety
    officials. They are FAA employees. We bring them in. We do a
    visual inspection often times with the employees. We assess the
    condition. We typically bring in a third party to do air
    samples when required. We mitigate the issue right away to the
    best of our ability, but there is also an underlying issue, a
    structural issue, many times, for why this happens.
        We hire an engineering firm. We do an engineering
    assessment. Depending on the severity of the problem and the
    criticality of the issue, then we enter into what is called a
    corporate work plan to make the permanent repairs.
        Mr. Costello. Mr. Johnson, two questions that I asked
    before your testimony: One, can you tell the Subcommittee why
    the Agency has only submitted a request for $2.5 billion a
    year, much less than the Agency requested the authorization
    level to be at $3 billion?
        The Congress approved a $3 billion authorization every year
    for the last 3 years in order to address these problems for the
    facilities and equipment, but then the Agency only requested
    less than what was authorized.
        Mr. Johnson. I can tell you about the process coming out of
    Terminal. We do our assessment of what we feel our needs are.
    That goes up through our Air Traffic Organization Financial
    Group, and then they work with the ATO Financial Group to come
    up with the request. Sometimes, as you know, the request was
    for more. It goes through the two financial groups and comes
    out at a different number.
        So we make the request based on the amount of money that we
    feel like we would need, say, in Terminal. I can't speak for
    what En-Route or Tech Ops do, which obviously is considerably
    less than the total. I don't know where or know how the cut
    line is made.
        Mr. Costello. By the FAA's own admission, I mean you
    recognize these facilities are old. Some of them are in need of
    repair. You recognize that and everyone admits that.
        It is your responsibility. This is your area of
    responsibility. Are you saying that you agree with the fact
    that you are receiving less than what the Congress has approved
    in order to carry out your duties and responsibilities?
        I am not asking you to answer for the higher-ups as it goes
    through the food chain. I am asking you your responsibility for
    these facilities. Is the $2.5 billion a year adequate or would
    it have been better for the $3 billion to be approved so that
    you could have spent additional money to repair these
    facilities much quicker than what has been done?
        Mr. Johnson. The $2.5 billion is adequate for the amount of
    work that we could get done in any given year to work on the
    facilities.
        Now, again, I don't know. It is hard for me assess what
    comes out of Tech Ops and En-Route, reference the amount of
    money that comes out of Finance.
        Mr. Costello. So your answer is that the $2.5 billion is
    adequate for your needs?
        Mr. Johnson. The 2.5 is the amount of money that we get to
    work with, and we will use that money to the best of our
    ability to make the repairs that are needed in the terminal.
        Mr. Costello. But the additional money certainly would have
    helped.
        Mr. Johnson. Additional money would help, but the money
    that we get is the money that we use every year.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair at this time would recognize the
    Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr. Mica.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you. Just a few questions and I am going to
    have to go down to the Floor to try to protect our turf here in
    a second.
        Mr. Johnson, we have, what, about 400 and some towers total
    in the system?
        Mr. Johnson. Correct.
        Mr. Mica. I have 327 of those that FAA owns, correct?
        Mr. Johnson. Correct.
        Mr. Mica. Now there are also 74 airport-sponsored towers.
    Do they maintain them themselves or does FAA?
        Mr. Johnson. They maintain them to the extent they can.
        Mr. Mica. Were they part of your study or review? Did you
    review any of those?
        Mr. Johnson. Yes, we did.
        Mr. Mica. You did. How were the conditions with those
    compared to the all FAA towers, about the same?
        Mr. Johnson. I would say they were representative from
    across.
        Mr. Mica. We have FAA in charge of, then the responsibility
    for what, about 250 towers, maintaining them?
        Mr. Johnson. Right. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Mica. Is that all done in house or is some of that
    contract, the maintenance?
        Mr. Zaidman. Well, we have a responsibility for
    maintenance, and on occasion we do contract out.
        Mr. Mica. But I mean can you tell me is 90 percent of it
    maintained by FAA and then 10 percent contracted out?
        Mr. Zaidman. The physical plants are virtually all
    maintained by FAA. We do contract out.
        Mr. Mica. Have you looked at contracting that out?
        Mr. Zaidman. No, we haven't.
        Mr. Mica. I will tell you one thing. I was the Chief of
    Staff for Senator Hawkins from 1981 to 1985. I used go to into
    the Federal building in Miami, and every day it was a
    depressing entry.
        In fact, I go into these halls there, the Congress. It is
    depressing. This is like a medieval event where people throw
    their trash out and leave things, garbage in the hall. The
    maintenance is done in house, and it is terrible.
        I will never forget going into the Miami courthouse one day
    in the early eighties. I looked in. You are from Miami.
    Everything glowed. It was clean. The elevator was clean. I
    walked in. I said, what happened? They said, we contracted out
    the maintenance, and we got a firm to do it.
        Now if that maintenance is bad, somebody should be
    responsible. Do you have trouble firing people in FAA that
    don't conduct the maintenance?
        None of our professionals, whether they are in the FAA
    building, which again is not my favorite place to visit for
    viewing modern, well kept buildings, why can't you get a handle
    on that?
        Mr. Zaidman. Let me just say I may be a little biased being
    a Federal employee for most of my life, but I think we have the
    best workforce and I would match it_
        Mr. Mica. The maintenance workforce?
        Mr. Zaidman. I think they are terrific. I think they do a
    wonderful job. I think our challenge_
        Mr. Mica. Well, that is not the report we are hearing here.
        Mr. Zaidman. I think our challenge_
        Mr. Mica. How about repairs?
        Okay, here is Grand Rapids. Was the leak in Grand Rapids?
        Mr. Zaidman. Yes.
        Mr. Mica. What is the story with Grand Rapids?
        Now I am a former developer. Leaks in a roof will drive you
    batty. I have some that just have taken months and sometimes
    years to resolve. Is that problem here or is there a problem
    with the process of getting that repaired in a hurry?
        Mr. Zaidman. We have, like was stated, 22,000 facilities.
    We have issues with less than 1 percent of those. Grand Rapids
    falls under that 1 percent.
        Mr. Mica. I heard that it is still not fixed.
        Mr. Zaidman. It is an ongoing problem. We have just issued_
        Mr. Mica. It is one of these chronic difficulties that
    sometimes we have. Florida is terrible because we get the heat
    and the expansion. It is very difficult to solve some leaks.
        Do you keep a repair list and is it prioritized?
        Mr. Zaidman. Yes, we do.
        Mr. Mica. Do we have that? Does the Committee have a copy?
        Mr. Zaidman. We can get you one.
        Mr. Mica. Okay, I would like to see a copy because I think
    we should know.
        Do you give that to the appropriators or do you just give
    them a total dollar figure?
        Mr. Zaidman. Well, if it is in our budget, we give them the
    individual projects.
        Mr. Mica. I think it would be good for our Committee to
    look at how that is does.
        Mr. Zaidman. Be glad to do it.
        Mr. Mica. Finally, replacement of buildings, you have a
    list of those and the order in which they would be replaced. I
    would imagine that also with TRACONs and others that we are
    looking at consolidation. We would look at where it makes sense
    to replace the buildings with new facilities and new equipment
    and also getting into Next Generation equipment.
        Mr. Zaidman. That is correct, sir.
        Mr. Mica. You have that list and it is all prioritized. Do
    we have a copy? Can we get a copy?
        Mr. Johnson. You should have a copy, but we will make sure
    that you get another copy.
        Mr. Mica. I haven't seen it, but I would like to see that.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Zaidman. Thank you.
        Mr. Costello. Thank you, Mr. Mica.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr.
    Salazar.
        Mr. Salazar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Johnson, does the FAA have a master plan as to how we
    get from where we are today in updating and doing the
    maintenance on these TRACONs and whatever until we get into the
    Next Generation air system?
        Part of the problem is that we are surprised by so many
    things that happen, and many times when we ask FAA what is
    going on, we don't really get an answer. So could you maybe let
    us know if there is a master plan of some kind?
        Mr. Johnson. There is a facility master list that we have
    that, in fact, has rated all 534 facilities. There is no master
    plan per se for replacing those. What we do is up through 2014
    we have a list of, I believe, 33 replacements that we are
    working on right now.
        As we do each and every one of those facilities, as they
    come up for replacement, we look and see what makes sense for
    those facilities around the new facility, whether it makes
    sense to consolidate at that time. So it is kind of an ongoing
    process as we work down the list, what is around there, what
    would fit, what are the operational conditions that would fit
    in the facility, and we try to make good judgments about what
    would make sense to put in there.
        We are always looking ahead to the NextGen. We know we have
    several operating systems in some of the smaller facilities
    that are not going to work with NextGen. So we are looking to
    try to get as many facilities into the STARS or IIIE platforms,
    which are our newer operating systems, because we know that
    will work with NextGen.
        A lot of the time, what we are doing is looking to bring
    those facilities into the newer facilities that have the
    operating system. So it is ongoing.
        Mr. Salazar. Wouldn't it make sense to have some kind of
    master plan that all of us would be familiar with and maybe
    that you could submit to Members of Congress so that we could
    maybe make some comments?
        This picking and choosing just doesn't seem to when you get
    to different facilities when they need repairs or whatever. I
    mean it just seems to me that most business plan ahead for the
    next 10 years or next 5 years to figure out where they are
    going to be at and that way we have a better handle on what the
    costs are going to be.
        Excuse me.
        Mr. Johnson. No. It is a good question.
        Of course, out to 2014, we are pretty solid in what we are
    going to do.
        Now looking at each facility as we do them, what makes
    sense to consolidate, that is ongoing. That is what is
    contained or certainly what we would like to see in the bill,
    that we get a process that looks at, with the constituents,
    with the stakeholders, certainly with you about what makes
    sense, and I think that would fulfill that need as we move
    along.
        It would be very difficult to try to do some sort of entire
    master list because conditions change so often. Airlines change
    hubs. They move around. Things happen in the system. We have
    air space redesign. So we have to have agility and fluidity as
    we look at these plans. But we are trying to, again, as we
    build new, make smart decisions.
        Mr. Salazar. Also, could you explain a little bit about
    your objections to H.R. 2881?
        Mr. Johnson. Well, I think for us, the key is that we need
    to be able to continue to do the consolidations that we have
    already announced that we need to do. The reason for that is
    that we are already in the funding process. So any change or
    stoppage to that would mean that we would have lapsing money in
    next year.
        If we had to stop, if we had a two year hold, we would lose
    about $110 million in lapsing funds out of that. This would
    also mean that any projects around the Country would be held up
    for a couple of years.
        A very good example of how this fits together is the new
    tower going in at Dayton. If we have to put that off at Dayton,
    the current tower at Dayton sits right on the terminal
    building. Well, the airport has plans to tear that terminal
    building down and do modernizations, and they have money
    invested in that. If we can't move our tower off there because
    we can't build new, that puts their plans back two years, so
    the snowball effect.
        We have a lot of projects on the book that if we had to
    stop now in what we were doing, it would delay all of those by
    a couple of years, maybe even up into four years, because we
    would have to do replanning. We would have to make decisions on
    whether we were going to put a TRACON with them or not.
        In cases where we hadn't planned to put in a TRACON, if we
    had to go back, the siting would have to be redone, the
    planning. The entire process would have to be redone. As
    NextGen goes and for what it would do to the system, it would
    be not good.
        Mr. Salazar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Costello. I thank the gentleman.
        Let me clarify a point, Mr. Johnson. You are not testifying
    before the Subcommittee that the reauthorization bill stops the
    process, are you?
        Mr. Johnson. It was my understanding that that was the
    language. You had expressed earlier that was not the language.
    So as long as the language that goes through does not stop us,
    then that is what we would like to see.
        Mr. Costello. For the record, let me clarify the point
    because we spent a great deal of time discussing how we should
    go forward in the reauthorization bill. It does not stop the
    process. It does not rescind the money.
        What it does is it requires the FAA to come up with a plan
    working with stakeholders, and it gives, I believe, a nine
    month period where they have to produce a plan, but it does not
    stop what is ongoing in the process.
        If we wanted to do that, we would not have Mr. Mica and Mr.
    Oberstar on the Floor of the House right now. They will be
    speaking against an amendment that would stop the consolidation
    of a particular TRACON. So it is not the intention of the
    Committee or the legislation to stop the process.
        It is to be more inclusive so that the stakeholders have a
    voice in this, all of the players including the American people
    through both public hearings and through the Federal Register,
    that they have an opportunity as well to voice their concerns
    and to have their opinions heard, but it certainly does not
    stop or rescind the money.
        At this time, the Chair recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr.
    Petri.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you very much.
        I wonder if you could discuss this issue of the adequacy of
    maintenance of facilities from the point of view of the
    traveling public. What concerns, if any, should they have?
        Is it at a point where it affects, in any way, service and
    safety and the timely operation of the system? If it is not,
    what would we need to look for as warning signs or how could it
    affect the traveling public?
        Mr. Johnson. Let me start off, and I will turn it over to
    Mr. Zaidman to finish up.
        In every case, on every day, in every situation, we will
    put safety first. So whether it is something that happens in a
    facility, if we would need to curtail operations, bring
    operations back, we are going to make sure that the system
    stays safe. Now, hopefully, anything that would happen would be
    a quick fix.
        We have examples in the past where the actions that we
    took, we thought were the best actions, and it turned out after
    reviewing that, we could have done better. We certainly
    publicly acknowledge that and we learn from those and we are
    going to get better. Hopefully, we won't have very many
    occasions to get better, but history would tell us that is
    different.
        In every case, Congressman, we are going to make sure that
    we keep the system safe. The traveling public needs to know
    every time they get on an airplane that they are going to be in
    a very, very safe system, in fact, the safest system in the
    world.
        Mr. Petri. As you know, we are very interested in the
    improvement of the system. It is called NextGen, the whole new
    technology that people are deploying around the world and we
    are hoping will be deployed in the United States.
        How does this issue of facility maintenance affect, if it
    does at all, our ability to move forward as rapidly as possible
    with the new technology and moving to the new system?
        Mr. Johnson. Well, I think the key in that is that as we
    look and as we build new facilities and as we have new
    operating systems in the field. The reason we have so many
    facilities, the large number that we have, is when we put in a
    radar system, we had to put in a TRACON. So it was one for one.
    You put in a radar. You had to have a TRACON to receive it
    because one operating system would only take one radar system
        Now with STARS and the ARTS IIIE system, we can take 16
    feeds in there. We now have the ability to do consolidations
    and co-locations. That is why we want to make sure as we build
    new facilities, and we are able as NextGen starts to come
    online. We want to have as many facilities as we can on an
    operating platform, either the STARS or the ARTS-IIIE so that
    it can hook into NextGen and we can utilize that tremendous
    technology that is coming.
        Certainly, with ADS-B, which will allow us one second
    updates and will allow us to decrease the separation standard,
    that is going to be huge for capacity. We want to make sure
    that we are ready on the facility side. We want to make sure
    that as we need to do air space redesign, that the facilities
    are ready to do that. That is a huge part of consolidation.
        It is looking at facilities where we can actually start to
    erase lines between facilities. Having one operating platform
    means that we don't necessarily have to go from five miles down
    to three miles just because we crossed an imaginary line in
    space from an en-route facility to a terminal.
        So being able to consolidate facilities, we can start to
    rub out those lines. We can move three miles all over the
    system. That is going to be huge for capacity, for reducing
    delays, for increasing the safety in the system with one second
    update. We want to have as many facilities ready for that as we
    can as we move forward.
        Mr. Petri. One last question: I know it is true in our
    family life, and I am sure it is true in business. If you are
    going to be making some changes in the next few years, the
    amount you are willing to do in serious restructuring or long
    term maintenance might go down.
        Is there an impact on maintenance of facilities from the
    prospect of this whole new system which may require a different
    array of facilities and so on? Is that affecting long term
    maintenance and so on of the facilities or not?
        Mr. Johnson. Steve can probably add to this.
        It is really almost mutually exclusive in that we can use
    our present facilities as long as they have the operating
    system that will merge with the NextGen technology. We know
    that as we more forward we are going to have this legacy system
    out there that we have to make sure stays in good working
    condition, and that is where we will be using our sustain and
    our modernization money as we forward.
        Hopefully, we will have this two-tiered effect going on
    where we will be building new. We will be bringing facilities
    together into common operating platforms, and then, again, we
    will be doing the rebuilds with the new facilities.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the Ranking Member and now
    recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Hall.
        Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member
    and thank you to both of our illustrious witnesses.
        I just wanted to make a point. First of all, if I
    understand the numbers correctly, Mr. Johnson, your concern
    about losing $110 million due to H.R. 2881 could be looked at
    in light of the fact that the FAA has chosen not to request the
    full $3 billion that was authorized and chose to instead only
    ask for $2.5 billion. There is actually $500 million available
    to help out at any time should you feel yourself $100 million
    short.
        But I wanted to ask in particular about the New York TRACON
    and Washington Dulles towers which were evacuated recently due
    to high levels of carbon monoxide. Similar incidents have taken
    place in Jacksonville, San Jose and elsewhere.
        But being from New York, I am particularly aware of and
    concerned about the fact that at the New York TRACON, the
    operations manager would not allow the controllers to leave the
    room or permit first responders to enter despite the fact that
    several controllers were exhibiting symptoms of carbon monoxide
    poisoning. Some of the controllers needed to be taken to the
    hospital for treatment.
        I guess the questions are: What are the early symptoms of
    carbon monoxide poisoning before one becomes unconscious and
    would they affect the ability to take proper actions as air
    traffic controller?
        Is this consistent with your written and oral testimony
    that worker conditions are always a major concern?
        Mr. Johnson. Sir, I don't have an answer to your first
    question on what would be the symptoms, and I wasn't there
    during the event.
        I can tell you that during a review of especially the New
    York incident, we had some real good lessons learned there. I
    think having 20-20 hindsight, we certainly would have gone back
    and let the first responders in so that they could have taken
    immediate readings in the control room. In fact, we have put
    out guidance in the system that we make sure that we do that.
        The example at Dulles, as soon as we had the gentleman that
    was using the saw down at the base of the tower, by the way,
    which was not coordinated through Tech Ops or any of our folks,
    the first thing that they did was call the first responders to
    come in and take a reading. So we were happy about that. We are
    never happy when we have an incident or an issue.
        I really don't have much to add to your statement other
    than I will certainly take your statement. There are a lot of
    different versions of the story, what happened at New York. We
    are certainly concerned any time we have an employee who think
    that they are unable to continue.
        I would certainly be happy to talk to you later about any
    or all of those issues. I would just say that we did learn from
    them, and our commitment is that we are going to try to do
    better each and every time.
        Mr. Hall. Thank you. I appreciate that.
        I am also curious if the manager's decision-making process
    in New York to keep the staff in the tower and on the job was
    influenced in any way by lack of adequate backup staffing or
    staff capacity to cope with the temporary loss of operational
    personnel.
        Mr. Johnson. I don't. Certainly, the information that we
    got in the aftermath, that did not occur. In fact, we were told
    that people were offered breaks and in fact took breaks. Again,
    not being there, I can only offer you third party information
    that I had.
        Mr. Hall. I appreciate that.
        Just one more question about an incident at Wilkes-Barre at
    the tower, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, which was reported under
    Chapter 5, Section 1, Paragraph 74 of FAA Order 6930.25
    Maintenance of Structures and Buildings concerning the
    degeneration or deterioration of the tower, wind vibrations
    causing fatigue and members' loose bolts and nuts, cracked
    members and welds, chafing of attached components, et cetera.
        You are probably familiar with this report.
        Members may deform under loads of ice and snow. Repairs
    that cannot be made immediately will be scheduled for priority
    action.
        Given this last statement in the above FAA order, can you
    explain why for over 10 years this structure at Wilkes-Barre
    has still not be corrected?
        Mr. Zaidman. I will take that one.
        We did have some safety issues at Wilkes-Barre. We fixed
    them some 18 months ago. It is not a permanent solution. One of
    the challenges that we have is finding new real estate to
    relocate the tower on. We need to rebuild it and find some
    place to put it on.
        So, for the meantime, we are making repairs. We have made
    them. We are monitoring it, and are looking for real estate to
    relocate and build a new one.
        Mr. Hall. Thank you, both of you. I just once again remind
    you that there is money available from Congress to deal with
    these things in a more timely fashion.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes
    the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Hayes.
        Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Gentlemen, one quick question, what independence and
    autonomy does an individual supervisor have at a facility when
    he has got a maintenance problem?
        How much independence does he have to advocate to his upper
    management, we have a problem, we need to get it fixed?
        Mr. Johnson. Well, I know on the Operations side, they
    would immediately get in touch with the Tech Ops folks, report
    the problem and hopefully, typically, in a facility, get very
    quick results.
        I would just like to add to what Mr. Zaidman said earlier.
    From a technician side, I think we have one of the finest
    workforces on the Tech Ops side that I have ever seen,
    certainly demonstrating almost heroic efforts and achievements
    after Katrina to put the system back together.
        Mr. Zaidman. I will just add to that. What we have done is
    we decentralized our internal budget. We don't have a
    bureaucratic chain. If essential repairs are needed, it keeps
    on going up to my level. We have subdivided into districts. We
    have 46 districts.
        We give people the money, and we say, if you have a
    priority, you fix it. You don't have to come to Washington to
    get permission.
        Mr. Hayes. I appreciate that.
        I think it is obvious to everyone the high level of
    interest in this Committee in safe, reliable working conditions
    and some of these issues. If you stop the leak, then the
    maintenance staff can take over before the tech staff has to
    come in.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
    North Carolina, Mr. Coble.
        Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Good to have you all with us.
        Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I was talking to a couple
    constituents back in my district recently, and one constituent
    admitted he had never flown. He said, I have great fear of
    flying. The second constituent admitted he flies frequently. He
    says, my main regret is having to go through an airport to get
    on the plane.
        Airports are becoming more and more unpopular, and I am not
    blaming you all for that. I think it is just the era in which
    we live.
        I think you may have touched on this in response to Mr.
    Petri's question, Mr. Johnson, but I assume that special
    consideration is extended for maintenance and/or improvements
    which are deemed necessary from a flight safety perspective. Is
    that correct?
        Mr. Johnson. In every instance, certainly if it has a
    safety aspect to it, it rises to the top of the list. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Coble. I am encouraged to hear that because I think
    safety should never be compromised.
        Let me ask you this. Regarding sponsor/airport-owned
    facilities staffed with FAA controllers, how do you go about
    addressing the facility maintenance and construction under this
    scenario?
        I guess my specific question is who is responsible for
    funding maintenance and construction?
        Mr. Zaidman. Within FAA, we have three directorates, if you
    will. One is Mr. Johnson's, that is responsible for coming up
    with the budget requirements and the architectural studies for
    terminal facilities.
        We have a different vice president, Mr. Day, who does the
    20 en-route air traffic control centers, and I do the remaining
    work for that. Within my area, I am responsible for the
    construction of facilities.
        The other vice presidents that I alluded to are responsible
    for setting the priorities, the requirements, and getting the
    budget to do that.
        Mr. Coble. I got you.
        Mr. Johnson, you touched on consolidation earlier. Let me
    put a three-pronged question to you.
        Does the FAA terminate employees as a result of
    consolidation, a; b, how does the Agency look after its
    employees as the Agency moves forward toward efficient facility
    management; and finally, if you continue to consolidate will
    some employees be terminated?
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
        No, on the termination question. We need every air traffic
    controller that we have in the system right now, so we would
    not do anything that knowingly would cause us to lose air
    traffic controllers.
        When we do consolidations, we give longtime lead notice.
    There is coordination with the union on what is going to
    happen. We pay full PCS moves, which is permanent change of
    station, as you know, when we move the employees.
        Usually, during the lead time, some of the employees may
    bid on other positions to go to other places. Typically, on
    consolidations, if we are just moving the TRACON, the tower
    facility will stay. So some of the employees may decide to
    remain at the tower and work in the tower only. Some of the
    employees may decide to go to the consolidated facility and
    work in the TRACON.
        Mr. Coble. I got you.
        Mr. Johnson. There is no difference. In fact, we are
    actually going to add controllers to the system from where we
    are now.
        Mr. Coble. I thank you, sir.
        Mr. Chairman, I want you to take note that I am yielding
    back my time before the red light appears.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman and would ask
    other Members to consider doing the same.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr.
    Cohen.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Johnson, I don't know if it would be you or your fellow
    there, but I believe it would be you.
        The numbers reviewed by our T&I Committee staff show the
    backlog of building maintenance repairs somewhere between 250
    and 350 million dollars. FAA appears to be spending less than
    $60 million making those repairs. Why have we not requested or
    you not requested more money from Congress to make those
    necessary repairs?
        Mr. Zaidman. Yes, thank you for the question.
        Well, back to the budget, we request what we need in terms
    of the F&E program. That was stated before. I am sure you aware
    that we have requirements on the Operations side as well, and
    so what we have to do is balance our day to day Operations
    budget, which does include the day to day maintenance and
    repair. It doesn't come out of the F&E account, which handles
    major capital construction projects.
        So we look at both of these and try to balance the need for
    ongoing maintenance and emergency repairs with the need for new
    construction of major facilities, which comes out of a
    different account. We put that together and go back to the
    Congress with our request which includes both the Operations
    side and the capital side.
        Then, obviously, the third part of the budget is the grants
    program which is the Airport Improvement Development program,
    which also comes out of our budget.
        Mr. Cohen. I understand that, sir. Do you think that 50 to
    60 million dollars is inadequate to maintain the facilities
    that we have?
        Mr. Zaidman. No. No. We need. Obviously, with 22,000
    structures and buildings, we can only touch a portion of those
    each year, and we prioritize them.
        Mr. Cohen. Then why did you not request more monies from
    this Congress in the past?
        Mr. Zaidman. Because we requested what we needed in the
    Operations budget, which handles the critical repair and
    infrastructure repair. That, in turn, competes, if you will,
    against the capital budget. So we are able to come up with a
    total budget amount and present it to you.
        Mr. Cohen. Could you not have requested more?
        I mean at Christmas, I make a list. I used to make a list
    as a kid. I didn't stop with just a bicycle. I went for the
    basketball and the football.
        Mr. Zaidman. Well, internally, we do have our
    deliberations, and that is compared to the rest of the
    Department's needs and the Country's needs. I am sure you are
    more aware of the budget process than we are.
        Mr. Cohen. Do you have any idea how much money we spend in
    Iraq for these types of facilities?
        Mr. Zaidman. Well, I have read in the press what we spend.
        Mr. Cohen. Well, I haven't. Would you help me?
        Mr. Zaidman. I couldn't tell you offhand.
        Mr. Cohen. Do you have a ballpark figure?
        Mr. Zaidman. I focus on aviation.
        Mr. Cohen. But you have read the paper, so help me with
    what you have read.
        Mr. Zaidman. No, I couldn't cite a number today.
        Mr. Cohen. You don't remember.
        Mr. Zaidman. Correct.
        Mr. Cohen. Do you work at the Justice Department? They
    don't remember anything either.
        Mr. Johnson, do you remember or have any idea?
        Mr. Johnson. Restate the question again?
        Mr. Cohen. How much money we are spending as a Government
    in Iraq and Afghanistan, for that matter, on their aviation.
        Mr. Johnson. I do not know what the aviation figure that we
    are spending in Iraq. I know we support them with people that
    we send over there, but I don't know what the infrastructure
    costs?
        Mr. Cohen. How about their infrastructure? Do you think we
    are just operating on Saddam's infrastructure?
        Mr. Johnson. No.
        Mr. Cohen. We destroyed it.
        Mr. Johnson. Right. I think a lot of the radars that we are
    setting up there are radars that we have sent over.
        Mr. Cohen. Can you get us that information?
        Mr. Johnson. I certainly can try, sir.
        Mr. Cohen. It is just, I think, another example of where we
    have inadequate monies here for our security and yet we are
    supplying it over there.
        Let me ask you this. Do you all have any knowledge of what
    the situation is with the Memphis air traffic control, what
    repairs need to be made, what problems there might be?
        Mr. Johnson. I don't. I don't, not in Memphis.
        Mr. Cohen. Are there no problems in Memphis?
        Mr. Johnson. That would probably be on the unsafe side to
    say there are no problems. I am just not sure or aware of any.
        Mr. Cohen. Mr. Zaidman?
        Mr. Zaidman. No, not sitting here offhand. It hasn't come
    to my attention.
        Mr. Cohen. So Memphis is in great shape.
        Mr. Zaidman. Well, I am not saying that, but we could
    certainly look at it. In terms of the priorities that we see on
    a day to day basis, Memphis is in pretty good shape.
        Mr. Cohen. There was a report of a near crash the other
    day. Are you aware of that?
        Mr. Johnson. Not at Memphis, I am not. I am sorry.
        Mr. Cohen. No, it wasn't in Memphis. It was elsewhere. I
    think what I read--I did read that newspaper report--was that
    it might have had something to do with maybe inadequate
    training of the controllers or the inexperience of the
    controllers. Do you remember?
        Mr. Johnson. I don't. I am sorry.
        Mr. Cohen. You are not aware of that.
        Mr. Johnson. I don't know.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield my time.
        Mr. Costello. I thank the gentleman.
        Just a quick question and point. The question is you, Mr.
    Johnson, Mr. Zaidman, you really do not have the final say-so
    in what the level of your budget is for the F&E account, do
    you?
        Mr. Zaidman. No, but we input our priorities, and that is
    correct.
        Mr. Costello. I didn't understand. Can you pull the
    microphone closer?
        Mr. Zaidman. I am sorry. We don't have the final say. We
    are part of the process but not the final decision-maker on
    that.
        Mr. Costello. As part of the process, do you request a
    specific amount for the F&E account?
        Mr. Zaidman. We request it by project. So when you add it
    up, it does come to a specific amount.
        Mr. Costello. Do you recall for the current fiscal year
    what amount you requested within the Agency?
        Mr. Zaidman. No, I don't recall.
        Mr. Costello. Do you have any idea? Do you know what you
    requested or spent the year before, the prior fiscal year?
        Mr. Zaidman. Well, the capital account was about $2.5
    billion. That has been consistent over the past several years.
        Mr. Costello. Do you recall if you ever requested in the
    past 3 years over $2.5 billion?
        Mr. Zaidman. Well, in our total deliberations, and we rank
    the projects, they come above $2.5 billion. So yes, in terms of
    if we were able to do everything that our staffs ask us to do,
    it would exceed $2.5 billion. I don't want to call it a wish
    list but a list of potential projects.
        Mr. Costello. You are telling this Subcommittee that
    internally you received every dollar that you requested from
    within the Agency?
        In other words, you put a request in. This is what we are
    going to need to do everyday maintenance and repair of the
    TRACONs and the air traffic control towers. We need $2.5
    billion and no more, and you got every dollar you requested.
        Mr. Zaidman. We don't get every dollar we request
    internally when we add it up. It would go far beyond.
        Mr. Costello. Mr. Zaidman, that is my whole point.
        Mr. Zaidman. Okay.
        Mr. Costello. I mean the point is whether you requested
    more. This Congress authorized for the last 3 years $3 billion
    each year. The Agency requested $2.5 billion, $500 million less
    than the Congress authorized.
        My question to you is, and I know you do not make the final
    decisions, so we are not here to beat up on you. What we are
    here to point out is that there are needs in the field that are
    not being met.
        My question to you is this. You didn't make the final
    decision, but did you request only $2.5 billion or did you
    request more and somewhere along the line in the Agency or OMB
    or in the White House, they ended up on a figure of 2.5 as
    opposed to what you requested?
        Mr. Zaidman. Well, the Agency requested 2.5, and internally
    it would be higher if we had an unbounded budget process.
        Mr. Costello. I know it would be higher. But my question is
    did you request more than the $2.5 billion?
        Mr. Zaidman. Well, not me, personally. Not me, personally.
        Mr. Costello. Did your Department request it?
        Mr. Zaidman. No.
        Mr. Costello. Let us quit dancing around the issue and
    answer the question.
        Mr. Zaidman. I am trying. Internally, we have a committee
    which spans our Air Traffic Organization. The total
    requirements quoted will exceed $2.5 billion to do all the
    construction and capital projects that we think we need to do.
        Mr. Costello. So, within the Agency, you made an assessment
    and said that we need more than $2.5 billion to meet our needs,
    to address the needs. In the end, you received $2.5 billion.
        Mr. Zaidman. At the staff level, the assessment was higher.
    But let me, if I can, Mr. Chairman. We also have an Operations
    budget. The Operations budget is the budget that addresses the
    maintenance and repair of the system.
        Mr. Costello. I understand.
        Mr. Zaidman. In that, we have adequate money.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair now recognizes at one time a former
    Chairman of this Subcommittee, Mr. Duncan from Tennessee.
        Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
    the great job you are doing as Chairman of this Subcommittee.
        Gentlemen, the testimony you have given so far and the
    answers have, I think, been very informative and helpful. There
    has not been anything yet that has really surprised me or
    shocked me, but there is one thing that I am very curious
    about.
        Every time we have a hearing, we are given very formal
    briefing papers about the hearing, and these are, I am told,
    joint efforts by the staffs on both sides. I am sure that most
    of this information in here originally came from the FAA, but
    it says the thing I am really curious about. It says the FAA
    manages over 22,000 facilities.
        You have an Agency with roughly 45,000 employees. I have
    been in many FAA facilities around the Country or quite a few
    anyway, and there are always many employees there. Now, surely
    this is wrong or there is a few thousand FAA facilities with
    just one employee or maybe thousands of FAA facilities with no
    employees.
        I am just wondering. Surely, you can tell me this is wrong.
        Mr. Zaidman. Well, let me explain what those numbers are.
        Mr. Duncan. Explain it to me.
        Mr. Zaidman. We have about 420, 450 facilities that are
    manned facilities, occupied by air traffic controllers.
        We have structures that house electronics that are
    unmanned. These put out electronic signals in space for
    navigation, for instance, and they are counted as part of those
    22,000.
        We have radio towers that permit controllers to talk to
    airplanes and vice versa. That is counted as one of these
    22,000.
        Mr. Duncan. I see. So most of those 22,000 are unmanned
    facilities.
        Mr. Zaidman. That is correct, sir.
        Mr. Duncan. Have you done any estimates of what the costs
    of maintaining all these facilities as opposed to consolidation
    of some of these facilities?
        Have there been any preliminary studies or estimates made?
    Do we have any rough guess?
        Mr. Johnson. We can tell you that on average when we build
    a new facility, which could include consolidation, the average
    cost is around $30 million to build a new facility.
        Now we have a high end on that, which is that we will spend
    $90 million for a facility that may be constrained because of
    the siting. The new Phoenix tower TRACON was one of those.
    Because the siting was constrained where it was, we paid quite
    a bit of extra money for blast walls, and the cost of steel
    went up. The cost of concrete went up.
        So even though we try to set that level at what we think we
    are going to spend for a facility, we have noticed over the
    last few years that our costs are rising by about 30 percent.
        From a cost of facility, from a cost of consolidation, I
    don't have a figure for that.
        Mr. Duncan. Do you have any idea how many new facilities
    you need at this time?
        Mr. Johnson. Well, we have 33 on the list. We have around
    78 facilities that are less than 10 years old that we have
    built, that are wonderful facilities that are out there. They
    get around 10 years old, and of course they are starting to
    need maintenance and upkeep.
        Again, we have 33. Some of those are in various stages of
    completion in the system.
        Then the list, the master list where we look at the needs
    of the facilities and when we would replace them on a priority
    order, all 524 facilities are on that list. That is reworked
    periodically when we get new information.
        Mr. Duncan. You don't really have any estimate at this
    point about how much you could save by consolidation?
        Mr. Johnson. Not from a total figure, no, we don't.
        That kind of gets rolled up. Again, as we look at new
    builds and we look at what we are going to bring in, then we
    certainly have a figure for what it didn't cost us, cost
    savings, not to, say, build a TRACON onto a facility, usually
    four to five million dollars just for the structure itself.
    Then you start adding the electronics and the other gear, and
    the cost certainly climbs.
        Yes, we could put very specific figures to that. I couldn't
    give you an exact figure because it depends on the size of the
    facility.
        Mr. Duncan. One last thing I am a little curious about
    since Mr. Coble asked about would any employees be terminated
    and earlier Mr. Mica talked or mentioned about how it is almost
    impossible to terminate an employee. Do you have a rough guess
    as to how many FAA employees are terminated or fired each year?
        Mr. Johnson. I would say it is a very small number. I don't
    have an exact figure, but I would say it is a very small
    number.
        Mr. Duncan. All right. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now
    recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Graves.
        Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. I
    apologize for being late. I had a meeting with on CAFTA.
        But I am very curious. One of the facilities, one of the
    tower facilities in question with the mold issue is the Kansas
    City tower which is actually a fairly new tower. We do have
    some mold issues there.
        I sent a letter to Administrator Blakey with Senator Bond
    about a month ago and hadn't received a response yet. I was
    just curious if that issue is being addressed and hopefully it
    is being addressed quickly. I would like to see that cleaned
    up. I visited the tower about three weeks ago and took a look
    at the problem, and it is definitely there.
        Mr. Zaidman. Yes, sir, it is there. We just issued a
    contract to do an engineering analysis to determine what we
    need to fix. We anticipate issuing a contract award to clean up
    the mold and make repairs this September.
        Mr. Graves. I would like if you would keep me informed of
    that. The biggest thing is I want to make sure it is being
    addressed and being addressed quickly, and if you would please
    keep my office in the loop on how that is progressing and what
    is happening.
        Mr. Zaidman. Be happy to. It is an issue for us.
        Mr. Graves. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
        Let me at this time thank you, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Zaidman,
    for your testimony. At this point, we will dismiss you.
        Again thank you for being here this morning and presenting
    your testimony. We will have our staff follow up with the
    requests that Mr. Mica and others have made. I know that we
    have at least one list in our possession, and we may need to
    get another from you, but we thank you for being here today and
    for presenting your testimony.
        We would ask the second panel, as Mr. Johnson and Mr.
    Zaidman leave the witness table, if you will come forward,
    please.
        I will go ahead and make introductions as you are coming
    forward. In the second panel, we will hear from Mr. Patrick
    Forrey, the President of the National Air Traffic Controllers
    Association; Ms. Patricia Gilbert, Chair of the National
    Legislative Committee for the National Air Traffic Controllers
    Association; and Mr. Tom Brantley, President of the
    Professional Airways Services Specialists, if you will all
    three be seated.
        Mr. Forrey, you are recognized under the five minute rule
    if you are prepared to find the right page and take your time.
    Whenever you are ready, you are recognized under the five
    minute rule.

     TESTIMONY OF PATRICK FORREY, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC
      CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATION; PATRICIA GILBERT, CHAIR, NATIONAL
        LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS
      ASSOCIATION; TOM BRANTLEY, PRESIDENT, PROFESSIONAL AIRWAYS
                     SERVICES SPECIALISTS, AFL-CIO

        Mr. Forrey. Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the
    opportunity to come before your Committee.
        My name is Patrick Forrey. I am the President of the
    National Air Traffic Controllers Association.
        NATCA has been fortunate enough to enjoy a good working
    relationship with the Members of this Committee. As many of you
    know, our organization is the exclusive representative of over
    14,000 aviation safety-related professionals.
        Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Petri, I would like to begin
    by expressing our sincere appreciation to both of you and the
    Members of this Committee for your interest in the conditions
    of the FAA's air traffic control facilities around the Country.
    We are particularly grateful for your willingness to learn
    about the experience of the employees who are working for these
    facilities. NATCA members can help to provide unique
    perspective on the state of the towers, centers and TRACONs
    nationwide.
        NATCA recently conducted a field survey of over 200
    facilities. The survey identified a wide variety of problems
    and needs. Conversely, there are also facilities that did not
    exhibit maintenance challenges. My colleague, Patricia Gilbert,
    who is sitting next to me on my left, will present on that
    survey's findings after my testimony.
        The air traffic control system has made vast strides in
    safety and technology in its short existence. Unfortunately,
    many of the aging air traffic control facilities that house the
    systems and our controller workforce have gone unchanged or
    fallen into disrepair. More importantly, the facility
    maintenance has not kept pace with the weakening controllers'
    ability to operate the largest and most congested air space
    system in the world.
        NATCA believe that with proper maintenance, many of these
    facilities can and should continue to be viable sites for air
    traffic control systems regardless of their age. In that
    respect, we strongly support the enactment of H.R. 2881, the
    FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007, which authorizes critically
    needed funding levels that will enable the FAA to make needed
    repairs and replacement of existing facilities and equipment.
        We commend you, Mr. Chairman, and the Members of your
    Committee for that effort.
        Simply stated, the maintenance and preservation of its
    aging air traffic control facilities has not been a priority
    for the FAA. On many occasions, we have been found FAA
    employees have been forced to work in conditions that are
    unsafe which, in turn, can create unsafe conditions for the
    flying public.
        But just as concerning to us has been the repeated
    mishandling of unhealthy situations by FAA management
    officials. While buildings do get old and sometimes accidents
    happen involving harmful materials and noxious fumes, and by
    the way mostly by contractors, quick and effective management
    actions can mitigate the short and long term damage.
        I have personally brought this to the attention of the FAA
    Administrator in the wake of many controllers still suffering
    debilitating serious health problems after exposure to harmful
    conditions. It is important for any employer to have the trust
    of its employees that they will have a safe working
    environment.
        Exposure to these harmful contaminants has resulted in
    unsafe working conditions in many facilities across the Nation.
    In the Detroit tower, for instance, over 6,000 feet of mold
    contamination, an identical tower to Kansas City, by the way,
    was contaminated with material identified as black mold or
    stachybotrys.
        Despite the obvious confirmation of a hazardous situation,
    the Agency consistently marginalized NATCA's concerns and
    suggestions and would not work collaboratively to solve the
    problem. While the Agency has put resources into remediation of
    the mold problem discovered during a safety inspection in 2004,
    the problem still exists today.
        NATCA has also discovered that nearly half of all
    facilities have some sort of external leaks. Many of these
    leaks are into equipment rooms that jeopardize vital equipment.
    For example, controllers in the Atlanta ARTCC, which is a
    center down in Atlanta, have to guide aircraft while using an
    umbrella to protect them from water cascading into the roof on
    top of the equipment.
        As seen in the video clip earlier at the Grand Rapids
    facility, there really are no words necessary to express what
    is going on there.
        Additionally, significant chemical exposure incidents have
    results in respiratory injury. Three incidents recently at
    major facilities involving failed maintenance projects resulted
    in over a dozen employees being severely sickened.
        On February 28th, a contractor-botched roofing project and
    failed cleanup efforts at Jacksonville TRACON resulted in
    employees having to breath toxic odors. To date, five
    controllers are still out of work and being treated by the Mayo
    Clinic.
        In April, scheduled maintenance at an engine generator in
    the New York TRACON sent diesel exhaust fumes into the
    ventilation system of the building, resulting in a slow leak of
    deadly carbon monoxide gas. Six controllers were affected and
    showed the familiar signs of carbon monoxide poisoning, yet the
    facility's operations manager refused to allow the fire
    department to respond and forced the controllers to remain on
    the job.
        On May 9th at the Dulles air traffic control tower, the FAA
    delayed evacuation of controllers from the tower for 45 minutes
    after noxious fumes from an airport construction project were
    circulated in the tower's ventilation system, sending 5
    employees to the hospital.
        Here is the key in all these instances. The Agency is slow
    to respond to the employees' health concerns, and the Agency
    denied the attempts to work with the FAA to correct the
    problem.
        Talking about facility consolidations, some have made the
    argument that the best way to deal with aging facilities is to
    consolidate them. We disagree. Our position is that the FAA
    must first fulfill its 30 year obligation to meet a specific
    operational need as well as cost reduction before consolidation
    can be considered. Safety of the system, modernization, service
    to the users, the impact on the employees are all
    considerations that need to be considered above and beyond just
    a dollar value that may be saved in consolidations.
        With funding comes responsibility and oversight of the
    proper accounting of taxpayer dollars. NATCA believes that the
    FAA must be held accountable to make better maintenance
    investment of ATC facilities.
        Just this February, the U.S. Department of Transportation
    Inspector General issued an audit announcing in which the FAA
    could not account for $4.7 billion of their September 30th,
    2006 end of year funds regarding for property, plant and
    equipment line items. We find that quite interesting since up
    to this date, the Agency does not spend the amount of funding
    that they have been given, and yet they can't account for 4.7
    billion over the last several years.
        In conclusion, we believe that the FAA must be held
    accountable to make better maintenance investments in ATC
    facilities. These are taxpayer-financed, and the taxpayers'
    investment must be protected.
        We support enactment of 2881, the FAA Reauthorization Act
    of 2007, which authorizes critically needed funding levels for
    the F&E accounts and will enable the FAA to make needed repairs
    and replacements of existing facilities and equipment.
        NATCA strongly supports participation in collaborative
    process with the FAA and the Agency's air traffic control
    programs and initiatives. NATCA also calls on the FAA to
    improve its procedures for dealing with hazardous workplace
    conditions and install carbon monoxide detectors and other
    appropriate monitors in all occupied structures.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you, Mr. Forrey, and
    recognizes Ms. Gilbert.
        Ms. Gilbert. Thank you, Chairman Costello and thank you,
    Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Petri for letting me
    appear before you today.
        My name is Patricia Gilbert. I am an air traffic controller
    at Houston Air Route Traffic Control Center and have been there
    for 19 years. As well as being a full time air traffic
    controller, I serve as NATCA's National Chairperson to the
    Legislative Committee.
        I would like to begin by expressing our deep appreciation
    for your interest in the condition of FAA facilities. The
    condition of the facilities, air traffic facilities, are a
    great concern to NATCA and its members especially in light of
    incidents that have jeopardized the employees' ability to
    perform their job safely.
        For example, unacceptable working conditions came to light
    when controllers became ill after noxious fumes entered work
    areas at a number of FAA facilities. Mr. Forrey touched on how
    the controllers in New York TRACON and Washington Dulles tower
    were recently taken ill when suddenly exposed to carbon
    monoxide. Other employees at facilities in Jacksonville,
    Florida, San Jose, California and Eugene, Oregon, faced a
    similar scenario when unidentified fumes entered their work
    areas as well. In each of these instances, the employees felt
    the Agency response did not correspond with their concerns.
        The FAA has never, to our knowledge until we heard Mr.
    Johnson's testimony, compiled an overall list of environmental,
    equipment, health or safety issues for its 314, and these are
    FAA air traffic facilities. His testimony said they talked to
    and got information from 89.
        Based on that lack of available data and the overwhelming
    volume of specific complaints from individual facilities, NATCA
    decided earlier this year to request individual facility
    reports from its field representatives for compiling into a
    national database. The survey gathered reports from air traffic
    control towers, FAA en-route traffic control centers and FAA
    terminal radar approach controls or TRACONs.
        When reviewing the results of our survey, we looked for any
    issues that potentially presented a safety concern. While
    information for some facilities was not received, over 220
    facilities provided data in varying detail. This nationwide
    field survey identified a wide variety of problems and needs.
        In reviewing the research, we looked for trends as opposed
    to individual and routine maintenance issues. In this regard,
    the most commonly reported problems were mold and other harmful
    contaminants, external links and building ventilation and
    temperature control.
        The FAA's disregard of facility maintenance has resulted in
    harmful contaminants in many of its facilities. Exposures to
    these dangerous contaminants has resulted in unsafe worker
    conditions at facilities across the Nation.
        In the Detroit air traffic control tower, two years ago,
    black toxic mold as well as several other toxic molds were
    found. Chicago O'Hare air traffic control tower had fire
    suppression pipes break and flood various parts of the facility
    in February, and initial NATCA test results show possible mold.
        Kansas City tower recently identified mold in various
    rooms. Contaminated insulation was found below the raised
    flooring which is located directly in front of the air supply
    discharge.
        It is my understanding that FAA's approach to mold
    remediation is exactly the reverse of accepted practice. Their
    current intent is to remove and to treat mold first, then only
    at a later date, address the causes of the mold. Grand Rapids
    has had several environmental issues in the last 10 years
    relating to bacteria contamination, water leaks and possible
    mold contamination.
        The survey also revealed that air traffic control towers
    and radar rooms across the Nation have serious external leaks.
    Many of these leaks are into equipment rooms and jeopardize
    expensive and vital safety equipment. The Chicago Air Route
    Traffic Control Center, located in Aurora, had major leaks over
    the back wall of the building and in the basement. The extent
    of possible mold contamination is unknown at this point.
        Our research has found that in nearly every facility
    survey, the operators and occupants report poor heating and air
    conditioning and air quality. In several air traffic control
    towers, the poor environmental conditions represent potentially
    serious situations not just to the employees but to the flying
    public.
        A notable example is the recurrence of condensation
    accumulating on the window panes of tower cabs in San Juan in
    South Florida causing reducing visibility which in some cases
    can be extreme and unsafe. This picture on the monitor shows
    that due to condensation the San Juan tower cab windows, air
    traffic controllers are sometimes blind without the ability to
    scan the runways or taxiways. In this picture, you can barely
    make out an Airbus crossing in front of the tower.
        The following are some quick facts and statistics about the
    survey. Nearly 100 percent of the facilities responding
    reported declining environmental equipment, safety and/or
    health issues. Most facilities reported overall conditions of
    their facilities as merely fair with 62 reporting their
    condition as poor and an additional 18 reporting their
    condition as dangerous.
        Forty facilities report significant mold issues. Many are
    dealing with toxic mold and its associated health risk with the
    most extreme cases reporting employees already suffering long
    term and permanent injuries from exposure.
        Asbestos in buildings, other abatement issues and dangerous
    releases are still a serious concern at over 30 facilities. New
    York Center, Atlanta Center and Fargo, South Dakota tower,
    among others, are still awaiting years-long promised asbestos
    abatement.
        Seventy-five facilities report water leaks of which at
    least a half a dozen report frequent leaks directly on
    controllers or equipment. Adding to this are serious issues at
    many facilities with fumes leaking into the work areas from jet
    fuel, jet exhaust, insecticides, solvents and generator or
    other engine exhaust. Several facilities report employees still
    unable to return to work due to exposure side effects.
        Over 100 facilities report significant issues with heating
    and cooling, resulting in extreme seasonal temperature
    variations and inconsistent temperatures from area to area.
    Even brand new facilities such as Addison tower in Dallas,
    Texas, which was commissioned in 2006, report temperature
    variations with lows in the fifties and highs over a hundred
    degrees in the operating quarters, resulting in obvious human
    discomfort as well as equipment risk.
        Of these facilities, over 50 report chronic air quality
    issues including cold and flu-like symptoms, respiratory and
    breathing problems, headaches and controllers' routinely
    sickened from lack of ventilation.
        Northern California TRACON has recurring issues with snakes
    in the building during the summer and fall months while St.
    Louis tower deals with the challenge of bats. Both are
    relatively new facilities. Twenty-eight other facilities report
    invasive infestation issues with rats, mice, wasps, termites,
    ants and flies.
        Other issues of concern at numerous facilities including
    poorly placed equipment obstructing the operation or obscuring
    visibility, windows in tower cabs routinely fogging up on the
    inside as you saw with the San Juan tower cab, lead-heavy or
    malodorous or contaminated drinking water, excessive dust or
    other surface contaminants.
        We believe that it is clear that the FAA must be held
    accountable to make better maintenance investments in its air
    traffic control facilities. These are taxpayer-financed, and
    taxpayers' investments must be protected.
        Thank you, Chairman Oberstar, Chairman Costello and Ranking
    Member Petri.
        Mr. Costello. We thank you, Ms. Gilbert.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Brantley.
        Mr. Brantley. Thank you. Chairman Costello, Congressman
    Petri and Chairman Oberstar and Members of the Subcommittee,
    thank you for holding this important hearing today and thank
    you for inviting PASS to testify.
        The Professional Airways Systems Specialists represent more
    than 11,000 FAA employees including those in our Air Traffic
    Organization Technical Operations Unit who install, maintain
    and certify the radar, navigation and communication systems
    making up the National Airspace System.
        For too many years, the FAA has neglected its
    infrastructure, specifically the buildings and facilities that
    accommodate NAS equipment and the employees who operate and
    maintain those systems. The images displayed on the screen
    reveal a disturbing pattern of deteriorating buildings, leaking
    roofs and unstable infrastructure that places employees and
    equipment at risk.
        Technicians in the field have reported many instances in
    which employees fell through rotting floors or fell off
    unstable platforms. In addition, exposure to mold and asbestos
    is a serious issue at numerous facilities that has the
    potential to impact the health of employees for years to come.
    I believe that the examples provided by PASS and NATCA in our
    written testimonies along with the pictures being displayed
    clearly demonstrate the severity and scope of the problem.
        The FAA spent a lot of time over the last several years
    talking about how it is becoming more businesslike and how it
    carefully weighs its decisions regarding how it accomplishes
    its mission like a business. According to FAA leadership,
    modernization and operation of the NAS are now being pursued in
    the same manner as any successful business in the Country would
    follow. That may play well as a sound bite, but it clearly does
    not apply to the FAA's management of its infrastructure.
        Would a successful business allow critical buildings and
    facilities to fall into such disrepair that they are not only a
    threat to the equipment they house and the users who rely on
    that equipment but also a very real threat to the safety of the
    employees who operate and maintain them? No.
        Would a successful business refuse to ask for the resources
    necessary to repair or replace these critical facilities?
    Again, the answer is no.
        Why then would FAA leadership allow these buildings and
    facilities to deteriorate so badly?
        Why would the FAA have a plan for completing inspections at
    its manned facilities that will take another 25 years to
    complete?
        Why would the FAA continue with a modernization plan that
    often includes placing new systems and equipment into
    facilities that are unacceptable for those systems and unsafe
    for the employees who use and maintain them?
        No successful business could be operated in such a
    hazardous way nor would a successful business allow facilities
    considered vital to its mission to exist in such conditions.
    However, I can assure you, as can our technicians in the field,
    that these facilities are critical to safe and efficient air
    travel. The FAA cannot continue to deny the importance of these
    facilities and employees by ignoring the infrastructure
    problems plaguing the NAS.
        The time for rhetoric from FAA leaders has passed. It is
    time for someone, anyone in FAA leadership to step up and deal
    with this crisis before it is too late.
        We have all seen and heard about the recent steam line
    explosion in New York City. I believe the similarities with the
    FAA's infrastructure are striking and frightening. They are
    both considered part of the infrastructure and therefore not
    visible in a public way. When things are not clearly visible to
    the public, there is a reluctance to focus energy or resources
    on them, but following that logic will always lead to disaster,
    as we recently saw in New York.
        I believe the FAA must take the following actions to avoid
    the same type of crippling disaster: The FAA should immediately
    analyze all currently available information regarding its most
    critical infrastructure problems and request the resources to
    fix them.
        The FAA must complete inspections of its manned and
    unmanned facilities within two years. The information gathered
    from these inspections must be factored into the Agency's
    budgeting from now on. It is clear that correcting problems in
    the early stage is more effective and much less costly than
    waiting until a complete failure happens.
        Last, but certainly not least, the FAA must begin to listen
    to the people who are the true experts on the state of the NAS
    and its infrastructure, the employees who operate and maintain
    it.
        Thank you and I look forward to any questions you may have.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you, Mr. Brantley.
        The Chair now recognizes the distinguished Chairman of the
    Full Committee, Chairman Oberstar.
        Mr. Oberstar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
    you and Mr. Petri for your good work in launching this hearing.
    Our Committee investigative staff were digging into the issues.
        I regret not being here at the outset, but I was on the
    Floor, defending Lake Michigan against predations of a similar
    nature by British Petroleum planning to dump toxics into Lake
    Michigan.
        To the rain at Grand Rapids, Michigan, the black mold in
    the Western Pacific tower, mold at Dallas-Fort Worth, O'Hare,
    Kansas City, Detroit, you can add snow in the tower at Duluth,
    Minnesota, snow and flies in the winter. The air traffic
    controllers plugged the holes in the windows to keep the snow
    out, but then they were batting flies that came out of the
    woodwork in the middle of January with zero degrees outside.
        Finally, the FAA came and replaced the windows and
    pronounced the tower in good shape. This is a tower that
    predates the jet age by about 20 years, and they haven't seen
    fit to build a new one.
        It is, to me, just astonishing that we have the entire
    aviation industry, essentially both houses of Congress, the
    FAA, DOT, all focusing on capacity limitations of technology in
    the current system, the need to upgrade technology to NextGen,
    and they are not paying attention to the workplace within which
    this new technology is going to be located and the men and
    women who have to operate that equipment under these appalling
    conditions.
        Our investigative staff has documented the roof leaks, the
    mold, the pest infestation, the poor quality heating,
    ventilation, air condition, asbestos, space limitations,
    unsanitary conditions, broken or damaged office equipment that
    hasn't been replaced or restored. You know if the headquarters
    folk of DOT or FAA had to operate under those conditions, there
    would be a really fast response.
        In fact, even this Committee, here you have the Department
    of Transportation headquarters with such bad and poorly
    functioning heating/air conditioning units that they had mold
    causing illnesses within similar to Legionnaire's disease
    within the building. This Committee, seven, eight years ago
    approved a new structure for DOT costing nearly a billion
    dollars. It didn't take them long to fix that.
        Maybe we should have shaved some of that money off the new
    DOT headquarters and put into the air traffic control
    facilities. We were counting on FAA to be not only good
    stewards of safety in the air but good stewards for the women
    and men who operate the air traffic control system to make sure
    that safety is maintained at its highest level.
        It is a great tribute, Mr. Forrey, Ms. Gilbert and Mr.
    Brantley, to your members that they operate under these
    deplorable conditions. I have been in those towers. I have been
    in the facilities that have the mold, that have the leaks, and
    in the case of Duluth in my district that have the snow coming
    in the windows.
        FAA needs to spend a little more time and pay a good deal
    more attention to the needs of the very system that they are
    trying to operate and to upgrade.
        What do you think is needed, Mr. Forrey, Ms. Gilbert?
        What are your thoughts about what kind of investments and
    what timetable and schedule and what needs to be fixed
    internally within FAA to get their attention, to address these
    problems and to do so in short order?
        Mr. Forrey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I believe probably the biggest thing that they could start
    with doing is to include their employees, the experts on all of
    these things, to what the solution should be.
        Mr. Oberstar. I mean there are no surveys? There are no
    sort of air traffic controller town meetings held with the
    Administrator to hear your concerns?
        Mr. Forrey. Not that I am aware of.
        There are surveys that are put out. I think the last survey
    that the Agency put out, the Employee Attitudes Survey, was
    they ranked, I think, a whole 13 percent of job satisfaction by
    the employees or 9 percent job satisfaction.
        They came out 243 out of 243 as far as employee
    dissatisfaction with their Agency based on a lot of these
    issues, a lot of the things that are going on with the Agency
    today, the state of the facilities, what their conditions they
    work in, the way they are treated by management, the way they
    are left out of the process of any decision-making. All those
    things have a morale so low in the FAA that you can only go up,
    quite frankly.
        Mr. Oberstar. That is deplorable.
        Ms. Gilbert?
        Ms. Gilbert. As far as the Agency, I was a little disturbed
    to hear testimony earlier from the first panel that funds were
    available and they have yet to use those funds to maintain
    their facilities.
        I would say in addition to the collaboration piece, working
    with their employees to improve the working conditions, they
    should also look closer at their workman's comp claims and not
    controvert those as they come into their desks and actually
    look at these people and take them serious instead of what Mr.
    Johnson did in his testimony which is advocate that those
    people had a chance to leave New York TRACON.
        I immediately heard it when I went into my building the
    very next day that those controllers, from FAA management
    perspective, made the whole story up. Forget the story that
    they went into a hospital after the fact and did test positive
    for carbon monoxide in their system.
        So workman's comp claims, I think if they paid attention to
    those, it would help quite a bit as well.
        Mr. Oberstar. What cost will it take, Mr. Brantley? Have
    you done some estimates of annual or recurring costs needed to
    upgrade facilities?
        Mr. Brantley. Mr. Chairman, I think part of the answer is
    that it depends because the way the FAA currently performs the
    maintenance on its infrastructure is they wait until it is
    completely failing, and the cost then is so much higher than it
    would be if you fixed it originally. So the cost should be much
    lower than it will ultimately be.
        I believe the estimates are somewhere between $250 and $350
    million for the current backlog on the manned facilities. The
    other 22,000 that were discussed earlier, I have no idea what
    that cost would be, and consolidation isn't the same kind of a
    panacea for unmanned facilities that some believe it is for the
    manned facilities. Most of these are navigation systems,
    communication systems that have to be there regardless of where
    the TRACON or tower is located.
        They have to begin doing it now, and they have to begin
    doing it right or the problem is going to snowball until it is
    something that is unmanageable.
        Mr. Oberstar. Let me ask your help in preparing for the
    Committee in the next week or so before we hopefully bring the
    FAA Reauthorization Bill to the House Floor. A compilation of
    facilities that you would rank in some order of urgency of need
    of repair and a ballpark cost estimate, get that to us, and let
    us see if there is some way that we can work with that before
    we bring the authorization bill to the House Floor.
        Mr. Brantley. Absolutely. I would be happy to do.
        Mr. Oberstar. I think we ought to do that. We owe it to
    you. The FAA owes it to you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Costello. Thank you, Chairman Oberstar.
        Ms. Gilbert, you mentioned in your testimony that there are
    at least 40 facilities that you are aware of that have reported
    problems with mold.
        We have heard testimony earlier. You heard me ask the
    question of Mr. Johnson from the FAA, how many facilities that
    they actually made an FCI assessment on, and it was the
    Committee's information that 89 of 401 facilities actually had
    been assessed, obviously a very small number.
        My question is if, in fact, you are aware of 40 facilities
    that have mold, do you have a list now? Either NATCA or PASS,
    have you compiled a list based upon the complaints from your
    members, listing those facilities that have mold, that have
    other structural problems or other problems that present unsafe
    or unhealthy conditions?
        Ms. Gilbert. Yes, we do have a list of those facilities,
    and we can provide that to the Committee. Of the facilities
    that we do know of that have, at least 40, and I am saying at
    least 40. There may be more.
        My facility itself has roof leak issues, and so there are
    facilities around the Country. You don't know what kind of
    problems you have when the leaks don't get fixed and the mold
    is allows to get worse in facilities. So we can provide that.
        Mr. Costello. The list that you have, is it prioritized
    starting with the facility that you believe should be addressed
    first based upon the existing conditions?
        Ms. Gilbert. Yes. It is a result of our survey. We can
    gather further data from those that did not respond. We did
    rank them based on the type of issues they had in their
    facilities and the severity of those issues.
        Mr. Costello. I heard in your testimony and I would like
    you to clarify for me that you were somewhat surprised when Mr.
    Johnson talked about some type of list that the FAA has that
    apparently you were not aware of, is that correct?
        Ms. Gilbert. That is correct.
        Mr. Costello. Clarify that for me. You were not aware that
    they have a list at all?
        They obviously had not solicited your opinions, solicited
    information from you or your members. Is that a correct
    statement?
        Ms. Gilbert. That is correct.
        Mr. Costello. Obviously, and I think I pointed out with the
    first panel that Mr. Poe from Texas made the point on the
    TRACON and tower consolidation effort by the FAA, that there
    has been a horrible lack of communication not only with Members
    of Congress and our staff and the Committee but also with the
    stakeholders, with the controllers and with everyone involved
    in the system.
        Obviously, that is a problem with this situation as well,
    that they are not soliciting information from their own
    employees, from members of PASS, members of NATCA and others to
    ask for your help in reporting these problems so that they can
    be addressed.
        Also, I made the point over and over that, of course, Mr.
    Johnson does not have the final say on the FAA's budget, on the
    F&E account, but this Congress approved a $3 billion
    authorization for the F&E account. For the last three years,
    the FAA has requested less than the authorized amount. They
    have requested $2.5 billion versus $3 billion. They have left
    $500 million behind, and that is one of the reasons why in my
    judgment that we have all of these maintenance challenges that
    they are not undertaking.
        The Congress recognized the problem, and the Congress
    authorized the money, but the FAA has not used the money or
    requested the full authorization level.
        I have a question about process. You heard me ask Mr.
    Johnson the process if, in fact, an employee feels that they
    have health problems as a result of the conditions in the tower
    or the facility where they are working. What is the process,
    and he said, well, the employee fills out a form and files the
    form with the Agency.
        One, Mr. Forrey, I would ask you to walk us through the
    process from the employees' perspective, from your members'
    perspective, and I would ask Mr. Brantley to do the same. What
    is the process?
        I will have some other questions when you are finished
    explaining.
        Mr. Forrey. The process is when an employee gets injured on
    the job, it is a workman's comp claim, what they refer to as
    CA1 or a CA2 or an occupational disease meaning long exposure
    to some condition at work.
        In all these cases, the Agency is controverting every
    single claim filed by the employees. They have hired people
    from the Department of Labor that understand workman's comp
    claims and are showing them how to beat them in court or how to
    win them back. It is actually pretty disgusting what they are
    doing in my opinion.
        I have employees right now that the answer to any claim
    that is approved by the Department of Labor, a lot of times the
    answer by the Agency as well, is they have their claim, that is
    their compensation, but yet these people have to go back to
    work sometime.
        I have a couple of people at Detroit that were affected by
    the mold. The one has stachybotrys antibodies in his blood
    system. His brain is deteriorating. There is no way he is ever
    going to be able to go back to work. The Agency fights his
    claim, and now the guy is looking to filing bankruptcy. This is
    the kind of stuff that is going on in the field.
        The employees down at Jacksonville where the contractor let
    the toxic chemicals come through the ceiling, where controllers
    were complaining about the smell. It was making them nauseous,
    and they were having a difficult time concentrating and seeing.
    They got a hard time with the manager there because they don't
    want to interrupt the operation.
        It took five days--five days--for the Agency to do
    something. The result was they brought in some big fans to blow
    air, and then they test the air in front of the big fan and
    say, see, the air is fine in here.
        At Detroit, they won't even test the mold. They won't even
    test it to verify that it is black mold any recent time.
        We offered as a union to supply the money to put air
    scrubbers and to monitor the air when they did these projects
    when they first started, and they refused that. So now they
    spent millions of dollars trying to remediate that building,
    and it has still got mold growing in it.
        That is the kind of fighting that the Agency has been doing
    with us, and I don't understand why. We are there to help them.
    I mean we even offered to pony up to say we will pay for the
    air scrubbers if you don't want to do, and yet we find out that
    they have 500 million that they don't even spend. I don't
    understand that at all.
        Mr. Costello. Mr. Brantley?
        Mr. Brantley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I agree with the process as described by Mr. Forrey of when
    an employee is exposed to something or is injured on the job.
    They fill out the form, and then they begin defending
    themselves for the next several months or years, however long
    it takes to get resolved.
        When it comes to an employee maybe not being injured but
    finding a problem, it is a very similar process. It is a
    different form, but they will fill out a form. They will make
    an entry in a maintenance log for that facility, saying that
    they found whatever the problem is. They will report it to
    their supervisor, and that is where it sits.
        It is kind of ironic that one of the things that we noticed
    first after you announced the hearing was upcoming was the word
    got out to the field that if anyone had any maintenance
    problems, they should get them in so that they could get them
    into the budget. I am sure as soon as any attention blows over,
    that is going to become irrelevant again, but it kind of
    illustrates how the Agency views it. It is a problem when
    someone is paying attention and other than that, there is no
    process to actually resolve them.
        Mr. Costello. Also, the statement that you made about the
    word went out for an assessment certainly goes to the point
    that aggressive oversight by the Congress and by Committees of
    the Congress, in particular in this case, this Committee.
    Aggressive oversight gets results from Federal agencies, and
    the lack of oversight gets no results.
        Mr. Brantley. Yes, sir, and we thank you for that.
        Mr. Costello. Let me ask you. In your judgment, when an
    employee files a workman's comp claim, does it trigger an FCI
    assessment by the FAA?
        In other words, if an employee files a claim, a workman's
    comp claim, if they are either injured or have some type of
    problem, health problem, as a result of working in a particular
    facility, does the FAA come out and make an assessment, Mr.
    Forrey?
        Mr. Forrey. I am not aware of that. I mean that was the
    first I heard of this FCI assessment today anyway. I had no
    idea they were doing that. I would not know if that triggers
    anything in their mind.
        Mr. Costello. So you had no idea before the testimony today
    that there was an FCI assessment that even existed?
        Mr. Forrey. No, I wasn't aware of it.
        Mr. Costello. Ms. Gilbert?
        Ms. Gilbert. No, I was not aware of that.
        Mr. Costello. Mr. Brantley?
        Mr. Brantley. I was made aware in the last week in
    preparing for the hearing, but no, to my knowledge, it doesn't
    trigger any kind of analysis.
        Something, if I might add, our internal experts have told
    us that they believe the FCI assessments are maybe not being
    done as well as they should be or as thoroughly either, that it
    may be more of a checklist that someone is going through and
    not actually doing an analysis to figure out where problems
    are.
        Mr. Costello. Final question and then I will turn to the
    Ranking Member of the Subcommittee.
        You have indicated in your testimony, Mr. Forrey, and I
    think you as well, Mr. Brantley, that some of these conditions,
    you believe are in violation of OSHA standards. So my question
    is have either you on behalf of your members or any of your
    members filed a complaint with OSHA and asked OSHA to come out
    and make inspections to determine if there are violations?
        Mr. Forrey. Yes, we have in several locations, and OSHA has
    come out in several locations and filed a complaint or a notice
    to the Agency that they need to fix a certain situation
    ongoing.
        Then there is some gray area as to what OSHA requires under
    like remediation for mold and what the industry standard
    requires. So we play games back and forth about that instead of
    just doing what is right for the employees, and that is
    unfortunate as well.
        Yes, we have gotten OSHA involved in many of these
    situations.
        Mr. Costello. Mr. Brantley?
        Mr. Brantley. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we have also done that.
    When it involves a situation where employees are or there is an
    immediate threat that they will be in some way injured or their
    health will be at risk, we have had good luck with OSHA being
    willing to come.
        One of the things we find is if it is just a potential
    risk, OSHA is very reluctant to even come do an inspection.
    They have their marching orders too, and I think as much as
    possible they are told to leave the Federal Government alone
    unless they have to do something.
        Mr. Costello. Well, in addition to Chairman Oberstar's
    request of providing a list to us of facilities that have
    problems, I would ask you to provide a separate list of those
    that you believe are in violation of OSHA standards.
        Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Chairman, if I may interrupt for just a
    moment if the Chairman would yield.
        Mr. Costello. Yes, please.
        Mr. Oberstar. I find it astonishing that FAA is hiding
    behind the excuse: We need to modernize to NextGen our air
    traffic control facilities. Therefore, we can't improve these
    facilities.
        The comment, in fact, by an FAA witness was that our
    transition to NextGen would be at risk. The result would be
    aviation gridlock. They are not going to have NextGen in place
    for 10 years. Meanwhile, they are going to ask all these air
    traffic controllers to suffer in the mold and the insects and
    the disease visited upon them by these wretched facilities.
    That is appalling. We have to fix that.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now
    recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr. Petri, for any questions or
    comment.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you very much and thank you for your
    testimony here today.
        I guess I am kind of sitting here, thinking about what we
    can do to improve the situation going forward. It is easy. It
    is not easy, but it is important to point out problems and it
    is frustrating.
        We have very talented, dedicated, able people who are air
    traffic controllers with a lot of responsibility. I met with
    the Association of the Supervisors, and they are gung-ho and
    hard-focused people as well.
        There must be some way we can do a better job of involving
    people in coming up with solutions for managing the environment
    that they are working in properly. It is not just money. In
    fact, there might be ways of saving money if it is done with
    better communication and more involvement.
        One of the frustrations in any of these large organizations
    is that you fill something out and nothing happens. If there is
    better communication and there is some way of solving a
    problem, it helps morale and the glass is then half full
    instead of half empty.
        I don't know if there are ways we can be helpful at all,
    and this hearing may help some, not in a gotcha exactly, but it
    focuses on a problem. We need to focus on areas of making the
    job more satisfying and making the environment better and
    making sure we helping morale. That helps safety in the long
    run if people feel that they have respect and if they have a
    problem.
        We can all be wrong, too. In some areas, it may be that
    there is a reason why things are the way they are.
        I don't know if you have any comments on that, but if there
    are some things because we are working on a reauthorization
    now. It can be put in a political context, but this has been
    going on for many years in one Administration or another. It is
    sort of a bureaucratic organizational problem.
        I know you are new, so you would like to try to help, I
    suspect. If there are some ways that we can be constructive
    going forward, I would be eager to work with you on it.
        Mr. Forrey. Thank you, Mr. Petri. I may be new in this
    position, but I have been involved with the FAA for almost 23
    years now and as a representative of the union for almost 19.
        I think up to a few years ago, we worked quite well
    together between the Agency and the unions as far as
    collaboratively to make things better and looking into the
    future.
        I don't know what the rationale behind the Agency is that
    they don't want to spend money appropriated to them or
    authorized for them to spend on their maintenance of the
    system. I mean I am somewhat cynical after working for the
    Agency and dealing with them for the last 23 years, that if
    they let these buildings go into disrepair, it is much easier
    to consolidate. That is, I think, some of the motivation here,
    to be honest with you.
        Again, we are not opposed to consolidations. This is the
    21st Century. We need to think ahead to the Next Generation of
    the air traffic control system which right now is nothing more
    than a concept anyway. To do that together is the best way to
    do that.
        But we can't forget the here and now. I mean we still have
    314 facilities across this Country that are providing safety
    services to the public, and we need to make sure that the
    people operating those facilities can do the jobs that they
    were hired to do and trained to do.
        Collaboratively, I think you guys touched on it in H.R.
    2881 as far as the process for consolidations. The whole deal
    with air space, the whole deal with modernizing the system,
    they need to bring the experts into this process and right now
    we are not in this process. We have been shut out of this
    process.
        Until that changes and you, by this Congress, can change
    that, it would be the best thing to do to get us moving in the
    right direction.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the Ranking Member.
        The final question that I have before I go back to the
    Chairman of the Full Committee, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Forrey and
    Mr. Brantley, in particular, you are aware of the process that
    we have set up in the FAA reauthorization bill for the
    consolidation of the TRACONs and towers.
        My question is that, obviously, what we attempted to do is
    to bring the stakeholders, to get everyone's opinion, to have a
    process where obviously one of the problems here with the
    unsafe and unhealthy working conditions is that the FAA is not
    talking to or listening to the employees who have to work in
    these facilities every day. With the consolidation and closing
    of TRACONs and towers, we want to make certain that the
    stakeholders are involved, that the people who work in those
    facilities every day have input as to what should happen as far
    as consolidation is concerned.
        The question that I have, you have had an opportunity to
    review the language in the legislation that passed the Full
    Committee and hopefully is on its way to the House. I wonder if
    you might comment on the process that we have established in
    the bill.
        Mr. Forrey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I have. I think that the language in the current bill is
    very good language. I think it could be tightened up quite a
    bit.
        Again, it is my cynicism of dealing with the Agency over
    the last several years. They want to continue forward with the
    consolidations that they have on the table right now, but they
    have not evaluated whether that is a safety issue, whether
    service to the users, and they want to just barrel ahead
    because that is the way they have done things.
        That would be my only, for lack of a better word, criticism
    of the bill is it still gives them the ability to forge ahead
    even though they are listening to us. They are listening, but
    that doesn't mean they are going to take anything into account
    that we say.
        So I think that would be helpful, something in the language
    of the bill that would tighten that up a bit, that would at
    least force the Agency to adopt some of these issues that these
    user groups are coming up with that meet within obviously the
    budget and the admission of the Agency. I mean that is all I
    can say on that.
        Mr. Costello. In the process, of course, as I mentioned in
    my opening statement, the Congress has the last say.
        Mr. Brantley?
        Mr. Brantley. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I think the language is extremely good and helpful because
    I don't see it stopping anything. What I do see is it requiring
    good decisions made for the right reasons and done in the light
    of day, and I think that is always much better than just doing
    something and making everyone come along, whether it is a good
    idea or not. I think it is something that could help the Agency
    consolidate where it makes sense--when it makes sense.
        If I might, if I could beg your indulgence for a moment,
    something just struck me that I would like to respond to from a
    couple of remarks earlier about the idea of the maintenance
    either not being done properly or even there was a comment that
    maybe it is too hard to fire people if they can't do their
    jobs.
        The reality is when we are talking about people responsible
    for the maintenance of these facilities, there is no one left
    to fire. That workforce has been reduced so much that they
    don't send them out to do maintenance. The bulk of their time
    is spent on new construction, new installation. There is just,
    frankly, no one left to do the work.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
        I understand that Mr. Boozman may have a question.
        Mr. Boozman. I just have a question, a couple questions,
    Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Costello. The gentleman is recognized.
        Mr. Boozman. Thank you very much.
        I guess the question I would have is that these things, I
    know you have had some challenges working with the
    Administration the last few years or whatever as you alluded
    to, Mr. Forrey. These things don't just happen overnight,
    though. In other words, things just don't go in disrepair.
        I have a great deal of sympathy for people that are working
    in adverse conditions, and it is something that we need to get
    fixed. I guess my question is, again, this is something that
    hasn't just happened. There is something systemically wrong in
    the system or we wouldn't be in this condition.
        In other areas, the VA and things like that, the
    authorizing Committee specifically working, in the case of the
    VA or whomever, works with that. Hopefully, they work with
    everyone within the agency, and then they come up with a list
    of hospitals and things that need work and this and that to try
    and depoliticize the process.
        I guess my question is do we need to look at the process?
    Do we need to look at maybe doing some things like that that
    perhaps would make us a little bit more efficient?
        I think there is probably two things going on. Just a lack
    of money, a lack of resources, and certainly that is out there.
    The other thing is that there probably is some politicization
    of the process, and maybe money is at times getting there
    because of a squeaky wheel that it winds up getting in that
    situation.
        Could you comment on that? Would that be helpful if we
    looked at perhaps?
        Again, I am not advocating that we do that tomorrow but
    start looking in that direction, maybe we as the authorizing
    Committee getting a little bit more involved with specific
    projects authorized based on input from the workers and the
    FAA.
        Mr. Forrey. I think anything that the Committee can do that
    would include all the stakeholders like the current language
    does in the bill is a positive step in the right direction.
        What would concern me about, and maybe I heard you wrong
    and I think what has happened in the past is that certain
    constituencies have kind of stolen some of that money to do
    something in this district instead of working on a project that
    was in disrepair, that needed fixed over here. I think some of
    that has gone on in the past and probably will in the future.
        But I think the maintenance of the facilities, it is like
    the infrastructure problem that Tom Brantley brought up
    earlier. It is not seen. People don't see it, and people don't
    have to look at it every day, day in and day out, and they
    don't understand how bad it is and in how much disrepair it is.
        I think that anything that you could have, any process that
    is in place that provides input from all users and all the
    stakeholders, that identifies that and prioritizes what needs
    to get fixed would be great. We don't have that right now.
        Mr. Brantley. Thank you for the question.
        I think I agree that any input or any help that the
    Subcommittee could give to help bring people together and
    actually talk through the problem and try to find solutions
    that make sense would be more than welcome. I think figuring
    out what the real problems are might be harder than it seems on
    the surface.
        I think, as you mentioned, lack of resources. I personally
    have a hard time with the Agency talking about other priorities
    getting in the way and then the money is then diverted for
    something, whether it has been earmarked by a Member or
    whatever.
        The fact is if they need $350 million and they ask for $60,
    you can't take something away that they never got. So I think
    the whole idea of that is just to me, ludicrous.
        I think they need to be a little more forthcoming about
    why. Frankly, I don't care why, but they need to start asking
    for what they need. That is very important.
        Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now
    recognizes the distinguished Chairman of the Full Committee,
    Chairman Oberstar.
        Mr. Oberstar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank our
    panel for their thoughtful observations and for the factual
    presentation.
        We do not allow earmarks in the FAA authorization bill.
    Sometimes they creep into appropriations bills for one or
    another facility but usually in Committee report language and
    not in bill legislative language.
        Over all my service in Congress, we have trusted the FAA to
    make good decisions within the scope of the NAIP, the National
    Aviation Investment Plan, for what is in the best interest of
    aviation nationwide, for investment in runways and taxiways,
    the hard side of airports to create the greatest opportunity
    for capacity enhancement.
        We have trusted the FAA to make its decisions on
    installation of new technologies at air traffic control
    facilities. When the DSR was installed, we didn't say put it in
    this place or in that facility. When the STARS was installed,
    we didn't tell them which facilities to start with. When the
    VSCS, Voice Switching and Control System, was put in place, we
    didn't tell FAA which facility to start with. We trusted to
    their judgment.
        We are not proposing--I am not proposing at least--in
    asking for a listing of facilities to categorize those in a
    bill but to give FAA specific direction to deal with their
    health of their workers in the workplace.
        When flight attendants said smoking is damaging our health,
    it is causing us increased expense to maintain our work
    uniforms, this aluminum tube is our workplace, this Committee
    held 10 hours of hearings, 10 hours of markup to fix the
    problem. Eventually, we had to take it to the House Floor and
    impose, through an amendment impose first a limitation and then
    elimination of smoking in that workplace.
        Well, we need to address the workplace of air traffic
    controllers. I don't care if NextGen comes in next week. They
    need to fix those facilities now. There is no excuse to have
    mold, rain dripping in your workplace, snow blowing into the
    windows, flies in the wintertime asbestos circulating through
    the workplace. That is intolerable.
        The FAA cannot hide behind modernization of air traffic
    control and say, oh, by the way, we can't fix these facilities
    because we want to consolidate them. That consolidation is
    going to take five or ten years. It is nonsense.
        I am sorry I missed the FAA panel. I wanted to tell them
    that firsthand. But they are following this. They will hear it,
    and they are going to hear it from me directly. I hope that by
    the time we get to the House Floor, we will be able to fix it
    in the authorization bill.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks Chairman Oberstar and thanks
    our panel of witnesses.
        Let me not only thank you for being here today to present
    your testimony but also to let you know that we intend to
    continue to provide oversight over the Agency and this will not
    be the last time that we visit this issue. I assure you we will
    revisit the issue and make certain that the FAA proceeds with a
    plan to address these facilities.
        We thank you, and the Committee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:42 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.149

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.150

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.151

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.152

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.153

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.154

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.155

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.156

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.043

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.046

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.047

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.048

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.049

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.050

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.051

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.052

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.053

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.054

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.055

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.056

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.057

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.058

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.059

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.060

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.061

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.062

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.063

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.064

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.065

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.066

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.067

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.068

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.069

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.070

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.071

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.072

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.073

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.074

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.075

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.076

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.077

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.078

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.079

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.080

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.081

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.082

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.083

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.084

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.085

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.086

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.087

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.088

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.089

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.090

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.091

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.092

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.093

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.094

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.095

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.096

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.097

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.098

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.099

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.100

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.101

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.102

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.103

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.104

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.105

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.106

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.107

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.108

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.109

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.110

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.111

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.112

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.113

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.114

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.115

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.116

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.117

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.118

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.119

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.120

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.121

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.122

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.123

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.124

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.125

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.126

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.127

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.128

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.129

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.130

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.131

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.132

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.133

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.134

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.135

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.136

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.137

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.138

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.139

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.140

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.141

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.142

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.143

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.144

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.145

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.146

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.147

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.148