    [House Hearing, 111 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                               THE FEDERAL AVIATION
                         ADMINISTRATION REAUTHORIZATION
                                  ACT OF 2009

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

                                    (111-8)

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                                    AVIATION

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                       TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   ----------

                               FEBRUARY 11, 2009

                                   ----------

                           Printed for the use of the
                 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

        THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2009

                              THE FEDERAL AVIATION
                         ADMINISTRATION REAUTHORIZATION
                                  ACT OF 2009

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

                                    (111-8)

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                                    AVIATION

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                       TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                               FEBRUARY 11, 2009

                                   __________

                           Printed for the use of the
                 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

                                   ----------
                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    47-411 PDF                       WASHINGTON : 2009

    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
    DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP,
    Washington, DC 20402-0001

                 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                     JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman

    NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia,   JOHN L. MICA, Florida
    Vice Chair                           DON YOUNG, Alaska
    PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon             THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
    JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois          HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
    ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of   JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
    Columbia                             VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
    JERROLD NADLER, New York             FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
    CORRINE BROWN, Florida               JERRY MORAN, Kansas
    BOB FILNER, California               GARY G. MILLER, California
    EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas         HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
    GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi             Carolina
    ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland         TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
    ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California        TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
    LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa             SAM GRAVES, Missouri
    TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania             BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
    BRIAN BAIRD, Washington              JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    RICK LARSEN, Washington              SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
    MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts    Virginia
    TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York          JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
    MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine            MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
    RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri              CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
    GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California      CONNIE MACK, Florida
    DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois            LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
    MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
    JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania          CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
    TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota           MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
    HEATH SHULER, North Carolina         VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
    MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York          ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
    HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona           BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
    CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania  ANH ``JOSEPH'' CAO, Louisiana
    JOHN J. HALL, New York               AARON SCHOCK, Illinois
    STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin               PETE OLSON, Texas
    STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California
    ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
    SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
    PHIL HARE, Illinois
    JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio
    MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan
    BETSY MARKEY, Colorado
    PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama
    MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York
    THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia
    DINA TITUS, Nevada
    HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico

                                      (ii)

                            Subcommittee on Aviation

                     JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois, Chairman

    RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri              THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
    PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama             HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
    MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York         JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
    PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon             VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
    ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of   FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
    Columbia                             JERRY MORAN, Kansas
    BOB FILNER, California               SAM GRAVES, Missouri
    EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas         JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa             SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
    TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania             Virginia
    MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts    JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
    DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois            CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
    MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              CONNIE MACK, Florida
    HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona           LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
    JOHN J. HALL, New York               JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
    STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
    LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California      VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
    JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio               BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
    NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
    CORRINE BROWN, Florida
    ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
    ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
    JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania
    SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
    MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan
    JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
      (Ex Officio)

                                     (iii)

                                    CONTENTS

                                                                       Page

    Summary of Subject Matter........................................   vii

                                   TESTIMONY

    Bolen, Ed, President and CEO, National Business Aviation
      Association....................................................    32
    Brantley, Tom, President, Professional Aviation Safety
      Specialists, AFL-CIO...........................................    56
    Cohen, Roger, President, Regional Airline Association............    32
    Dillingham, Dr. Gerald, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues,
      U.S. Government Accountability Office..........................     7
    Elwood, James P., A.A.E., Airport Director, Aspen/Pitkin County
      Airport........................................................    32
    Forrey, Patrick, President, National Air Traffic Controllers
      Association....................................................    56
    Friend, Patricia, International President, Association of Flight
      Attendants, CWA................................................    56
    Fuller, Craig, President, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.    32
    Gless, Robert, Assistant Director, Air Transport Division,
      Transport Workers' Association of America, AFL-CIO.............    56
    Hanni, Kate, President, Flyersrights.org.........................    56
    Jones, Clayton M., Chairman, President and CEO, Rockwell Collins.    32
    LoBue, Hon. Nancy, Acting Assistant Administrator, Aviation
      Policy, Planning and Environment, Federal Aviation
      Administration.................................................     7
    May, James C., President and CEO, Air Transport Association......    32
    Prater, Captain John, President, Air Line Pilots Association,
      International..................................................    56
    Principato, Gregory, President, Airports Council International-
      North America..................................................    32
    Roach, Jr., Robert, General Vice President, International
      Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers................    56
    Scovel, III, Hon. Calvin L., Inspector General, U.S. Department
      of Transportation..............................................     7
    Thompson, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of California..................................................     5

              PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

    Altmire, Hon. Jason, of Pennsylvania.............................    74
    Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri.................................    77
    Cohen, Hon. Steve, of Tennessee..................................    78
    Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois.............................    80
    Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice, of Texas............................    90
    Mica, Hon. John L., of Florida...................................    94
    Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona..............................   102
    Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota............................   103
    Petri, Hon. Thomas E., of Wisconsin..............................   108
    Rahall, Hon. Nick J., of West Virginia...........................   115
    Thompson, Hon. Mike, of California...............................   121

                   PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

    Bolen, Ed........................................................   123
    Brantley, Tom....................................................   130
    Cohen, Roger.....................................................   142
    Dillingham, Dr. Gerald...........................................   147
    Elwood, James P..................................................   180
    Forrey, Patrick..................................................   197
    Friend, Patricia.................................................   209
    Fuller, Craig....................................................   236
    Gless, Robert....................................................   243
    Hanni, Kate......................................................   250
    Jones, Clayton M.................................................   265
    LoBue, Hon. Nancy, delivered by Lynne Osmus, Acting
      Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration.................   271
    May, James C.....................................................   293
    Prater, Captain John.............................................   311
    Principato, Gregory..............................................   325
    Roach, Jr., Robert...............................................   345
    Scovel, III, Hon. Calvin L.......................................   353

                           SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

    Schauer, Hon. Mark H., a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Michigan, letter to Rep. Costello.....................   118
    Dillingham, Dr. Gerald, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues,
      U.S. Government Accountability Office, responses to questions
      from the Subcommittee..........................................   164
    LoBue, Hon. Nancy, Acting Assistant Administrator, Aviation
      Policy, Planning and Environment, Federal Aviation
      Administration, responses to questions from the Subcommittee...   278
    Scovel, III, Hon. Calvin L., Inspector General, U.S. Department
      of Transportation, responses to questions from the Subcommittee   386

                            ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD

    Letters to the Secretary of Transporation in support of the
      pending Star alliance application..............................   398
    Aeronautical Repair Station Association, Marshall S. Filler,
      Managing Director and General Counsel, written statement.......   456
    Airport Minority Advisory Council:

      Written statement..............................................   462
      Testimony of Anthony W. Brown, Chairman of the Government
        Affairs Committee, before the Subcommittee on Information
        Policy, Census, and National Archives of the Committee on
        Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of
        Representatives, September 24, 2008..........................   473
      Testimony of Don T. O'Bannon, Esq., Chairman, before the
        Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, U.S.
        Senate, September 11, 2008...................................   479
      Gene Roth, Executive Director, before the Committee on
        Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of
        Representatives, January 22, 2009............................   483
      ``Race, Sex, and Business Enterprise: Evidence from the City of
        Austin,'' Final Report Prepared for the City of Austin, Texas
        by the National Economic Research Associates, Inc., May 15,
        2008.........................................................   488
      Disparity Study for the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Final Draft
        Report.......................................................   506
      ``The Utilization of Minority Business Enterprises by the State
        of Maryland,'' Prepared for the State of Maryland Department
        of Transportation by the National Economic Research
        Associates, Inc., January 8, 2001............................   533
      ``Race, Sex, and Business Enterprise: Evidence from Memphis,
        Tennessee, Prepared for the Memphis-Shelby County Airport
        Authority by the National Economic Research Associates, Inc.,
        December 18, 2008............................................   548
      ``Race, Sex, and Business Enterprise: Evidence from the State
        of Minnesota,'' Prepared for the Minnesota Department of
        Transportation by the National Economic Research Associates,
        Inc. and Colette Holt & Associates, September 27, 2005.......   568
    The Boeing Company, Kevin Brown, Vice President, Air Traffic
      Management, written statement..................................   573
    Continental Airlines, Inc., written statement....................   578
    Gebhardt & Associates, LLP, Joseph D. Gebhardt, letter to the
      Subcommittee...................................................   584
    Helicopter Association International, Matthew Zuccaro, President,
      letter to the Subcommittee.....................................   586
    National Air Transportation Association, written statement.......   588
    The National Association of Counties, written statement..........   594
    National Pest Management Association, Gene Harrington, Director,
      Government Affairs, written statement..........................   597

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                 HEARING ON THE FAA REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2009

                                  ----------

                          Wednesday, February 11, 2009

                      House of Representatives,
        Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                      Subcommittee on Aviation,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.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 in the
    room to turn electronic devices either off or on vibrate.
        The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on the
    FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009.
        The Chair intends to give an opening statement, to call on
    Mr. Petri to give an opening statement or brief remarks, and
    then we will immediately go to our panel of first witnesses.
        Mr. Mica. I had a little commentary if you would yield.
        Mr. Costello. Mr. Mica has asked if he can make a few
    comments. So I will revise my remarks and say that we will
    recognize him for comments as well.
        Let me advise everyone, we have a total of 18 witnesses
    that we will hear from today. So I would inform our witnesses
    that their statements will be entered into the record, and we
    would ask them to summarize their statements as they are called
    upon.
        I want to welcome everyone to the Subcommittee hearing
    today on the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009.
        Earlier this week, Chairman Oberstar and I introduced H.R.
    915, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009. H.R. 915 is almost
    identical to the H.R. 2881 legislation that was produced after
    many hearings, in-depth analysis and a continued dialogue with
    the FAA, our colleagues and other stakeholders, and then
    passed, of course, the Full Committee and the full House of
    Representatives in September of 2007.
        We have made a few modifications in the new introduced
    bill:
        One, we have deleted provisions in our original bill that
    were already enacted through the legislative or regulatory
    process.
        We included H.R. 5788, the HANG UP Act legislation
    introduced by Mr. DeFazio to prohibit the use of cell phones on
    commercial flight. H.R. 5788 was reported favorably from this
    Committee last September.
        And, we included the Aviation Safety Enhancement Act which
    was passed by the House on July 22, 2008.
        It is our intention to move forward on reauthorizing the
    FAA as quickly as possible, given that we are already two years
    behind schedule because of the inaction by the United States
    Senate. As witnesses will testify this afternoon, short-term
    funding extensions and continuing resolutions are delaying key
    NextGen and airport development capital projects. We need to
    get the FAA authorized as soon as possible in this session of
    Congress.
        The total number of passengers carried in the U.S. airspace
    is approaching 800 million a year, and the FAA forecasts that
    airlines are expected to carry more than 1 billion passengers
    in the next 7 to 12 years.
        To deal with this growth, strengthening our economy and
    create jobs, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009 provides
    historic funding levels for the FAA's capital programs. This
    includes $16.2 billion for the Airport Improvement Program,
    nearly $13.4 billion for the FAA Facility and Equipment Account
    and $1.35 billion for research and engineering and development.
    The bill also provides $38.9 billion for the FAA operations
    over the next 4 years.
        The historic funding levels authorized for the FAA's F&E
    account will accelerate the implementation of NextGen, enable
    the FAA to replace and repair existing facilities and equipment
    and provide for the implementation of high priority safety-
    related systems.
        To increase the authority and visibility of the FAA's Joint
    Planning and Development Office, H.R. 915 elevates the Director
    of the JPDO to the status of Associate Administrator for
    NextGen within the FAA, to be appointed by and reporting
    directly to the FAA Administrator.
        To increase accountability and coordination of NextGen
    planning and implementation, H.R. 915 requires that JPDO
    develop a work plan that details, on a year to year basis,
    specific NextGen-related deliverables and milestones required
    by the FAA and its partner agencies.
        To help airports meet increasing capital needs, we have
    included an increase of the cap from $4.50 to $7.00 on the PFC
    charges. That is exactly identical to what we did in H.R. 2881.
    So the increase for the PFCs would be $4.50 to $7.00.
        According to the FAA, if every airport currently collecting
    a $4.00 or $4.50 PFC and if you raise that to $7.00, it would
    generate approximately $1.1 billion in additional revenue for
    airport development each year.
        H.R. 915 also provides significant increases for AIP
    funding for smaller airports that rely on AIP for capital
    financing. Further, the bill increases funding for improvements
    in the Essential Air Service Program and authorizes a Small
    Community Air Service Development Program through 2012 at the
    current authorized funding level of $35 million per year.
        The traveling public saw firsthand serious problems that
    our current system has with congestion and delays which, at
    times, led to a breakdown in customer service. We have enacted
    in this legislation a similar Passenger Bill of Rights or
    consumer protection provisions in H.R. 915. In addition to a
    number of things that we provide under that section of the
    legislation, it also provides for civil penalties for
    violations by the airlines.
        We have included in H.R. 915 the CLEEN Engine and Airframe
    Technology Partnership and Green Tower program which was
    modeled after what is currently being done at O'Hare
    International Airport.
        We have the safest air transportation system in the world,
    but we must not become complacent. In order to keep proper
    oversight over the FAA and the safety program, H.R. 915 directs
    the FAA to increase the number of aviation safety inspectors,
    initiate studies on fatigue and requires the FAA to inspect
    Part 145 certificated foreign repair stations at least twice a
    year.
        There are a number of other issues that we have addressed
    in the bill that were the same as in H.R. 2881 including labor
    provisions that affect labor negotiations with NATCA and the
    FAA. The language is identical in this bill as the last bill as
    well as the FedEx provision that was debated and included in
    H.R. 2881.
        Before I conclude my remarks--my statement is more
    detailed, I will submit it for the record in the interest of
    time--let me congratulate the men and women of JetBlue Airways.
    Today is their ninth anniversary of flight, and I want to make
    note of that and congratulate them.
        With that, again, I welcome all of our witnesses here
    today. I look forward to hearing your testimony.
        Before I recognize Mr. Petri for his opening statement, I
    ask unanimous consent to allow for two weeks for 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.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Petri.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I will put my full statement in the record. I know we have
    a full agenda and would like to get right to the witnesses.
        But let me just say that I regret that we are moving quite
    this quickly here. It is important we get a new reauthorization
    in place, but it is also important that we do it in an orderly
    fashion, and acting before the Administration has a chance to
    submit its bill or its ideas or comments may actually prolong
    the process toward final passage rather than speed it up.
        Our new Administration does take a little while to get in
    order, but I think they are owed a certain amount of deference
    and respect from this Congress, and I regret that we are, in
    effect, acting before we get their input.
        With that, I would yield to the Ranking Minority Member of
    the Full Committee, Mr. Mica.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you.
        Just for the record, I will submit a statement and make
    some brief comments.
        Well, first of all, I want to thank Mr. Costello and Mr.
    Petri for moving forward.
        Chairman Oberstar is helping. He would be here. We just
    left trying to get some money for the Committee through House
    Administration, together. I don't know what we are going to
    get. We may have to eliminate staff and Members, but we should
    do okay other than that.
        Ray LaHood--I know we have all met with the new Secretary--
    asked me what some of the priorities are. And I said, we have
    to get an FAA bill, and we have to also get an FAA
    Administrator.
        It is absolutely incomprehensible that we haven't had an
    FAA reauthorization since, what, September of 2007. And now I
    hear the Senate is looking at an extension that might go into
    the fall. That is totally unacceptable. So I pledged with Mr.
    Oberstar to work to pass comprehensive FAA reauthorization
    which should have been done in the last two years.
        Trying to deal with an agency, and I chaired Aviation for
    six years. We did some very good things. It is difficult enough
    when you have an administrator or chief executive at an agency
    in place. It is difficult, if not impossible, when you don't
    have one or you have one acting who is being held hostage for
    political reasons, which is totally unacceptable.
        This bill could and should be conferenced, and we could do
    it in two hours. There is no reason that it shouldn't have been
    done.
        First, we know one of the big elephants in the room is the
    NATCA provisions, and I think we have to be fair to the men and
    women who serve us as air traffic controllers.
        I am glad this is tossed to the new Administration and to
    the new greater majority. I just would counsel them against
    unleashing a dam, and again I think that they are entitled to
    some compensation and additional compensation, particularly new
    entrants. And I did everything I could to bring parties
    together for the last two years to resolve that issue, but that
    has to be resolved. That is the two-ton elephant in the room.
        I have no problem with the provisions for compulsory
    arbitration, and I would hope to the good Lord that we never
    again bring to Congress the personnel and salary issues of any
    of our agencies at that level and then put every Member of
    Congress in the middle of a ping-pong contest to resolve it. It
    is horrible, and I think we have a solution. We need to adopt
    that.
        That is a big, serious issue that you have to resolve, and
    I will be glad to sit down at anytime and get that behind us.
        The financing issue is another big elephant, and that does
    need to be resolved. I think Mr. Oberstar and I came to some
    conclusions, and I hope we don't have to revisit that too much.
        Finally, there are, and I have been quoted in the press
    saying there are, some half-baked proposals in here that need
    to come out. Everybody knows what they are. I don't want to go
    over all of them.
        They will hurt our airliners, the airline industry which is
    already on its third. I was going to say its second time on its
    knees. It is the third. But we don't want them down and out for
    the count.
        We have to have some reasonable provisions, whether it is
    the foreign repair stations, the insect notification--I see,
    thankfully, Mr. DeFazio is gone--the OSHA standards and some of
    the other issues. You know what I am talking about.
        Finally, we have to do something, Mr. Chairman and Mr.
    Ranking Member and Mr. Oberstar, as soon as we get an FAA
    Administrator in place, about getting airspace redesign in the
    New York City area. They tell me now that 83 percent of our
    chronically delayed flights emanate from the Northeast Corridor
    and the New York City area, and I have done hearings and
    meetings from Philadelphia to Connecticut. That has to be
    resolved.
        It has to be resolved. So whether it is in FAA
    reauthorization along with NextGen, which is also important, it
    must be resolved.
        So those are my comments, and I yield back the balance of
    my time.
        Mr. Costello. You have no time left, Mr. Mica.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Costello. Let me say, just comment quickly because we
    are down to five minutes to get to the floor, and we do have
    three votes. We will come back immediately.
        Let me comment on a few of Mr. Mica's comments. I think we
    are in agreement on several things. One is the reauthorization
    bill that passed the House in September, 2007. Unfortunately,
    we had no control over its destiny because the Senate didn't
    act as they didn't act on a lot of bills.
        On getting a new Administrator in place, we had a meeting
    yesterday with Secretary LaHood. I have met with him three
    times in the last weeks and stressing the importance of several
    things. The Administration has only been in office 21 days, and
    they have already made an offer, and they are negotiating with
    the person they want to see become the Administrator. So I
    think they are moving with due speed and due diligence.
        Last but not least, my friend, Mr. Mica, says there are
    some half-baked ideas in here. That may or may not be true. It
    depends on who the cook is and who is doing the baking. But
    those are things that we will have an opportunity to discuss
    and talk about during the markup when we bring this legislation
    to the Committee for a markup.
        With that, I thank Members.
        There are three votes on the floor. We will come back
    immediately right after the third vote.
        I would ask Mr. Miller and others to get our first panel of
    witnesses up to the witness table, and we will begin
    immediately upon return, and the Subcommittee will stand in
    recess.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Costello. The Subcommittee will come to order.
        We will hear from our first witness, Congressman Mike
    Thompson, a Congressman representing the First District of
    California, who has been a very strong advocate for a Passenger
    Bill of Rights.
        Congressman Thompson.

     TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MIKE THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
    Petri and other Members of the Committee. Thanks for the
    opportunity to provide testimony at your hearing today on the
    FAA Reauthorization Act.
        I am here again today regarding the airline passenger
    rights almost 2 years after my first appearance at this
    Subcommittee on this very same topic and more than 10 years
    since Congress first examined the problem of extended delays
    after hundreds of passengers were stuck in planes on snow-
    congested Detroit tarmacs in January of 1999, and I believe it
    is time for Congress to act to protect the flying public.
        Americans should not be held without food, water and other
    necessities when they set foot on an airplane. Since 1999 and
    despite countless industry promises, little or no progress has
    been made toward ensuring that airline passengers have some
    basic rights during excessive ground delays.
        It took nearly a year for then Secretary of Transportation
    Mary Peters' Tarmac Delay Task Force to issue a report this
    past November on how airlines, if so inclined and only when
    practical, might improve onboard conditions for stranded
    passengers. None of the improvements recommended in that report
    were mandated and yet again relied entirely upon voluntary
    action by the airlines.
        Secretary Peters' report did nothing to help solve the
    problems of excessive delays. As the New York Times editorial
    staff opined after its released, this report was tantamount to
    telling passengers, ``Suck it up and sit there on America's
    unfriendly tarmacs for as long as it might take.''
        The lack of voluntary action by airlines for the past 10
    years only underscores the absolute necessity of including the
    same passenger rights provisions passed as part of the FAA
    Reauthorization Bill during the 110th Congress in this version
    that you are considering today.
        These provisions would finally require air carriers and
    airports to submit an emergency contingency plan in the event
    of excessive delays to the Secretary of Transportation for
    approval. These plans must detail how the air carrier will
    provide food, drinkable water, working restroom facilities,
    adequate cabin ventilation and access to medical treatment.
        I recently introduced legislation. It is H.R. 624, the
    Passenger Bill of Rights for 2009 which includes the passenger
    rights provisions that you are considering here today as part
    of this reauthorization measure but with one important
    difference. Instead of requiring deplanement after ``excessive
    delays,'' my bill calls for deplanement after three hours. By
    not defining what excessive delays actually means in the
    current legislation, Congress is yet again leaving it to the
    airlines to self-regulate, an approach that has failed
    miserably over the past 10 years.
        I urge the Committee during the markup of this legislation
    to adopt the language included in my bill which sets for the
    three-hour standard along with important exceptions to be used
    at the discretion of the pilots.
        Mr. Chairman, after 10 years, it has finally come time to
    pass these basic passenger protections. Thank you for your past
    assistance. You have been on great on this and on this issue
    and continued support by including these provisions in the FAA
    Reauthorization Act of 2009 Act.
        Furthermore, if history repeats itself and this bill is
    passed by the House but becomes excessively delayed on the
    Senate tarmac, I respectfully request that you support my
    efforts to take these passenger rights provisions as a
    standalone bill to the House floor for immediate consideration.
        Again, I appreciate the work of the Subcommittee and your
    support on this issue over the course of the last couple of
    years. I hope that this year we can finally bring this issue to
    resolve, and thank you for allowing me to testify today.
        Mr. Costello. We thank you for testifying here today,
    taking time out of your schedule. We know how strongly you feel
    about the issue, and I think we are all in agreement that if we
    leave up to the airlines as we have in the past to self-
    regulate, it won't happen.
        So we look forward to working with you between now and the
    markup and continuing working with you on this and other
    important issues.
        Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair will ask the second panel of
    witnesses to come forward please. Actually, it is the first
    public panel. It is the Honorable Nancy LoBue, Acting Assistant
    Administrator, Aviation Policy, Planning and Environment with
    the FAA; Dr. Gerald Dillingham, Director of Physical
    Infrastructure Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office;
    The Honorable Calvin Scovel, III, the Inspector General of the
    U.S. Department of Transportation.
        I would remind all of our witnesses that your entire
    statement will appear in the record. We would ask you to
    summarize your statement in five minutes or less.
        And with that, Ms. LoBue, you are recognized.

       TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE NANCY LOBUE, ACTING ASSISTANT
       ADMINISTRATOR, AVIATION POLICY, PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT,
        FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; DR. GERALD DILLINGHAM,
       DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT
    ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; AND THE HONORABLE CALVIN L. SCOVEL, III,
          INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

        Ms. LoBue. Thank you, Chairman Costello, Congressman Petri
    and Members of the Subcommittee.
        As the Chair said, my name is Nancy LoBue, and I am the
    FAA's Acting Assistant Administrator for Aviation Policy,
    Planning and Environment.
        Unfortunately, our Acting Administrator was ill today and
    unable to appear with you, so I am appearing in her place.
        I would like to thank you for inviting us here today to be
    part of your discussion about the reauthorization of the FAA.
    We look forward to working with this Committee and the new
    Congress on achieving a robust multi-year bill that will help
    ensure the safety of the flying public and the efficiency of
    the National Airspace System.
        There is a consensus in the aviation community, including
    the FAA, that multiple short-term extensions, as we have had in
    the last 18 months, are burdensome and disruptive and do not
    permit the careful planning and efficient execution that is
    necessary for successful infrastructure and technology
    programs.
        We appreciate the hard work and efforts that this Committee
    has put into H.R. 915. As the new Administration settles in and
    continues to get its policy team in place, the bill will be an
    immediate focus as we work to develop an administrative
    position. In the meantime, please accept my gratitude on behalf
    of the Administration for your efforts in moving FAA's
    reauthorization forward.
        Secretary LaHood has made his safety goals for all of DOT
    and especially FAA quite clear. At the FAA, our highest
    priority is always safety. We are currently in the safest
    period in commercial aviation history, and every day, every
    hour we are doing everything we can to make sure that that
    continues.
        For example, the FAA is making it a priority to reduce the
    number of runway incursions, and we are seeing results. There
    were no serious runway incursions in the first quarter of
    fiscal 2009. Not a single Category A or B event during 12.8
    million aircraft operations.
        We have also accelerated our runway status lights program,
    and the systems are scheduled to be installed at 22 of the
    Nation's busiest airports by 2011.
        The Secretary has indicated several times that one of his
    immediate goals is to fill the position of the FAA
    Administrator. He has expressed that the new Administrator will
    be one who can advance NextGen and be someone with the people
    skills to resolve outstanding labor issues, something which I
    know many of the Members of this Committee are also committed
    to.
        We are also pleased that just two weeks the GAO removed the
    FAA's Air Traffic Control Modernization Program from the high
    risk list for the first time in 14 years. GAO noted that
    management focus and willingness to attack and rectify our
    shortcomings and our plan for continued improvements were the
    reasons that it felt comfortable removing FAA modernization
    from their high risk list.
        Finally, no organization is successful without its most
    valuable asset, its workforce. Controller hiring is up. We have
    exceeded our hiring goals for fiscal year 2008, and we are on
    track to meet our end of year hiring goal in fiscal 2009.
        The new controllers are completing their training faster.
    In fact, we anticipate 1,000 new hires will complete training
    to reach full certification this year compared to 762 last
    year.
        Controller retirements have also leveled out and are
    trending below what we had projected for this year.
        As you can see, we are still actively moving forward on all
    key areas. The FAA is a growing, learning organization
    dedicated to the safety of the traveling public and the
    efficient operation of the National Airspace System.
        We look forward to supporting President Obama and Secretary
    LaHood's agenda for aviation, the new FAA Administrator, and to
    working with this Committee and the rest of Congress on FAA
    Reauthorization. In the meantime, we remain focused on our
    duties to ensure aviation safety and efficiency.
        Mr. Chairman, Congressman Petri and Members of the
    Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be
    happy to answer any questions that you might have.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Costello. Thank you for your testimony, and the Chair
    now recognizes Dr. Dillingham who has testified before this
    Subcommittee many times.
        Mr. Dillingham. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Petri.
    Thank you for the opportunity to again appear before this
    Subcommittee.
        My testimony this afternoon identifies some key
    reauthorization issues that will need to be addressed to
    maintain the safety and efficiency of the current National
    Airspace System and to move expeditiously towards NextGen. I
    will also offer some general observations on the
    reauthorization.
        First, with regard to the current system, the first issue
    is safety. FAA must enhance its ability to monitor and manage
    risk by collecting complete and accurate safety data from all
    segments of the industry.
        Such data include information that is currently provided
    through FAA's voluntary reporting program as well as
    operational data from industry sectors such as air ambulances,
    cargo aviation and general aviation. This information is not
    generally collected or tracked on a system-wide level.
        The ability to collect and analyze these types of data is
    particularly important as the Agency transitions to a data-
    driven, risk-based safety management system approach for
    aviation.
        Another reauthorization issue is related to the existing
    ATC facilities and systems. Some of these facilities and
    systems will continue to form the core of the National Airspace
    System for a number of years and, in some cases, will become a
    part of NextGen. Continued reliance on these facilities and
    systems will require the Agency to identify the necessary
    resources and skilled personnel to implement both a robust
    facility renovation plan and a system maintenance strategy.
        As you know, H.R. 915 contains a provision for FAA to
    develop a Facility Reconfiguration Plan. Until FAA develops
    such a plan which considers both safety and cost effectiveness,
    the facility configurations needed for NextGen cannot be
    implemented. In addition, potential savings that could help
    offset NextGen costs cannot be identified.
        Another reauthorization issue is critical workforce
    concerns. Specifically, FAA will have to continue to hire and
    train thousands of air traffic controllers and other technical
    professionals. It will also need to work to improve relations
    with its labor unions.
        Turning to NextGen, to its credit, FAA has taken important
    steps such as forming partnerships with industry and planning
    for a mid-term implementation to accelerate the availability of
    NextGen capabilities by 2018.
        FAA will also need to work with stakeholders to explore a
    range of potential incentives for aircraft operators to
    purchase NextGen avionics and for suppliers to develop those
    avionics.
        Additionally, FAA will need to acquire staff with technical
    skills, such as systems engineers, and contract management
    expertise to implement of NextGen. FAA estimates it will need
    to hire about 350 additional staff over the next 2 years to
    obtain these needed skills.
        Mr. Chairman, it is worth noting that our work has shown
    that even with the full implementation of NextGen there will
    still be a need to build infrastructure projects such as
    runways and taxiways to accommodate anticipated future travel
    demands.
        Building runways is often a long-term effort that involves
    a resolution of some difficult environmental concerns. Adequate
    funding is critical for aviation research and development
    initiatives aimed at addressing environmental concerns. The
    CLEEN initiative and other environmental provisions that are
    contained in H.R. 915 would begin to provide such funding.
        Mr. Chairman, the last issue I would like to highlight is
    the importance of enacting a multi-year reauthorization.
        Additional short-term funding extensions and continuing
    resolutions could hamper the planning and development of
    airport infrastructure projects, particularly those that are
    funded through the AIP program, and in fact increase the cost
    of those projects. It could also delay critical NextGen
    decision points and, maybe most importantly, it could postpone
    the achievement of the mid-term NextGen goals for operational
    capabilities and improvements for the National Airspace System.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Costello. Thank you, Dr. Dillingham.
        General Scovel.
        Mr. Scovel. Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Petri,
    Members of the Subcommittee, we appreciate the opportunity to
    discuss the key issues for reauthorizing FAA.
        We understand that the Committee's reauthorization bill,
    H.R. 915, was introduced in the House on Monday.
        The aviation landscape has changed significantly since
    Congress last debated proposals for reauthorizing and financing
    FAA. U.S. airlines have been buffeted by the softening economy
    and volatile fuel costs. As a result, they have reduced
    capacity and grounded hundreds of aircraft although load
    factors remain high.
        The decline in traffic has also impacted the Aviation Trust
    Fund, the largest source of revenue for FAA's $15 billion
    annual budget. Trust Fund revenues declined by more than 11
    percent during the first quarter of 2009. Given the drop in
    traffic and the resulting decline in passenger taxes, Trust
    Fund tax revenues will likely decrease significantly during the
    balance of fiscal 2009 and perhaps in fiscal 2010 as well.
        Notwithstanding the uncertainties facing the industry and
    FAA, this situation provides FAA with opportunities to
    strategically position itself for an industry rebound.
        We see four overarching areas for FAA's efforts:
        First, maintain public confidence in FAA's ability to
    provide oversight of a dynamic industry.
        The Southwest Airlines incident last spring disclosed
    multiple weaknesses in FAA's oversight of that carrier's
    maintenance program. One of the troubling findings was that FAA
    missed numerous inspections of the carrier's maintenance
    program, allowing safety directive compliance issues to go
    undetected for years. Our ongoing review has found similar
    missed inspections at seven other major carriers.
        FAA must bolster the integrity of its oversight by
    establishing mechanisms at the national level to provide
    effective oversight of field efforts.
        FAA must also follow through on longstanding commitments to
    improve oversight of external repair facilities. FAA's risk-
    based oversight system does not yet include critical repairs
    performed by non-certificated repair facilities. It also does
    not require that air carriers report all repair stations
    performing repairs to critical components.
        FAA must advance risk-based oversight of outsourced
    maintenance providers by implementing a system for determining
    how much and where aircraft maintenance is performed.
        Runway incidents also continue to be a substantial threat
    to safety. Many see new technology as the solution, but our
    work on three major technologies for improving runway safety
    has raised concerns about what can be effectively deployed
    within the next several years. FAA and industry must implement
    airport-specific infrastructure and procedural changes and
    reinvigorate national FAA programs to improve runway safety in
    the near term.
        Second, set expectations and budget priorities for NextGen,
    a high-risk effort involving billion-dollar investments.
        After more than 4 years of planning, FAA must now shift
    NextGen to implementation. FAA has focused its attention on
    mid-term objectives, but fundamental issues must be addressed.
    These include:
        First, completing a gap analysis of today's system and
    NextGen and refining the NextGen mid-term architecture.
        Second, establishing priorities with stakeholders and
    reflecting them in budget requests and plans, so decision
    makers can determine what to invest in first.
        Third, managing NextGen initiatives as portfolios and
    establishing clear lines of responsibility, authority and
    accountability. This is needed because new systems must be
    combined with procedural and airspace changes to deliver
    benefits.
        Finally, identifying the number and types of facilities
    that will be needed to support NextGen. FAA must address the
    technology and security prerequisites and cost drivers
    associated with facility consolidation for decision makers to
    know what can be reasonably accomplished.
        Third, bolster key safety workforces. FAA continues to face
    significant attrition in two critical safety workforces: air
    traffic controllers and aviation safety inspectors.
        Through 2017, FAA will hire and train nearly 17,000 new
    controllers to replace those who were hired after the 1981
    strike and are now retiring. A major challenge will be training
    and certifying the huge surge of new controllers at their
    assigned locations, a process that currently takes up to 3
    years.
        Controllers in training now represent 26 percent of the
    workforce, up from 15 percent in 2004. However, many key
    facilities, such as the Southern California TRACON, which
    expects to have nearly 100 controllers in training this year or
    over 40 percent of its workforce, already exceed the national
    level.
        FAA must also ensure that it has a sufficient number of
    properly placed safety inspectors. It is not reasonable to
    expect FAA to have an inspector workforce large enough to
    oversee all aspects of a dynamic aviation industry. Therefore,
    it is critical that FAA ensure its inspectors are placed where
    they are most needed. Delivery of FAA's new staffing model this
    year remains an important watch item.
        Finally, finance and establish controls over future airport
    development. Airline service reductions and capacity cuts have
    significantly impacted airports, especially in small
    communities, some of which have lost commercial service
    entirely. At large airports, declining revenues have led to
    concerns that some infrastructure projects will be delayed.
        The economic stimulus packages proposed in the House and
    Senate contain significant funding amounts for the AIP that
    will help to revitalize airport development this year and next.
    However, such a large, rapid infusion of new funds could create
    significant oversight challenges for FAA, including pressure to
    begin projects quickly.
        FAA must prepare for the potential risks and take steps to
    mitigate them. My staff is working with FAA and the Department
    to identify risks, oversight challenges, and best practices
    associated with the stimulus funding for the AIP.
        That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy
    to answer any questions you or Members of the Subcommittee may
    have.
        Mr. Costello. Thank you, General Scovel.
        Let me just make a few comments.
        Ms. LoBue, as a I said earlier in the opening statements,
    we had a good meeting with the Secretary, Secretary LaHood,
    yesterday. We understand that the process is moving forward on
    a fast track as far as a new Administrator is concerned. And
    we, of course, hope that that happens sooner, rather than
    later, so that we can begin the process of doing things that
    need to be done over at the FAA.
        Secondly, Dr. Dillingham, I couldn't agree with you more.
    The labor issue needs to get behind us. We expressed that to
    the Secretary and have expressed that to others as well. It is
    having an effect on morale throughout the Agency, and it is
    having an effect on the implementation of NextGen. So we
    appreciate your making note of that in your testimony.
        At this time, the Chair recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr.
    Petri.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I have a number of questions which I will submit for
    written response in light of the lengthy panel agenda we have
    today and the need to get the testimony of all the witnesses
    and would yield my time to the two Members who have requested
    an opportunity to ask questions on this side, Mr. LoBiondo and
    Mr. Coble, starting with Mr. Coble.
        Mr. Coble. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Chairman and Mr.
    Ranking Member. I will be very brief in view of the time frame.
        Ms. LoBue, what impact have the short-term extensions had
    on the FAA's ability to issue grants to airports.
        Ms. LoBue. We have had some problems with having short-term
    extensions, meaning that those kinds of grants and those
    projects with letters of intent that over a long period are
    disrupted with the kind of on and off nature of having
    extensions. You have to treat an extension as if it is the only
    time period that you are allowed to do the work. So that can be
    disruptive in the AIP program, very much so.
        Mr. Coble. Well, how will the proposed stimulus package
    complicate or improve the situation or will it have either
    effect on it?
        Ms. LoBue. My understanding of the stimulus package is that
    FAA stands ready to implement the funding numbers, the type of
    numbers that have been talked about in both the House and the
    Senate over a two-year period of time. Such a more extended
    period of time gives us a better chance for implementation than
    when we have had six-month extensions or three-month
    extensions.
        So I think we actually feel the stimulus, in the way it is
    set up, although there are some issues with workforce
    implementation, we do believe we will be able to follow through
    on what Congress has talked about putting in place.
        Mr. Coble. Thank you, ma'am.
        Dr. Dillingham, let me put the same question to you. What
    impact, in your opinion, has the short-term extensions had on
    the FAA's ability to issue grants to airports?
        Mr. Dillingham. Mr. Coble, in the same vein as Ms. LoBue
    talked about, when grants are issued in sort of spurts, the
    airports can only commit a certain amount to construction, and
    one of the things that happens is that the construction crews
    will pack up and go to another job. When the money becomes
    available again, they come back. But what that does is extends
    the time as well as extends the cost of a project when they
    come back in place again.
        So when you don't have a situation where you know that the
    money is coming and the amount that is coming, it makes it very
    difficult especially for medium-size airports. Big airports and
    little airports, it is less of a problem. But the medium
    airports, that affects them more.
        Mr. Coble. I thank you, sir.
        And, finally, Mr. Scovel, with the recent disclosure of a
    security breach of one of the FAA's servers, do you have
    concern about the FAA's ability to protect critical systems
    from cyber attacks?
        Mr. Scovel. Thank you, Mr. Coble.
        Yes, we do, but I would like to note first that FAA has
    taken steps to improve its cyber protection program in recent
    years, and my office has been working with FAA and the
    Department along those lines.
        Some of the concerns that I have with FAA are unique to
    FAA, and some extend to all agencies across Government; I will
    cite three specifically.
        The first has to do with technology changes. FAA has moved
    increasingly, as have many agencies, to an internet protocol-
    based technology in modernizing its systems. This is in marked
    contrast to previous practice some time ago when agencies would
    develop proprietary software and operate it in a closed network
    environment, which greatly limited the opportunity, of course,
    for hackers to gain access. With an internet-based system,
    hackers' access is a much greater risk.
        The second point I would raise is system interconnectivity.
    Unlike most Government systems, FAA systems are highly
    connected to each other. They must be in order to operate the
    NAS. But security, as we all know, is only as strong as the
    weakest link. So, if a hacker is able to gain access to even
    one system, then potentially other systems are at risk as well.
        Finally, outsourcing. FAA, like other agencies, has turned
    increasingly to outsourcing. It has forfeited some aspect of
    direct control over information security, and that remains a
    concern for us.
        We have two ongoing audits within the FAA on this, both
    performed in response to requests from this Committee. One has
    to do with web application security in air traffic control
    systems, and the second involves information security and
    privacy protection of medical records of hundreds of thousands
    of airmen. Both of those topics have been of concern to the
    Committee, and we are responding to the Committee's requests.
        Mr. Coble. Thank you all.
        I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin. I will let him
    reclaim.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you.
        I would yield to Mr. LoBiondo. I know you are trying to
    juggle a couple of balls and we want to let you.
        Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you very much, Mr. Petri.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing.
        To our panel, thank you for being here.
        Ms. LoBue, just a matter of point of reference, I represent
    the FAA Technical Facility in Egg Harbor Township. And, of
    course, I, along with many others, am very concerned with the
    news that we got yesterday about the personnel records of some
    45,000 FAA employees including probably more 1,500 that are in
    my district. We understand that the hackers were able to access
    employee names, addresses and social security numbers along
    with some other information.
        Of course, I think I probably share everyone's
    disappointment that in the wake of the breaches of information
    that occurred with the VA where we thought, Members of Congress
    believed, that agencies were going to take steps to do
    something, that this actually occurred. For whatever reason, it
    didn't, and I am sure you will have more information on that in
    the future.
        What I would like to know is that does the FAA intend to
    help protect the employees from identity fraud? Do you have any
    measures that you are planning on doing?
        Ms. LoBue. The answer to that is yes. Frankly, as one of
    the employees whose personal information is at risk--I am one
    of those 45,000 people--I am very concerned about this event.
        FAA has taken both some short-term and some long-term
    measures for the immediate future to make sure this doesn't
    happen again while we buttress, and obviously we will be
    working with the OIG on how we can buttress, our systems.
        There is some discussion as to how much we can do to
    protect the employees, and we will be coming out with
    information on that pretty quickly, but we are committed to do
    something, yes.
        Mr. LoBiondo. Have you had any discussions if you are
    prepared to offer employees free credit monitoring like the VA
    did?
        Ms. LoBue. That is my understanding, yes.
        Mr. LoBiondo. That you will be doing that?
        Ms. LoBue. Yes.
        Mr. LoBiondo. And you will be briefing us or at least the
    Chairman on what steps actually will be involved to help
    protect those employees and what you will do to keep this from
    happening in the future?
        Ms. LoBue. Yes, sir. We will come up. Like I said, we are
    doing some short-term and some long-term things. I think we are
    still getting all of our plan together. We would be more than
    willing to come up and brief the Committee in detail.
        Mr. LoBiondo. Would you expect that you would be prepared
    to share with us what your plans would be for the employees and
    for future protections and what time period?
        Ms. LoBue. That would be part of the briefing, yes, sir.
        Mr. LoBiondo. I mean are we talking about six months, a
    month?
        Ms. LoBue. Until we will be ready? No. I think we could
    come up within the next week or two.
        Mr. LoBiondo. In the next week or two.
        Ms. LoBue. Yes.
        Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Chairman, hopefully, you will follow up
    with them and let us know.
        Mr. Costello. We will indeed, and we would ask you to
    contact the staff when you are ready to come up and to brief
    us.
        Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Ms. LoBue.
        Mr. Costello. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey and now
    recognize the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. DeFazio.
        Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I just
    have one question, and it would be directed to Ms. LoBue.
        As you may know, Dr. Dillingham I think was questioned and
    said that FAA management's and the unions' poor relationship
    could slow the implementation of NextGen. So the core of that
    poor relationship has to do with the imposition of what I
    consider to be an unfair contract. Can you tell me what is
    going on at the FAA in terms of reopening negotiations for the
    contract?
        Ms. LoBue. The Secretary has indicated that his priority is
    getting on board an Administrator who will be willing to work
    through the workplace issues and the union issues and get that
    behind us. As I understand it, he has had conversations with
    the Committee to indicate that that is going to be in the
    pretty immediate future, and that is one of his highest
    priorities.
        Mr. DeFazio. Okay. So we would revisit the imposed contract
    and work conditions is the position as you understand it.
        Ms. LoBue. My understanding is this is one of the highest
    priorities of the Secretary.
        Mr. DeFazio. Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Costello. I thank the gentleman from Oregon and now
    recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Boswell.
        Mr. Boswell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. LoBue, Dr. Dillingham has made a statement in his
    written statement that the strained relationship between the
    FAA management and unions could slow the implementation of
    NextGen. What is your response to that?
        Ms. LoBue. I think we believe that the new Administration
    has made it very clear that they intend to work through the
    workforce issues. While we have had some input from controllers
    involved in the past, I think we all recognize that the
    workforce is a critical piece of getting NextGen on board, and
    the new Administration has that as one of its highest
    priorities.
        Mr. Boswell. Dr. Dillingham, any comment on that?
        Mr. Dillingham. Yes, Mr. Boswell. I think there are many
    elements to sort of working out the relationship, the labor-
    management relationship, but one of the things that we sort of
    want to highlight is the fact that not only NATCA but the other
    union Members need to be active participants in the
    development, the design of NextGen.
        I mean there are other labor-management issues, but what we
    have seen in the past is unless the stakeholders are intimately
    involved it tends to make things cost more and take longer to
    get them done. So, hopefully, that will be a part of bringing
    things together is bringing the stakeholders on board.
        Mr. Boswell. I think that is historical.
        Ms. LoBue, just to continue a little bit, what steps are
    you taking to ensure that you have the staff you need to meet
    the needs of the NextGen?
        Ms. LoBue. This Committee has been very generous in helping
    us hire inspectors. So, as I said, safety is always first and
    foremost.
        I think from the point of getting NextGen in place, we have
    just issued at the end of January our NextGen implementation
    plan which focuses more on the mid-term. I think we have come
    forward previously with a fairly concerted effort on what the
    next five years looks like.
        Mr. Boswell. So you think you have the contract management
    expertise? You think you have the systems engineering you need
    and staff with the technical skills?
        Ms. LoBue. I think we are concerned about staff with
    technical skills. We see a shortage coming just as do all
    technical-oriented businesses. That said, I think GAO
    recognizing and taking us off the high risk list shows that we
    have really put a premium on putting in place systems that will
    manage contracts in a better and more effective, cost-effective
    manner.
        So, yes, sir.
        Mr. Boswell. Dr. Dillingham, your comment?
        Mr. Dillingham. Mr. Boswell, FAA does recognize that it has
    a need. Some of the things that it needs for NextGen are
    different than what it needed for the previous ATC
    modernization program. What we are concerned about is the need
    for those highly skilled technical people that are going to be
    desired across the whole spectrum of the economy.
        On the plus side, because of the nature of the economy, it
    might be easier for FAA to attract those kinds of people, but
    what we are talking about is the timing. These people will have
    to be brought into FAA, integrated into FAA, familiarized with
    NextGen. And so, we are talking about something that could
    throw the schedule off if we don't move immediately to address
    this issue.
        Mr. Boswell. General Scovel, would you comment, please?
        Maybe, do you think we are doing enough? Is FAA doing
    enough to address the attrition of air traffic controllers to
    start?
        Mr. Scovel. FAA has done what I can only say is a
    remarkable job in hiring replacements for air traffic
    controllers who have decided to leave the workforce.
        The attrition over the last 3 to 4 years has amounted to
    almost 5,000 controllers, and 2,657 have been retirements.
    FAA's projections have been a little bit low, by about 16
    percent, in determining what that attrition rate would be.
        Mr. Boswell. What percent did you say?
        Mr. Scovel. Sixteen percent low over the years. However,
    FAA has managed to increase hiring efforts and, in fact, now
    has some 270 more controllers onboard than it did in 2004.
        Mr. Boswell. Is that adequate?
        Mr. Scovel. We do have concerns, not over the total size of
    the workforce, sir, but mostly over the skill level, the
    training level of the controllers who are currently Members of
    the workforce.
        The number of certified professional controllers, those who
    are fully capable of operating on their own in their
    facilities, has diminished as the controllers in training
    numbers have greatly increased. At some facilities, controllers
    in training amount to upwards of 40 percent of the workforce at
    that facility, and that can be a problem in terms of training
    those new controller because each new controller requires a
    certified professional controller to walk them through the
    steps.
        Mr. Boswell. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is up, but I think we are
    going to have to give some more continued attention to this.
        Mr. Costello. Well, let me just follow up and make a
    comment to your question to General Scovel. I was, not too long
    ago, in the air traffic control tower in Orlando, and at the
    time there were 10 controllers on duty. Only one had one year
    of experience. The rest of them had been on the job less than
    one year.
        So when I think of what happened with U.S. Airways in the
    Hudson River, I think about the experience that was involved
    with everyone from the flight attendants to the pilots to the
    air traffic controller to the responders and the level of
    experience that they had.
        One has to wonder that with an air traffic control force
    where we are losing the most experienced controllers at the
    rapid pace that we are losing them, it does make one concerned
    about a lack of experience in a very critical position.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Hawaii, Ms.
    Hirono.
        Ms. Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I have some questions for Ms. LoBue, and I note that your
    testimony focused on safety and efficiency of aviation as prime
    concerns. So I have two questions relating to safety.
        I have learned recently that thousands of corporate
    aircraft as well as the craft used by the Secretaries of
    Transportation and Homeland Security, senior military leaders
    and the FAA personnel have technology on this aircraft that
    enable pilots to see under conditions of unstoppable blinding
    smoke in the cockpit. I was surprised to learn, however, that
    there is no FAA requirement that passenger airliners or
    military aircraft have equivalent systems to ensure that pilots
    can see in the cockpit under these kinds of conditions.
        The technology in question costs approximately $25,000 to
    $30,000 per aircraft which equates to a penny or so per ticket
    over the life of the system.
        As I understand it, the FAA's minimum safety standard is
    that any failure of systems or components that result in
    catastrophic consequences must be extremely improbable, and
    there is a definition for extreme improbability.
        But according to information that I have and if you Google,
    for example, smoke in cockpits, you will see dozens and dozens
    of incidents where smoke was in the cockpit, resulted in
    emergency landings of aircraft. There have also been numerous
    catastrophic fatal airliner incidents in which smoke in the
    cockpit has been a cause or a factor of that incident.
        When we are talking about emergency situations dealing with
    airlines, seconds count. As was the case in the U.S. Airways
    Flight 1549, seconds count.
        So I would like to know why the FAA should not mandate
    emergency vision technology to enable pilots to see their
    controls and to land safely during in-flight emergencies with
    unstoppable blinding smoke in the cockpit, especially as these
    systems and this technology is utilized on the planes that are
    used by the Secretaries of Transportation and Homeland
    Security, senior military leaders and thousands of corporate
    aircraft.
        Ms. LoBue. Thank you. I am not personally able to answer
    this question for you, but I would offer that we will get the
    people that know at FAA to come up and brief you very quickly.
        Ms. Hirono. Well, I know that smoke in the cockpit is
    something that occurs, as I mentioned, relatively frequently
    and that this is an issue that has been around for decades.
        I am a new Member to the Committee, so I have recently been
    apprised of this, and I would really urge FAA too. Because you
    are focusing on safety and nothing could be more important than
    the safety of aviation passengers, that since the technology is
    there, it is utilized, it doesn't cost very much, I would
    encourage FAA to make that requirement.
        The second question I have is in the 1990s the FAA
    contracted operations of a number of Level I airport towers
    operating under visual flight rules--these are Class D
    airports--to private operators, and one such tower is in the
    Kona International Airport which is in my district on the
    Island of Hawaii. This airport is currently classified as a
    Class D airspace and therefore does not have approach control
    run by the FAA. However, we know that over the past 15 years
    Kona Airport is one of the busier airports and it more than
    qualifies for Class C status. They have over 1.3 million
    passengers compared with the minimum of 250,000 for a Class C
    airspace. And Class C airspace requires FAA approach control.
        I have been told by some flight professionals, pilots, air
    traffic controllers, and they have expressed concerns of safety
    issues at the Kona Airport.
        The contract, private contract is about to expire, and I
    think that this is a really good time for the FAA to review the
    safety needs at this airport with the idea that it should. The
    question as to whether or not this airport should return to FAA
    control is, one, definitely timely and I think really important
    for the safety of the passengers going to that airport.
        I would ask you to look into it and if you could respond to
    me, but if you can't right now, then later.
        Ms. LoBue. So, yes, I would absolutely commit to you that
    we will look into that and get back to you very quickly.
        Ms. Hirono. Thank you.
        I yield back the rest of my time.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentlelady and now
    recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. McMahon.
        Mr. McMahon. Thank you, Chairman Costello and Ranking
    Member Petri for organizing this important meeting on the FAA
    Reauthorization Act of 2009.
        As aviation is a critical mode of transportation for our
    Nation and for our world, to all the witnesses from the FAA,
    the airlines and, most importantly, to the hardworking air
    traffic controllers, pilots, flight attendants, ground crews
    and countless other airline and airport employees, I thank you
    for keeping air travel the safest form of travel in the United
    States.
        As the Chairman mentioned, all we have to do is look at the
    heroic crew from the U.S. Airways Flight 1549 which happened
    right in the Harbor of New York from which I come. You may have
    noticed that on the accent. How important it is to have
    experienced and dedicated people flying our planes in our air
    transport system.
        Mr. Chairman, I am excited about joining this Subcommittee,
    and I look forward to a rigorous discussion of this
    reauthorization bill. I know that this Committee and our great
    Subcommittee staff have put together a good package over the
    last few years, and I am looking forward to working with you to
    address a number of concerns.
        Of course, I support the creation of the NextGen air
    transportation system, and I encourage the use of the most
    cutting-edge satellite and GPS technology available for our
    network.
        As you know, my district includes Staten Island and the
    western portion of Brooklyn, New York, the gateway to New York
    Harbor. The New York area airports provide a critical link to
    our national aviation network, but they also are some of the
    busiest airports in the Nation, and we must work to build a
    system capacity in a way that makes sense to New York and our
    Country as a whole.
        That is why I applaud the efforts of my colleagues last
    year to oppose the Bush Administration's plan to auction off
    the air slots through congestion pricing at JFK and LaGuardia
    and, eventually, Newark. That plan was unworkable, and I am
    glad that it will not be included in this year's bill.
        Also, Newark Airport is just over the Goethals Bridge from
    Staten Island. Airplane and helicopter noise continues to be a
    big problem for my district. I hope we can work to include in
    this bill ways to study the noise around New York airports.
        Finally, all of us have heard countless horror stories
    about air delays and being stuck on the tarmac, and we need to
    make sure that the traveling public is treated with respect by
    adopting a strong passengers' bill of rights.
        With that said and your permission, Mr. Chairman, I just
    have two questions to Ms. LoBue.
        Our air traffic controllers are often the eyes and ears of
    our airplanes and are the backbone of our safety network. It
    has already been brought up by the Chairman how their training
    is so important.
        What type of outreach is going on with the FAA to reach out
    to the air traffic controllers about the airspace redesign and
    staffing issues across the Country as their experience is so
    important and how are they being included in this process?
        Ms. LoBue. My understanding is that there was some outreach
    during the development of the New York airspace redesign to the
    controller workforce. We can get you specifics on that and have
    someone come up and brief you on all the outreach that was
    done.
        Mr. McMahon. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time. Thank you.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now
    recognizes the gentlelady from the District of Columbia, Ms.
    Norton.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
    you for kicking off this very important series of hearings.
        I want to identify myself with the remarks of the Chairman
    and others concerning the necessity to acquire an Administrator
    who knows how to settle disputes with the labor force, which is
    stunting all we have to do in this Agency.
        First, let me ask Ms. LoBue if you would spell out in
    greater detail the relationship between the upcoming stimulus
    and the Airport Improvement Program, or perhaps Mr. Dillingham.
    We understand from your testimony that it gets you somewhat
    beyond the six-month extensions, but would you put on the
    record how the use of these funds will move your own mandate
    for an improvement program?
        Ms. LoBue. So let me be clear, there is a core set of
    programs that needs to be reauthorized and that this
    Committee's bill would work toward.
        For the stimulus program, we have a series of projects in
    the pipeline that we believe would create jobs fairly
    immediately, and those particular items would be the project
    types that would be done under the stimulus package. And the
    stimulus, since it is----
        Ms. Norton. What types of items, for example?
        Ms. LoBue. It can be resurfacing runways. It can be putting
    in landing lights.
        We have a system of safety projects, that under the system
    called the NPIAS, we put them in priority order. Those that
    would rise to the next highest are the types of items that we
    would choose that are traditional items done under the Airport
    Improvement Program. It would just advance them from 2010 to
    2009, from 2011 to 2010.
        Ms. Norton. Well, every Committee feels an urgent need to
    make sure that these funds are used, used quickly, efficiently.
    When can you get to the Chairman of this Subcommittee and the
    Chairman of the Full Committee a list of what those projects
    will be and their readiness for implementation?
        Ms. LoBue. I would have to go back and check that, and we
    will get back to you with information.
        Ms. Norton. I think you should get back to the Chairman of
    this Subcommittee within 10 days on that information. This is a
    lot of money, $3 billion.
        Ms. LoBue. My understanding is we have the list. I am just
    not familiar enough with it myself, personally.
        Ms. Norton. Yes. All right. If you would just submit that
    to the Subcommittee Chairman within 10 days, so that we can be
    aware of it, I think it would be helpful to us all.
        I have a question that is very troubling. In this region,
    we appear to be going backwards on matters of security. The
    only public service helicopter located in this region, we have
    been informed is in danger of closing. That, of course, puts
    into jeopardy security in this high-profile, highly-targeted
    region.
        It is used, of course, by public entities: the Metropolitan
    Police Air Support Unit, the U.S. Park Police, et cetera.
    Moreover, it is this heliport, the one at South Capitol Street,
    is a part of the Department of Defense Nightingale Program. It
    is the point of departure of a number of Federal officials
    including the Supreme Court. And, on 9/11, this heliport in
    fact became the air control command tower when the airport here
    was evacuated.
        There seemed to have been some understanding of the
    importance of this helicopter because despite what was done
    with general aviation, which is essentially closing it down and
    then opening it in a way so that virtually nobody can use it,
    for two years after 9/11, the heliport continued to serve
    public service clients and corporate clients as well as news-
    gathering helicopters. An agreement was reached, as you might
    expect, with the Secret Service and actually adopted by TSA.
        For reasons that I would like you to explain, since
    October, 2003, the commercial operators whose funding is
    necessary to keep the heliport open and why they have informed
    us that they are on the brink of closing, they have been
    restricted from using the heliport.
        Now understand who pilots the commercial helicopters. These
    are all people who are or have been military or police
    helicopter pilots. That is what they have to be in order to
    come into this airport.
        Now they are to the point where they cannot generate enough
    revenue to keep the heliport open without going back to what
    they had two years after 9/11. Could you explain to this
    Subcommittee why, with all of these safeguards, without
    explanation, this vital security defense service was abruptly
    cut off and what you intend to do about it?
        Ms. LoBue. I am not personally familiar with this issue. So
    I will have to get someone who is come up and brief you. We
    commit to do that within the next week.
        Mr. Costello. Ms. Norton, Ms. LoBue is here because Ms.
    Osmus, who was scheduled to be here, is ill today. So she is
    sitting in.
        Let me suggest on that issue--and we recently discussed
    this issue--we need the Department over, someone who knows and
    can answer the question. We will set up a meeting with you and
    with the appropriate people within the Agency to discuss the
    matter.
        Ms. Norton. I so appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. It is a
    matter of some urgency, I believe.
        At the same time, Mr. Chairman, may I ask?
        Mr. Costello. If it is quick. We are already a few minutes
    over time.
        Ms. Norton. Just let me ask. I am not asking a question. I
    am asking you if you would provide a similar briefing from
    whoever are the responsible officials--I appreciate that we
    made this witness a sitting duck for the entire Department--to
    explain whether they have reviewed the virtual exclusion of
    general aviation from the airport of the Nation's Capital even
    though just a few days after 9/11 it was up and running in the
    city of skyscrapers, New York City, and only because this
    Committee threatened contempt did we get it opened at all, and
    then we have such onerous requirements, people with shotguns
    onboard and the like.
        That it continues to be virtual exclusion, I would like to
    ask for an explanation and review of that policy as well.
        Mr. Costello. We will be in touch with your staff, and we
    will set up a meeting.
        Chairman Oberstar had a meeting yesterday with the
    Subcommittee Chairs and Secretary LaHood, and I think another
    meeting is going to happen sometime in the not too distant
    future. But we will set that meeting.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentlelady and now
    recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Cohen.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Let me ask first, and I just haven't had time to look, and
    I don't know who the appropriate person to answer this question
    might be. Is there anything in the bill or is there anything
    that we already have in the way of help to help airports clear
    away fowl from the area so they don't cause disturbances with
    airplanes as we saw in New York?
        Is there any program that we have? Noisemakers? Whatever?
        Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. LoBue. The FAA does, through its airport organization,
    have guidance and programs for wildlife and bird hazard
    mitigation and works actively with most of the airports
    throughout the United States.
        It does remain a big concern, sir. You are correct.
        Mr. Cohen. Well, obviously, it does.
        Was the problem in New York that these birds were just
    lucky or unlucky? They didn't get observed by your deterrent
    effects or your monitoring system and then they ran into the
    plane or vice-versa or what?
        Ms. LoBue. My understanding is the monitoring systems are
    mostly down at a lower level and these were at a higher level.
    I am not familiar enough.
        Obviously, they are still going through all the facts, and
    the NTSB has not come out with all of its reports yet. But,
    that said, we do work the issue particularly through the
    airports, at the lowest altitude levels.
        Mr. Cohen. What gets geese to go the other way except for
    the weather?
        Ms. LoBue. I can get you more information on the program.
    They have deterrents whether it is through actively working to
    replace water hazards or other things like that.
        New York is complicated in that the airport is right on the
    water, and there is a wildlife refuge there. So they actually
    have a considerable problem that they do try and mitigate.
        Mr. Cohen. But it is on your radar, so to speak?
        Ms. LoBue. Absolutely.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you.
        Let me ask all three of you : Could you safely say that you
    are all in favor of the passage of this bill?
        I see one nod.
        Mr. Dillingham. Mr. Cohen, we are definitely in favor of
    the passage of the bill. We have worked with the Committee to
    help provide some of the background information that is behind
    the bill. So we are definitely in favor of it.
        Mr. Cohen. Let me ask you this: There is a provision in
    here that deals with labor laws and deals with Federal Express
    which is the number one carrier of cargo in this Country, and
    it would require them to be under the National Labor Relations
    Act rather than the Railway Labor Act. The courts have ruled
    that is appropriate legislatively and also in courts,
    judicially, that that is the proper place for labor disputes to
    be determined for the good of the Country because if there is a
    strike there in some remote section of the Federal Express
    system and FedEx is halted in this particularly recessionary
    time, if not at all times, commerce comes to a halt.
        Are you all familiar with that provision? Are any of you
    familiar with it?
        Nobody is familiar with it?
        Well, and you endorse the bill.
        My question to you is this: In my opinion, and I come from
    Memphis. That is maybe considered provincial. But Federal
    Express covers the entire United States, the entire globe, and
    this issue has the potential to stop this bill.
        I am in favor of the bill as you are and think it is real
    important, as does my airport authority, that we have the Next
    Generation, that we have runway improvements, that we have all
    the provisions in the bill to help move us forward.
        But this one labor provision is not germane and that the
    three of you all aren't even familiar with. And yet you are
    experts on the field--the pros from Dover, as they would say in
    MASH--and aren't even familiar with it could hold up this bill.
        And I think that is a serious problem and especially in the
    Senate because they have, effectively, hijacked the stimulus
    bill with three individuals, and I suspect that the same thing
    could happen over there on this bill. I would hate to see us
    not get this bill passed because of a provision that is very
    important to the future of this Country's economy and that is
    not necessarily germane to runways, extensions and NextGen and
    other safety features.
        So, with that as a statement, if anybody wants to comment,
    I would appreciate it. Mr. Scovel, do you have a thought?
        Mr. Scovel. I do not, sir. The topic is really beyond the
    purview of my office, and we are happy to leave it within the
    sound judgment of the Congress.
        Mr. Costello. I think the gentleman from Tennessee has
    sufficiently made his point on the issue. I don't think you are
    going to get a comment out of any one of the witnesses here,
    but your point is well taken and noted.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
    recognizing me because I have a meeting in the Tennessee
    delegation, and I absolutely, positively wanted to be here for
    this particular moment. Thank you.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now
    recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Boswell.
        Mr. Boozman. You have forgotten my name.
        Mr. Costello. Or Mr. Boozman. I just had a conversation
    with Mr. Boswell. Mr. Boozman.
        And let me remind Members that we have 14 more witnesses to
    hear from. So I would ask Members to stay within the five-
    minute time limit.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas.
        Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will cooperate even
    though you forgot my name.
        Thank you all for being here, and we appreciate the
    testimony.
        Dr. Dillingham, EAS is an important entity in many of our
    districts throughout the Country, many Members of Congress. Can
    you give us some options and alternatives that perhaps Congress
    might explore to enhance or supplement EAS?
        Mr. Dillingham. Thank you, Mr. Boozman.
        We currently have a study underway for this Subcommittee
    that looks at those exact questions. What we can say at this
    early stage is that clearly looking at the criteria and
    requirements associated with EAS is well overdue. Since the
    program was started some 30 years ago, there have not been
    major changes or adjustments in the program in spite of changes
    in population, demography, in spite of changes in the aviation
    industry.
        I think part of what we are going to try and report out is
    not only how to enhance EAS but also options that will provide
    the sort of connectivity for small and rural communities to
    that national transportation network. And it may be rail, and
    it may be bus or other surface things, but we propose to report
    those options to the Committee as soon as we are finished
    analyzing the data.
        Mr. Boozman. Thank you very much, sir.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now
    recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Richardson.
        Ms. Richardson. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having
    this meeting and welcome back to all of you of seeing you on
    our new year and new session.
        I have two very quick questions. One, I want to build upon
    the Chairman regarding air traffic controllers.
        I notice, Ms. LoBue, that in your very extensive testimony
    it is only until the last paragraph do you talk about air
    traffic controllers.
        And, Mr. Dillingham, in your presentation, you talk about
    that you agree that they are somewhat on track.
        However, all you got to do is come to my State, and I am
    sure you have read the headlines of both of my Senators. We are
    extremely concerned of what is happening with air traffic
    controllers. So I would like to know where are we here because
    your documentation says we are on track, things are going fine,
    yet in our communities, as the Chairman has shared as well, we
    have a lot of inexperienced people in there where it is a
    disaster waiting to happen?
        Essentially, the recommendation I believe from Mr.
    Dillingham's report is not only hiring, but what are you doing
    to resolve the labor conflict which I think has been going on
    for several years and what is the Secretary's commitment to
    resolving that conflict?
        Because we are projecting what is going to happen of hiring
    people of seven years, but I believe if we continue to
    disrespect working people and not resolve the contract issues,
    you may find that the pattern is not at the same. So what are
    we going to do to address that?
        Ms. LoBue. If I could.
        Ms. Richardson. Please.
        Ms. LoBue. The Secretary, the new Secretary, Mr. LaHood,
    has committed that with his first hire, a new FAA
    Administrator, one of the things he is going to have him tackle
    is the workforce issues. He is looking for a person that will
    be willing to, and able to, work with labor and get some of
    these issues behind us. I think we have that commitment from
    the Secretary, and I believe the Chairman has mentioned that we
    should look forward to that in the very near future.
        That will be one of the items tackled by this
    Administration pretty quickly.
        As to the concern about the proportion of trainees versus
    experienced controllers, that is something obviously that we
    have concerns about. We do have a lot of controllers who we are
    hiring. We are following the plan, but there are in fact places
    that we understand the ratio of trainees is higher than we
    would like. We are actively keeping an eye on those, and we
    have processes in place to get those controllers checked out
    and to work through some of the experience issues on a more
    effective and faster way.
        So I can tell you that we understand the problem and we are
    working it, although we do understand there will be some
    transition issues as we move forward.
        Ms. Richardson. Okay. In the sense of time that the
    Chairman has said, could you please forward to the Committee a
    report, I would say, on your major airports? I know LAX has to
    be top on the list.
        Not what we are preparing and we are working on but what
    specifically is happening because it is of great concern. Both
    of the Senators in my State have expressed the concern, and it
    is just not to our satisfaction at this point.
        I would also urge the Secretary, and I hope to meet with
    him soon, and I am sure our Chairman will share the thoughts of
    this Committee. But resolving that labor agreement has to be a
    top priority, not the last paragraph in your report because I
    believe it hinges upon many of the other problems that we have.
        Finally, I wanted to talk about noise mitigation. In
    addition to LAX, I have the Long Beach Airport in my district.
        Mr. Dillingham, you talked about that local government
    decisions that allow communities to expand near airports may,
    however, erode some of the gains in these reductions of noise.
    The FAA has issued guidance that discourages incompatible land
    uses such as residences, schools, hospitals and in areas with
    significant noise, aviation noise.
        In my area, we just, when I was on the council there,
    approved a major project of over 2,000 homes to go right up
    under the airport, the plane of landing. And so, my question is
    what would you advise to Members on Committees?
        This isn't saying don't build any more. But for those of us
    who are there, how can we take advantage of other pilot
    programs or how could you recommend better addressing it for
    the neighborhoods that are clearly along those paths?
        Mr. Dillingham. Ms. Richardson, as you have said, land use
    is strictly a local jurisdiction matter, and what FAA has done
    is there is a Part 150 program that allows for noise mitigation
    to try and mitigate some of the noise where you have this
    close-up usage of land.
        Also, we are currently doing work for this Committee, and
    LAX is a big part of it. We are doing a study looking to see
    what airports have been doing to mitigate all kinds of
    environmental issues, noise and emissions. We are hoping to
    bring to the Committee some answers and options that we have
    learned from a national study of airports, and hopefully that
    will be of some help in the LAX area.
        Ms. Richardson. If you would consider my area as evaluating
    as you move forward, I would appreciate it.
        Mr. Dillingham. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have extended my
    time.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentlelady and now
    recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Dr. Ehlers.
        Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, but I just arrived due
    to a delay, and I don't feel qualified to ask a question of
    this August panel.
        Mr. Costello. Would you like to yield your time to Mr.
    Dent?
        Mr. Ehlers. I would be happy to yield my time to Mr. Dent.
        Mr. Dent. Thank you, Mr. Ehlers, for yielding.
        My question to you is this: What benefits have been
    achieved by moving the Joint Planning and Development Office
    within the bureaucracy of the Air Traffic Organization, Ms.
    LoBue?
        Ms. LoBue. That move was made to better work what we
    generally call ``stovepipes'' and work some of the horizontal
    integration in the Agency. So the point was to have those
    things that the JPDO had done work on that would qualify in the
    short and the mid-term be put into implementation and worked
    immediately. Those things in the longer term, JPDO is still
    actively working and has the outreach and has the
    responsibility to coordinate with all the other agencies.
        Mr. Dent. Thank you.
        Now what is the biggest safety priority for the Agency?
        Ms. LoBue. I don't know that I am qualified to offer a
    single safety priority. We have many.
        Mr. Dent. Okay. With the downturn in the economy too, it
    seems to me that Federal jobs may look better than ever for
    many people. Should this help the FAA's recruitment of highly
    qualified people with systems engineering and contract
    management expertise?
        Ms. LoBue. I think we believe that it will. I think we
    remain concerned that across all technical industries, that
    there is a shortage. But I think the economic downturn should
    help us, yes.
        Mr. Dent. I guess my final question I have for you then is
    why does the FAA not keep any safety data on air ambulances,
    cargo aircraft and general aviation?
        Ms. LoBue. I am not qualified to answer that, sir, but I
    can get someone who is to come up and brief you.
        Mr. Dent. I appreciate that.
        I will yield back my time to Mr. Ehlers.
        Mr. Ehlers. No one seems to be seeking time on our side, so
    I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now
    recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Carnahan.
        Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to first thank the panel and direct my question to
    Inspector General Scovel.
        In a report that came out last April for DOT, you stated
    that fewer veteran controllers were transferring from lower
    level, less complicated facilities to higher level, busier
    locations. The impact has been to put less experienced
    controllers into situations they may not be as ready for as
    some of their counterparts. Is that still the case nearly a
    year later and are there any updated data that we could see
    regarding that?
        Mr. Scovel. Thank you, Mr. Carnahan.
        We finished our report on air traffic controller facility
    level training as of the end of fiscal year 2008. So my data
    are current as of September 30, 2008.
        At that point, we had determined that fewer veteran
    controllers than FAA had hoped were indeed taking up the Agency
    on its offer to move them, with a bonus, to facilities where
    veterans were needed.
        As a result, controllers in training were found in
    increasing numbers at a number of facilities across the
    Country. This is a concern both for the Agency and for my
    office because, of course, controllers in training require much
    closer supervision and are not qualified to operate at all
    positions across the facility.
        Mr. Carnahan. What role has the Agency's contract had on
    this drop in incentives for the more experienced controllers to
    move up the ranks to these busier facilities?
        Mr. Scovel. I am not aware that our audit covered that
    particular question. When you talk about the contract, you are
    talking about the labor contract between the Agency and NATCA,
    sir?
        Mr. Carnahan. Yes.
        Mr. Scovel. Right. We did not address that.
        What we attempted to address, at least in part, was whether
    the absence of a full contract might be leading to more
    retirements on the part of veteran controllers.
        Mr. Carnahan. And what were your findings in that regard?
        Mr. Scovel. We found certainly that the absence of a full
    contract was a significant morale issue. However, we could not
    identify the absence of a contract as, in most cases, the sole
    driving factor leading an individual to decide to retire. There
    were just too many factors, both personal and professional,
    that were leading veteran controllers to retire.
        Perhaps in some cases the absence of a contract was one of
    those factors, but it was expressed more generally in terms of
    the morale of the workforce.
        Mr. Carnahan. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now
    recognizes the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Moran.
        Mr. Moran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I appreciate
    the opportunity to hear these witnesses read their testimony in
    this case and hear the next panel.
        The economic downturn, Ms. LoBue, what is the current state
    of the Aviation Trust Fund and its effect upon the FAA's
    budget?
        Ms. LoBue. Right now, the Trust Fund for the end of 2009,
    and this goes back to the mid-term projections we did last
    July, we project that Trust Fund receipts will be $12.2 billion
    at the end of 2009 and $13.1 billion in 2010. This says
    basically that for the cash balance, there is not a problem
    right now.
        We are concerned about the low uncommitted balance which
    shows a mismatch of receipts and spending because, as we have
    all seen, traffic continues to trend downward as much as
    perhaps 10 percent. So that is an issue that we will have to
    look at.
        Mr. Moran. When you say the cash balances are not a problem
    right now, how would you define right now? What time frame?
        Are there expectations? What does your crystal ball
    foretell?
        Ms. LoBue. At the end of 2009, we are expecting a $9.1
    billion cash balance.
        Obviously, all of these numbers will be updated as the new
    Administration comes forward with its budget request. I believe
    that is at the end of February. So they would have, I think, in
    that budget request much more articulation of how they see the
    problem.
        Mr. Moran. Is there an understanding at the FAA what the
    Administration's plans are to fill the long vacant position of
    Administrator?
        Ms. LoBue. The Secretary has met both with the FAA
    executives and has had a couple of town hall meetings open to
    all FAA staff and reiterated several times that one of his
    highest priorities is getting an Administrator who will both be
    able to tackle NextGen and be able to work through the
    workforce issues that we have seen.
        I understand from the Chairman that in fact they have
    identified someone and are hoping to get that person on soon.
        Mr. Moran. That is encouraging. It has been discouraging
    for the amount of time that the position has been vacant, and I
    would just publicly encourage the Secretary, the Administration
    to actively engage in finding a leader at the Federal Aviation
    Administration.
        I thank the Chairman and yield back my time.
        Mr. Costello. I thank the gentleman and just would comment
    that in a recent meeting with the Secretary and others the
    Administration has identified someone that they are speaking to
    right now. The Administration has only been in office 21 days.
    So it seems to me like it is pretty fast action and that they
    are moving forward.
        We hope that the person is appointed and moves through the
    process quickly. We think it is important for NextGen and a
    number of the other programs.
        Mr. Moran. If the Chairman would yield, I did not mean to
    infer that 21 days was necessarily a long period of time, but
    it has been a long time since we have had the position
    occupied. Thank you.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
    Illinois, Mr. Lipinski.
        Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know we have a
    long hearing today, so I will work on keeping this short.
        I want to thank Chairman Costello and Ranking Member Petri
    for their work in putting together this bill last year and also
    working with Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica.
        There are a couple of things that I had worked with the
    Chairmen and Ranking Members, getting the provision legislation
    to continue and enhance R&D for avgas alternatives, which I
    think is important, as well as the provision that would
    establish a new FAA center of excellence focused on alternative
    jet fuel research.
        So I thank the Chairman for including this in the bill that
    we have before us now and that we are moving very quickly on
    this. I think it is very important that we move quickly, and
    hopefully the Senate will move this time on the FAA
    reauthorization.
        So, in order to keep this short for the rest of the
    witnesses, I just wanted to ask one question right now of Ms.
    LoBue about Chicago Midway International Airport which is in my
    district. It has been important to me, and I have been working
    to increase the safety and efficiency of the airport and
    working with the FAA on this.
        I am not sure what you can provide for me right, but I
    certainly would like to get further elaboration on what
    measures the FAA is taking right now to ensure the safety and
    efficiency at Midway Airport remain a priority because this is
    very important to, of course, everyone who uses the airport and
    certainly the people who live in the vicinity of the airport.
        Ms. LoBue. Are you talking about while this privatization
    effort is going on?
        Mr. Lipinski. Yes.
        Ms. LoBue. So, as we speak, nothing has changed.
        We have an applicant under the privatization pilot program.
    FAA has not yet approved that. We are still awaiting some of
    the financial documents and some of the exact safety assurances
    and workings that you are talking about. So, when we get that
    from the city, we will proceed as soon as we can.
        Mr. Lipinski. As we go through this, whether or not the
    airport is leased, is there anything specific, anything more
    that the FAA is looking at right now?
        I know that in the last few years there have been additions
    at the end of the runways for arrestor beds and was wondering
    where we are look at moving forward with anymore safety
    improvements at Midway Airport?
        Ms. LoBue. I would have to have someone get back to you
    with the specifics for Midway and what they are doing there. I
    am not familiar myself, but we can do that.
        Mr. Lipinski. I appreciate that and appreciate working with
    the FAA and working with the new Administrator on making sure
    that all of our airports, but certainly, also importantly,
    Midway Airport and O'Hare Airport continue to be vital if we
    improve the safety and work on improving the efficiency of
    those airports.
        So, with that, I will yield back.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now
    recognizes the distinguished Chairman of the Full Committee,
    Chairman Oberstar.
        Mr. Oberstar. Well, thank you very much, Chairman. I thank
    you and Mr. Petri for moving ahead quickly on this
    reauthorization. It is the highest priority for us after the
    stimulus.
        The stimulus may need a lot more work than the aviation
    bill. I don't know.
        Ms. LoBue, runway status lights program, I am not familiar
    with that. What do you mean by runway status lights?
        Ms. LoBue. As part of our Runway Safety Call to Action
    program, we have put in place runway status lights. I believe
    it is eligible for AIP funding, and it is one of a number of
    efforts to improve visibility and make sure that----
        Mr. Oberstar. What do you mean by status lights? That is
    one I want to understand, what you mean by status lights.
        Ms. LoBue. It goes to the status of whether the particular
    runway is occupied, not open, closed. That is what it refers
    to, the status of the runway itself.
        For instance, we had the instance where a crew pulled onto
    an unused runway, and that was inappropriate. Now that would be
    marked specifically, so that they could see from these lights
    that that was not an appropriate place to go.
        Mr. Dillingham. Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. Oberstar. Is this a program or initiative you are
    instituting at all airports, only the major airports or more
    critical airports or what?
        Ms. LoBue. I would have to get back to you on more of the
    specifics of the program. My understanding is that there is a
    program to put them in. I believe by 2011, the top 22 airports
    will all have them.
        Mr. Oberstar. Dr. Dillingham, you were going to comment?
        Mr. Dillingham. I was just going to say that basically they
    work like stop lights, so that the pilot can tell it is red,
    sort of red and green. If it is red, it is a visible sign that
    you shouldn't go onto that runway. So that is, essentially,
    runway status lights.
        And FAA has a program, as Ms. LoBue said, that they have
    already started. I think they have been installed in something
    greater than 20 airports at this point, and I think the idea is
    that eventually all of the airports will have that kind of
    safety or at least certainly the major airports, the OEP
    airports and the other.
        Mr. Oberstar. We certainly need that. That is the first
    time I have heard of this initiative, not that I have been
    following with as much diligence as I used to do.
        But I know that further on in Ms. LoBue's testimony she
    discusses increased runway safety training and awareness of
    pilots and air traffic controllers and vehicles.
        I see an increasing number of vehicular traffic on the air
    side of airports, and it really troubles me that we have so
    much movement in that space. I am really concerned we are going
    to have an on-the-ground incident. I know we do have some
    lesser ones, but a major incursion that would result in
    aircraft damage, injury or even fatality.
        So describe this training and the frequency of which it is
    occurring and the intensity and the type of training.
        Ms. LoBue. FAA has had a pretty intensive program to try
    and tackle runway incursions over the last year and a half.
    Former Administrator Marion Blakey did a Runway Call to Action
    in which we talked with both the major carriers and ALPA, as
    well as the major airports on what were the types of things we
    could do to bring the number of runway incursions down because
    I think we also believe that that is one of the most important
    areas that we look at in safety.
        As of late in 2008, we instituted a Runway Safety Council
    which is co-chaired by ALPA to continue to look at the types of
    training, et cetera, that we can do.
        I would have to get someone to come and give you a briefing
    with more specificity on exactly all the training we have been
    doing. But in fact we went out with guidance to the airlines on
    runway safety training, and particularly on the runway safety
    lights, all the major carriers have done training of their
    workforces over the last year.
        Mr. Oberstar. Thank you. I will take you up on that offer
    and won't delay any further with questions.
        This is a vitally important hearing, all the witnesses and
    all the organizations in one shot at this. We did this bill
    last year or two years ago actually, a year and a half ago. We
    are now polishing for readiness for markup to the House floor
    and on a tough time line to get this bill through the House.
        Hopefully, the other body gets the message and gets off
    their delaying tactics that they have done for the last few
    years and move a bill through because the authorization runs
    out at the end of next month.
        And we are dead serious about getting this bill through. So
    anybody who has any questions, issues, raise now or forever
    keep your peace.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Costello. Thank you, Chairman Oberstar. Well said.
        We thank all three of you for being here today and offering
    your testimony and answering our questions.
        The Chair now would ask the next panel of witnesses to come
    forward. I will make the introductions while you are finding
    your chair: Mr. Greg Principato, who is the Airports Council
    International-North America President; Mr. James Elwood,
    Airport Director of Aspen/Pitkin County Airport; Mr. James May,
    the President and CEO of the Air Transport Association; Mr. Ed
    Bolen, the President and CEO, National Business Aviation
    Association; Mr. Roger Cohen, President of the Regional Airline
    Association; Mr. Craig Fuller, President, Aircraft Owners and
    Pilots Association; Mr. Clayton Jones who is Chairman,
    President and CEO of Rockwell Collins.
        We would ask all of you to be seated.
        As you heard me announce at the beginning of the hearing,
    we have all of your statements. They will be submitted in their
    entirety in the record. We would ask that you summarize your
    testimony in five minutes or less which will give Members the
    opportunity to ask questions.
        And we will lead off with Mr. Principato.

     TESTIMONY OF GREGORY PRINCIPATO, PRESIDENT, AIRPORTS COUNCIL
     INTERNATIONAL-NORTH AMERICA; JAMES P. ELWOOD, A.A.E., AIRPORT
    DIRECTOR, ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY AIRPORT; JAMES C. MAY, PRESIDENT
      AND CEO, AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION; ED BOLEN, PRESIDENT AND
       CEO, NATIONAL BUSINESS AVIATION ASSOCIATION; ROGER COHEN,
        PRESIDENT, REGIONAL AIRLINE ASSOCIATION; CRAIG FULLER,
    PRESIDENT, AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION; AND CLAYTON
        M. JONES, CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ROCKWELL COLLINS

        Mr. Principato. Thank you for allowing Airports Council
    International-North America the opportunity to participate in
    this important hearing, Mr. Chairman.
        Let me start by thanking you and the Subcommittee for your
    support of airports in H.R. 915. Your assistance in providing
    tools to improve our infrastructure while creating thousands of
    jobs highlights the important role of airports in our Nation's
    transportation network.
        We also appreciate your continued recognition of the
    success of the Airport Improvement Program in the FAA
    Reauthorization Act of 2009. Whether one plane or a hundred use
    an airport in a given day, we need to maintain our
    infrastructure to provide safe and secure facilities for the
    traveling public.
        Under this Committee's leadership, airports were given a
    financial tool that has proved to be a model for Federal-local
    partnerships and a lifeline for airport finance, the Passenger
    Facility Charge. By granting airports the ability to generate
    local funding through the PFC user fee, all who use the system
    have a voice in infrastructure development in consultation with
    the FAA. This financing tool has allowed local communities to
    determine needs and map out a plan for improvements and
    development at the airport in coordination with the airport
    users.
        ACI-North America strongly supports an increase in the
    ceiling of this local user fee to at least $7.50 with future
    indexes to match construction cost inflation.
        The purchasing power of the PFC has been greatly diminished
    by skyrocketing construction costs. The current maximum PFC of
    $4.50 is worth only $2.46 today. Fully adjusting the PFC to
    account for construction cost inflation would place the fee
    this year at $8.33.
        Without your continued support of increasing the PFC,
    airports will not have the ability to keep up with the
    inflationary cost of construction and provide facilities that
    meet passenger demand.
        History has shown that airports carefully evaluate the need
    for infrastructure projects. History has also shown that if you
    wait until your infrastructure is inadequate, you have waited
    too long. Traffic may be down now, but we did not have the
    infrastructure to meet demand just last summer.
        Can anyone remember the last time we had enough
    infrastructure to serve our passengers?
        How can we expect to prevent passenger delays and
    inconvenience when passenger traffic returns?
        ACI-North America, in its just completed capital needs
    survey, found that airports, both commercial and general
    aviation, have $94.4 billion in total projects over the next 5
    years that are considered essential by the airport and airport
    users to meet forecasted passenger and cargo growth. Not
    surprisingly, over half of these projects are at large hub
    airports that continue to experience congestion and flight
    delays.
        And, yes, our survey found that many airports of all sizes
    have delayed or cancelled the construction of billions of
    dollars of projects. Even so, the needs are great and costs are
    rising.
        We expect the PFC to play a more prominent role in airport
    finance as trust fund revenue declines from reduced traffic and
    from the new a la carte ticket pricing system embraced by most
    U.S. airlines since these airline fees are not subject to the
    ticket tax.
        It is ironic that the airlines continue to not only wrongly
    label the PFC user fee a tax but fail to mention that they have
    received $87 million in fiscal year 2007 to collect and remit
    it.
        It is amusing, frankly, that airlines claim the increase in
    the PFC user fee proposed by this Subcommittee last Congress
    will ultimately reduce passenger traffic when the a la carte
    pricing imposes fees that greatly exceed the PFC for services
    from checking a bag to making a seat reservation to using a
    pillow.
        Thank you also for your support as airports work to reduce
    our environmental footprint, reduce emissions and improve
    energy efficiency. The environmental provisions support by ACI
    in this bill are highlighted in my written testimony.
        Additionally, we commend the Committee for proposing
    critical funding for important air service programs including
    SCASD and EAS. We are especially grateful for your efforts to
    authorize a significant increase in SCASD as the program has
    helped small communities enhance their air service on a self-
    sufficient long-term basis.
        In addition, my written testimony addresses the role
    airports would like to play in this Committee's continued work
    on NextGen, an issue on which I have personally worked for 16
    years now.
        One final note, we remain very concerned about proposals to
    mandate specific airport rescue and firefighting standards. In
    December, we conducted a survey of our Members on how much it
    would cost to comply with the proposed NFPA standards. We found
    the capital cost for compliance would average $6.5 million and
    annual operating costs would add $2.5 million, forcing many
    smaller airports to consider closing down.
        The FAA Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee, which
    included airports, firefighters and other stakeholders,
    prepared a report on the proposed ARFF requirements and has
    recommended a rulemaking on many of these critical issues. We
    support initiating the rulemaking process to carefully evaluate
    the costs and benefits of any change in the regulation.
        And with that, I will conclude and thank you for inviting
    me here, and I look forward to working with you on getting this
    bill passed.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman for your
    testimony and now recognizes Mr. Elwood.
        Mr. Elwood. Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Petri,
    Members of the Aviation Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me
    to participate in this hearing on FAA reauthorization.
        My message today is very simple. Airports deeply appreciate
    the good work that this Committee did on an FAA reauthorization
    in the last Congress. We are particularly grateful that the
    previous bill and the legislation introduced earlier this week
    would raise the PFC cap to $7.00.
        We hope this Committee will guide the multi-year FAA bill
    through Congress early this year that raises the PFC cap,
    increases AIP funding and helps small communities.
        The past year has been a difficult one for the aviation
    industry. Oil prices skyrocketed to nearly $150 per barrel, and
    airlines responded by reducing capacity throughout the system.
    The declining economy has also been taking its toll.
        Despite this temporary downturn, our aviation system is
    expected to rebound again as it did after 9/11. Enplanements
    are expected to increase from 765 million in 2007 to more than
    1 billion in the next 10 years.
        In November, we saw new runways open here in Washington as
    well as Chicago and Seattle. Airports don't build those
    improvements and increase capacity overnight. As a matter of
    fact, Seattle started planning that capacity increase
    approximately 20 years ago.
        While airports prepare for the future, they are squeezed by
    increasing construction costs. Costs have increased
    approximately 27 percent in the last 5 years, eroding the value
    of PFCs and AIP.
        Airports are grateful that the new reauthorization bill
    calls for raising the PFC cap to $7.00 and urge this Committee
    to consider raising it to $7.50. That would be almost enough to
    offset the impact of the construction cost inflation in 2008.
        To prevent erosion, we also ask you to index the PFCs to
    the construction cost index.
        AIP is another important source of funding for airports of
    all sizes. Airports are also pleased that the new bill would
    increase AIP funding by $100 million per year.
        And regarding small airports that rely so heavily on Small
    Community Air Service and Essential Air Service programs, we
    appreciate your continued support of these critical programs
    and your proposals to reform EAS.
        Mr. Chairman, safety is always the most important
    consideration of airports across this Country. The proposal by
    the International Association of Fire Fighters is very onerous
    and is difficult for airports to manage.
        At my small airport, we have 26 employees who do virtually
    everything on the airport, from maintenance at facilities to
    customer service, the entire gamut. Of those 26 employees, 8 of
    those are firefighters. The proposal to increase us to NFPA
    standards would require us to hire an additional 19 employees
    to accomplish that task.
        When I speak to my colleagues around the Country about what
    this proposal might do to impact their operation, it is
    substantial. And it is a real risk that we will lose commercial
    air service at some airports in this country because they
    simply cannot pass along the additional costs that these
    proposals might incur onto the airlines. It would make their
    routes unprofitable, and they would leave our communities.
        So I hope that the Members of this Committee will work with
    us to find an acceptable solution as we move forward.
        In closing, I would like to thank the Committee again,
    Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Petri and Members of the
    Aviation Subcommittee for inviting me to testify. I look
    forward to working with you on this FAA reauthorization and a
    quick passage through both sides of the Capitol and on to the
    President.
        Mr. Costello. We thank you for your testimony, and the
    Chair now recognizes Mr. May.
        Mr. May. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate the
    opportunity to appear today, and also it is a pleasure to be
    here with my esteemed colleagues.
        Unlike last time around, we are really on the same page on
    a number of issues. We know that continuing to play the blame
    game is not going to get us very far, and we have listened to
    our new President and agree that it is time for change.
        All of us--commercial, business, general aviation--are 100
    percent committed to working with you, the Administration and,
    most importantly I think, each other to reach our mutual goal
    which is reauthorization of FAA's program and funding to ensure
    ATC modernization will be done early, will be done right and in
    a way that transforms air travel in this Country and keeps the
    U.S. competitive on the world stage.
        If we do it right, modernization will allow planes to fly
    more direct, efficient routes, significantly reducing fuel burn
    and CO2 emissions, reduce congestion, open up access, improve
    safety and security through precise tracking on the runway as
    well as in the air, reduce flight delays and inconvenience to
    passengers and ensure the United States remains a global leader
    in safety, security and environment.
        We realize it is necessary to put, however, the FAA
    reauthorization in context. U.S. and world economies are in
    crisis. Credit has evaporated. People are spending less.
    Consumer confidence is at a record low point. That means travel
    is down and down significantly.
        President Obama and others are championing and $790
    stimulus package, a dramatic, unprecedented pressure on the
    overall Federal budget. Massive infrastructure enhancements
    from highways to the internet are in play.
        This Committee knows that modernization of the Nation's air
    transportation network cannot wait. It is the only certain way
    to achieve the environmental, commercial, customer service
    improvements and a competitive boost to our overall economy
    that we want and the Nation demands.
        The Committee also knows the current plan for NextGen
    deployment is woefully underfunded in our view and far, far too
    slow. In this regard, I feel compelled to share with the
    Committee our disappointment, quite frankly, with the missed
    opportunity in the stimulus package to jumpstart NextGen, turn
    it into NowGen, saving or creating 77,000 jobs, reducing
    greenhouse gas emissions, reducing passengers' delays, and it
    would have been a step that truly would have been
    transformational to our economy.
        So what is different today from the last time we were here?
        First, as I mentioned earlier, the stakeholders are the
    same, on the same page as to what needs to be done with NextGen
    or NowGen which is accelerate development of RNP, RNAV, ADS-B
    and data communication, offer aircraft equipage incentives--and
    we appreciate the endorsement from GAO on that point, focus FAA
    and operator efforts on areas of the Country where we get the
    most bang for the buck.
        Second, preliminary data and common sense tells us that
    trust fund revenues are not going to be what we expected. I
    brought a chart along that is on the screen. They are going to
    be between a billion and a billion and a half less this year
    and going forward.
        Why? Because there is reduced capacity, fewer flights,
    lower fares, far less revenue coming in and over half a
    million, as an example, fewer flights this January than January
    a year ago.
        With substantial ongoing program commitments and less
    revenue coming in, some predict the trust fund balance will
    zero out by 2010. In addition, general fund contributions have
    dropped from an average of 38 percent to 16 percent over the
    last 25 years.
        So what is the same for decades and must change?
        Commercial airlines and their customers--this will come as
    no surprise to this Committee--contribute 90 percent of the
    trust fund revenue and impose less than 70 percent of the
    costs. We paid $11 billion in 2008 to the trust fund. There has
    to be a way to true up revenues with costs imposed.
        In addition, airlines and customers through PFCs, AIP rates
    and charges combined, all three, spend nearly $13 billion
    annually underwriting airport expenses. That means that
    airlines and customers spend over $20 billion on an annualized
    basis underwriting the trust fund and airports.
        I am not questioning the value of public need for our
    partners, the airports. But in this economic environment, the
    airports' continued push for higher PFC and AIP funds should be
    subjected to a reality check. Instead of asking for more money,
    airports should be doing what all Americans are doing today
    which is cutting costs, delaying investments and holding the
    line.
        This is a spending issue, not a funding issue.
        To recap, we have an economic crisis, significantly
    declining trust fund revenues and so forth.
        Let's accept the President's challenge to look at things
    differently, look at innovative funding sources, bonding
    authority, look at a national infrastructure bank, eliminate
    AMTs which is what my friend, Mr. Principato, wants.
        And, finally, I think we want to make it known that we are
    happy to work together with this Committee to find new
    constructive solutions, but continuing to look to the airlines
    for more money is not an appropriate answer.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you, Mr. May.
        Before recognizing Mr. Bolen, let me, on behalf of the
    Members of the Subcommittee, wish you a happy birthday and
    thank you for spending a good part of your birthday with us.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Bolen.
        Mr. Bolen. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is no place
    I would rather spend my birthday than right here with this
    Subcommittee.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Bolen. Mr. Chairman, it is an honor to be back
    representing the National Business Aviation Association.
        As everyone on this Committee well knows, business aviation
    is an FAA-defined term. It is the use of any general aviation
    aircraft for a business purpose.
        And business aviation is clearly an important part of the
    general aviation community. Business aviation is also an
    important engine for our Nation's economy and a vital link in
    our air transportation system.
        Business aviation is about jobs. Over 1.2 million jobs in
    the United States, good manufacturing jobs, service jobs, jobs
    that we can keep in the United States in the 21st Century.
        Business aviation is also about a lifeline to our Nation's
    small towns and rural communities. As this Committee knows,
    there have been a number of communities that have lost
    commercial airline service over the past year and a half. For
    those communities, business aviation has never been more
    important.
        Business aviation is about making our companies more
    productive, more nimble, helping them communicate and survive
    in a very harsh economic environment. As this Committee knows,
    business aviation operators are primarily small and mid-size
    companies. They need the benefits of business aviation to
    survive.
        It has already been discussed today that our economy is
    suffering. And when our economy suffers, business aviation
    suffers.
        Like commercial airlines, business aviation follows market
    cycles. So when the economy expands, our operations expand.
    When it contracts, we contract as well. Clearly, this recession
    is forcing a very painful contraction.
        Flight operations are down over 30 percent. General
    aviation manufacturing jobs are being lost. Pilot jobs are
    being lost. Service jobs are being lost. Fuelers are losing.
    Our general aviation airports are hurting as well. It is a very
    difficult time.
        Having said that, we continue to believe in the future. We
    know aviation will recover, our economy will return, and our
    air transportation system will be critically challenged as it
    moves forward. That is why we have always supported moving
    forward with NextGen.
        General aviation is not only supporting NextGen with
    rhetoric. We are supporting it with dollars.
        We commend this Subcommittee for the tremendous work it has
    done over a two-year process, immersing itself into the FAA
    funding issue, identifying the needs and the challenges and
    coming forward with a plan that we believe makes NextGen a
    reality.
        We also support the approach that the Senate brought
    forward to the Senate floor last spring. This is a process that
    builds on the general aviation fuel taxes and allows us to
    adjust those taxes to support NextGen. We continue to support
    this approach. We will not back away from it.
        We look forward to working with you on making NextGen a
    reality.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Costello. We thank you.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Cohen.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
    Subcommittee.
        I am President of the Regional Airline Association. RAA
    represents the interests of more than 30 regional airlines and
    nearly 300 industry suppliers, and we want to thank you for
    this opportunity today.
        America's regional airlines have become a fundamental
    cornerstone of our air transportation industry and a critical
    part of the Nation's economy. Today, we carry 160 million
    passengers a year. That is more than one out of every five on a
    commercial airliner. We fly 40 percent of the Nation's
    passenger fleet and 50 percent--50 percent--one half of the
    scheduled flights.
        But most notably, regional airlines serve more than 600
    airports across the U.S. And in 476 of these communities, that
    is 75 percent, regional airlines provide the only scheduled
    service.
        As you all know, it was a very different aviation and
    economic landscape when we had the honor of testifying before
    you back in the Spring of 2007, but the principles that we
    outlined to you on behalf of our RAA's board of directors
    remain valid and may be even more critical today.
        First, most importantly, do no harm. Preserve the network
    of air service to small and medium-size communities. Today,
    most passengers are normally just one stop away from any point
    in the U.S. and many points across the globe.
        Two, transition quickly and efficiently to a modernized
    satellite-based national airspace system.
        Three, that funding for the system should reflect a more
    balanced splitting of the check, if you will, amongst all the
    users of the system.
        Four, restore the balance of the 1990 ANCA law under which
    airport fees would be spent primarily on expanding and
    improving the Nation's airways and airport infrastructure,
    runways and taxiways.
        And, five, and something near and dear to us at RAA, is
    fulfill the promise made by Congress under the 1978
    deregulation act that Essential Air Service communities would
    not fall off the airline map without adequate protections. On
    that point, we want to specifically thank you for proposing to
    raise the cap for EAS funding to $200 million, for addressing
    other EAS reforms. And on that point and your bill in great
    measure addresses these principles and it is why we supported
    and helped advance the measure to the Senate floor in the
    previous Congress.
        But that was then, and this is now, and we are in a
    different place. Last year's speculative, driven run-up in fuel
    costs and the tanking of the world economy have created a much
    tougher challenge.
        Just look at the numbers. Between December, 2006 and
    December, 2007, regional airlines gained a net gain of 77 new
    nonstop markets. But last year, regional airlines had to cut
    back, and there was a net loss of 243 nonstop regional markets.
    That was compared to a net loss of about 100 main line routes.
        In other words, communities served exclusively by regionals
    suffered flight cutbacks last year at more than twice the rate
    of the main line served airports.
        Even more troubling, some 31 airports lost all their
    scheduled service last year, potentially worsening the burden
    of an already overstressed and underfunded Essential Air
    Service program.
        But like those infomercial business gurus and my old high
    school football coach used to say, sometimes problems are just
    opportunities in disguise.
        These, hopefully, temporary setbacks, temporary cutbacks in
    flights have perhaps provided some breathing room, maybe a
    timeout from the headlines about flight delays so that we can
    make the kind of real progress towards NextGen that this
    Congress, the FAA and so many people in this room have been
    working towards for decades.
        Our Member regional airlines have much riding and already
    much invested in this effort. The hub and spoke networks that
    have provided the benefits of safe, seamless service to
    passengers from small and medium-size communities, regional
    airlines have become, through this network, the main providers
    at many of the Nation's business airports. We operate more than
    one half of the flights at O'Hare and Philadelphia, Dulles,
    Houston, Detroit, Minneapolis-St. Paul and about a third at
    places like Denver and JFK, LaGuardia and even Boston's Logan.
        This is why regional airlines have committed substantial
    resources to be the leaders in the transition to NextGen.
        Four RAA members are pioneers in installing electronic
    flight bags on their aircraft to help prevent the kind of
    runway incursions that you all were discussing earlier today at
    the busiest airports: SkyWest at LAX, Shuttle America and
    Piedmont at Philadelphia and New York and CommutAir in my home
    town of Cleveland.
        Another NextGen pioneer was Horizon Air, second airline in
    the Country approved for RNP approaches.
        DataCom, WASS, RNP, RNAV, ADS-B, EFB, the whole alphabet of
    modernizations, regional airlines have become essential parts
    of NextGen.
        Mr. Costello. Mr. Cohen, we would ask you to wrap it up.
        Mr. Cohen. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, while flights and
    delays are down, flight cutbacks far more than to our liking
    and the reduction in delays much less than we prefer, the need
    for action is greater now than it was even two years ago.
    Towards that end, we look forward to working with you. Our
    member airlines look forward to working with you, all of
    Congress, your staff, the Administration, FAA to make it
    happen.
        Mr. Costello. We thank you for your testimony, and now the
    Chair recognizes Mr. Fuller.
        Mr. Fuller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
    Petri, Members of the Committee.
        My name is Craig Fuller. I am the President of the Aircraft
    Owners and Pilots Association. I have held that position now
    for just about six weeks.
        I have been a pilot, an active pilot for just about 42
    years. I have flown in the system from California to the East
    Coast.
        As some of you know, I came here in 1981 with a new
    administration. What is not so well known is I came here in a
    Cessna Cutlass and I now fly a Bonanza aircraft about 200, 220
    hours a year.
        I have been a member of AOPA since 1973. So the issues that
    you have dealt with are also very familiar to me.
        I want to start by taking note of something Jim May said
    because I do think it is important and impressive, that we are
    here today with you in agreement on the FAA reauthorization.
    There are members, important organizations in the aviation
    community that are also in agreement that could not be here
    today.
        But I think it is worth noting that we are unified, all
    believing from our unique perspectives that the FAA
    reauthorization needs to go forward. It needs to go forward for
    a four-year period to give certainty not only to the Agency but
    to give certainty to all of us who fly in the system, who
    invest in the system, from the airports to people throughout
    the aviation community. That four-year period is in fact vital.
        I also would mention I think the question was asked about
    delaying this or extending this for temporary periods of time.
    A four-year authorization really allows the Agency to spend
    money wisely. You get a better bargain today than you are going
    to get a year from now, two years from now, three years from
    now. So this four-year extension serves the interest of the
    aviation community very well.
        The bottom line for us--I know you are tight on time. The
    bottom line for us is we support the measure. We support the
    use of aviation fuel taxes as a means of providing support from
    our segment of the aviation community, and we do think that
    increase is something that our members will live with.
        We now have 416,000 members as of the end of January. It is
    a privilege for me to represent them here today. I look forward
    to representing them again here in the future.
        I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
        Mr. Petri. [Presiding.] Thank you.
        Mr. Jones.
        Mr. Jones. Thank you, Ranking Member Petri and Chairman
    Costello as he comes in the room. I want to thank you for
    inviting me to testify today not only on behalf of the 20,000
    employees of Rockwell Collins but also the member companies of
    ARSA, AIA and GAMA.
        As this Committee well knows, the civil aviation industry
    plays a critical role in the health of the domestic economy,
    employing nearly 11 million workers in all 50 States and
    contributing more than $1.2 trillion annually to the U.S.
    economy.
        Despite these laudable figures, these are challenging
    times, you have heard from the panel today. In order to adjust
    to the financial realities of today, companies have been forced
    to ground or liquidate business and commercial aircraft they
    can no longer afford.
        This sharp reduction in utilization coupled with a rapidly
    increasing inventory of used aircraft is further depressing
    already slumping demand for new planes. Subsequently, as
    aircraft order backlogs shrink, manufacturers of both general
    aviation and commercial aircraft and their suppliers have been
    forced to take painful steps and lay off thousands of
    hardworking employees from coast to coast.
        Now while this Committee is well aware of the benefits this
    industry providers, I respectfully request that you remind your
    colleagues of these benefits and ensure they avoid any
    legislation that would further damage this vital industry such
    as preventing corporate ownership of aircraft.
        Additionally, Mr. Chairman, smoldering beneath today's
    immediate economic crisis is a much longer-term challenge that
    everyone in this room is aware of, a challenge that has the
    potential to inflict significant future economic damage to the
    United States. Today, we are operating on an aviation
    infrastructure based on radars and controlled processes
    designed in the 1940s. We must advance from this 20th Century
    to a 21st Century system, taking advantage of the advances in
    information management, satellite-based flight tracking and
    navigation to yield the safety, efficiency and environmental
    sustainability benefits that we know NextGen will offer.
        Now, to be clear, NextGen is not a mere modernization
    program but rather a transformation program, one capable of
    accommodating the future growth while avoiding billions of
    dollars of lost productivity and unnecessary environmental
    impact.
        Regarding environmental impact, the civil aviation industry
    understand the importance of this issue and its potential
    impact on our future growth. While we have made great strides
    in minimizing the impact through our products and technology
    developments and operational practices, much more work remains
    to be done, and I think NextGen offers the promise of getting
    us closer to carbon neutrality.
        Now in order to accommodate projects that serve the public
    good like NextGen and that achieve the related congestion and
    environmental benefits, appropriations from the general fund
    should return to the levels of the 1990s when funding averaged
    29 percent per year. In hopes of returning to this sensible
    level of government funding, I believe it is reasonable and
    appropriate for Congress to increase the general fund share of
    FAA operations to 25 percent per year through the life of this
    pending legislation.
        With such an increase, Congress can then take the next bold
    step in aerospace modernization and authorize and appropriate
    $3 billion general fund dollars over the next 4 years to fund
    the equipage of Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast or
    ADS-B. This funding would allow the vast majority of commercial
    and general aviation fleets to be equipped with this important
    technology at a far earlier date than would be achieve in the
    current time frame of 2020 by FAA rule.
        Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to stress the aviation
    industry's commitment to safety and security, particularly at
    our manufacturing and repair stations around the world. As you
    know, aviation is a global industry, and, as such, it requires
    an international network of safe and secure stations to repair
    and maintain aircraft.
        Although Section 304 of H.R. 2881 was, no doubt, designed
    to improve safety oversight of foreign repair stations, I
    believe it could ultimately undermine the very safety systems
    we are trying to improve.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to testify before
    your Committee.
        I look forward to passage of a long-term reauthorization
    bill that will provide critical direction from Congress along
    with a new FAA Administrator to focus attention on managing
    these challenges.
        But, to be clear, that responsibility is not on the
    shoulders of just one person and, clearly, Congress in the
    House and the Senate, but it also falls on the shoulders of
    industry. Consequently, I call on my industry partners to focus
    on the broader aspects of this legislation and recommit to work
    together for its safe passage.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be glad to answer your
    questions.
        Mr. Costello. [Presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Jones.
        Mr. May, as we have discussed in the past, both in this
    hearing room and privately, to a great degree, the success of
    NextGen, though there is a lot of things that have to happen to
    make it successful but one is equipage, that the airplanes have
    to be equipped with the necessary equipment. Where is ATA and
    the airlines in working with the FAA regarding equipage of
    aircraft?
        Mr. May. Mr. Chairman, we are aggressively supporting
    accelerated equipage of aircraft. We have about half of our
    fleet that is RNAV equipped, not quite as much for RNP. We have
    some GPS in the aircraft. But we think that if there is a nexus
    between the ground operations for NextGen, which we would
    prefer to call NowGen, and the fleet it is going to rest on the
    equipage.
        So they have to finish getting the standards out, and then
    they have to do something that we are not satisfied they have
    done just yet, and that is give us the business case--and I am
    sure Mr. Jones would underscore this--for spending the kind of
    dollars that are necessary.
        We have to know that there will be reduced separation. We
    know that we have to be able to use that equipment, and FAA
    will permit closely spaced parallel operations, things of that
    sort to make the business case for us to spend that money.
        Ideally, I think the best way to do it is what we suggested
    be included in the stimulus package, which Mr. Jones just
    referred to and we all signed up to, which is a $4 billion
    investment in equipage across not just the civil fleet but GA,
    private aviation, the military and others so that we know we
    have the tools to be able to deploy this technology as
    aggressively as possible.
        Mr. Costello. The issue that Mr. Jones mentioned and you
    mentioned in your testimony, the general fund contribution to
    the trust fund as during the nineties was in the high 28, 29
    percent range. It is down to 16 percent now.
        Mr. May. That is correct.
        Mr. Costello. You have heard me say many times that we need
    a robust number from the general fund. Do you have a number in
    mind? In looking at, you put a chart up here earlier, what
    should the contribution from the general fund to the trust fund
    be?
        Mr. May. Mr. Jones used the number, 25 percent. I certainly
    wouldn't disagree with that.
        We recognize that the trust fund has a significantly
    declining balance. We recognize that the general fund is paying
    in less and less every year, and that contributes to the
    contretemps that we have had over user funding of the trust
    fund.
        I think the more general fund opportunities that we can
    address in the ATTF the better off we will all be. If it could
    be 30 percent, I would be all in favor of it.
        Mr. Costello. We look forward to receiving the budget from
    the new Administration and have been encouraging them to look
    very hard at increasing the number over what it is now.
        Mr. May. As do we.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member,
    Mr. Petri.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Obviously, with the growing economic insecurity around the
    world, there is ever to do everything we can to protect jobs
    and bring jobs back home to America and all that.
        In that connection, I wonder if Mr. Jones could address
    some provisions of this bill that probably are well intended,
    but then there is this law of unintended consequences. We try
    to bring jobs or do work here in the United States, other
    companies try to do the same, and the net result can be that we
    all lose or we shoot ourselves in the foot.
        We have had an agreement with the E.U. for many years of
    reciprocal basis. Has that tended to work toward our advantage?
    Is more work done here in the United States than in the E.U.?
        If they were to retaliate if we were to take the initiative
    in slowing that down or putting up barriers to that, would we
    gain jobs or lose jobs? How would that really work?
        Mr. Jones. Well, let me try to address that, Mr. Petri,
    because you raise a very good point that I referred to in my
    testimony.
        Today, there are about 1,200 repair stations in the United
    States that repair not only United States built aircraft but
    also E.U. aircraft that come in our space. So those are 1,200
    repair stations that have a lot of good, high quality jobs that
    are serving those aircraft. There are about 425 in Europe.
        And so, as you can see by just that ratio, if this
    legislation should precipitate trade barriers and a trade war
    and a retaliation by the Europeans, we stand to lose a far
    greater volume of work given the footprint that we have in the
    United States than we might gain if we were to gain extra work
    that we do in Europe.
        I think the other thing to point out relative to this
    legislation is that we are not opposed to inspections and to
    safety. That is not the issue at all. The issue is are the
    dollars spent and the amount of labor and manpower that FAA has
    to do these inspections available and will they be deployed in
    the right way?
        We may find that some repair stations only need the once a
    year inspection that is mandated today. Others may need more
    than that. And so, the risk-based approach that I believe FAA
    has strongly endorsed is one that we would endorse as well as a
    better bang for the buck to create the safety that we are both
    in favor of.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I have another question for most of the panelists that I
    will submit for them to respond in writing, which really would
    be how you are doing and what steps you are taking to prepare
    for NextGen and the importance of us getting our act together
    to maximize the investment that you and your members or your
    associates are doing in this whole area.
        Mr. Costello. Thank you.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Iowa, Mr.
    Boswell.
        Mr. Boswell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        It seemed like I maybe expected a little discussion about
    who is paying for what. But, Mr. Bolen, would you respond? The
    airlines claim that business aviation is not paying its fair
    share in the trust fund. How do you respond?
        Mr. Bolen. Well, the FAA's own numbers indicate that
    business aviation, which is part of the general aviation
    community, the entire general aviation community is currently
    paying about 8.5 percent of the revenues going into the trust
    fund.
        If general aviation were grounded tomorrow, I believe that
    the system may be 7 to 9 percent less expensive than it is
    today. That is based on a 1997 cost allocation study done by
    the FAA. So I think we are in the ballpark.
        I also would say that Mr. May referenced the FAA's cost
    allocation study, and, as this Subcommittee knows, questions
    have been raised about the methodology and some of the
    applications that were used in that. Cost allocation is
    certainly not an exact science, but reputable groups have
    raised concerns, and I think those should be explored.
        Mr. Boswell. Mr. Jones, do you think your proposal for us
    to raise to the level, historic level on the general fund, do
    you think you set your figure high enough?
        Mr. Jones. I am not exactly sure, sir. I think there are a
    lot of other inputs into the budget that probably I am not an
    expert to talk to, but 25 is a heck of a lot higher than 16,
    and it is a great place to start.
        I would supplement my comments and support what Mr. May
    said in that if you are looking at infrastructure and targeted
    incentives to try to create economic activity, I think that
    this proposal to put this increased funding, not only from the
    general fund but targeted toward the acceleration of NextGen
    which we are all in raging agreement on, is the right thing to
    do.
        I think it is intolerable to think that we will not have
    ADS-B built out to another 11 years from now, 2020, and we will
    be sitting here for many years, begrudging that fact. We have a
    moment with billions of dollars going into stimulus activity,
    and this would be targeted at a specific need.
        This would be temporary because, once equipped, that would
    go away. And, obviously, it is timely because we are ready to
    move.
        We believe that the ADS-B regulations will be ready at the
    end of this year at the latest, 2010, and with your
    encouragement I am sure the FAA could get them out.
        Then the industry would be ready to produce equipment
    within six to twelve months after that. So we have engineers
    and workers that would be ready to move on this if Congress can
    support that.
        Mr. Boswell. I am not so sure Congress can't support it.
    But I would guess this, Mr. Chairman, it is going to take all
    of these folks as well as us to try to make this point,
    understanding what the situation is and the economic side of
    it.
        I personally think, Mr. Chairman, and I would guess we are
    probably in agreement, that the whole Country benefits if we
    could get that done. It is an investment with a known return.
        Mr. Costello. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Boswell. And I believe that as well. So let's see what
    we can do.
        By the way, Mr. Jones, I have used some of your equipment
    probably more than anybody else in the room. I don't know. I am
    looking around. Maybe not, but likely. Possibly.
        But I am curious. How did you arrive in Washington today?
    How did you get here?
        Mr. Jones. Sir, I took a business aircraft into Washington,
    and I am pleased to say I have access to one because I couldn't
    be here had I not and acquit my other responsibilities.
        To give you just my own personal example of how that
    happens, I was in Florida this morning speaking at an investor
    conference with a number of our share owners which obviously
    are very important to our company, I am here this afternoon,
    and I am flying from here to Philadelphia for a board of
    directors meeting tonight. That would not have been possible
    had I not had access to a business aircraft.
        One other mention because this is a very topical issue
    right now, sir, as you know, in advance of this I had my flight
    department do a survey of how much I, as a CEO, use our
    aircraft. In total aircraft time flown, I use our aircraft 17
    percent of the time, 17.
        That means 83 percent of the time that that aircraft is
    flown, it is program managers, it is sales representatives, it
    is engineers going to our other locations around the United
    States providing us the business advantage we need that that
    aircraft affords us, especially--as you well know, sir, coming
    out of Cedar Rapids, Iowa--with the relatively limited
    connections we have and the time it takes to hub and spoke
    through the system.
        Now we use both, but having this as a capital tool for
    business is critical to our success. I would submit, sir, you,
    above all people, know how successful this company has been
    over the last few years.
        Mr. Boswell. We want you to continue to have success.
        Mr. Chairman, I guess we will have another round, and I
    have other questions.
        Those of us who believe in general aviation as well as
    believe in the airlines--don't misunderstand me--took a pretty
    bad rap with the automobile companies and that little testimony
    they had. The public out there needs to hear what Mr. Jones has
    said and what it means to the whole economy of what has been
    contributed by using these aircraft in a proper way.
        Thank you for your comment. I appreciate it.
        Mr. Jones. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Costello. I thank the gentleman.
        I think maybe it is worth noting for Mr. Jones that you
    have arrived here today in a business aircraft, but Rockwell
    Collins is not asking for billions of dollars for a bailout
    either, are you?
        Mr. Jones. No, sir, and don't intend to either, sir.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Costello. The Chair now recognizes the distinguished
    Chairman of the Full Committee.
        Mr. Moran, do you have questions?
        Mr. Moran. I do.
        Mr. Oberstar. No. Go to Mr. Moran, please. Please go to Mr.
    Moran.
        Mr. Moran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
        Mr. Elwood indicated about the value, as my colleague from
    Iowa is indicating about the value of general aviation.
        I come from a State in which we see it in both aspects. We
    are certainly a manufacturing State, and so jobs created is
    significant to us. But Kansas is a very rural State, and our
    ability to connect with the rest of the world is very much
    determined upon either commercial air service or upon general
    aviation.
        As we have seen, there has been this concern about the use
    of general aviation aircraft, and I would like to at least
    state for the record that many communities would not have a
    small business component, manufacturers and others who service
    the rest of the world. Businesses would make decisions about
    where they locate, in the absence of general aviation or
    regional service, in places that we all care about.
        And so, the state of the general aviation economy certainly
    matters to us in the most obvious way. It is jobs at home. But
    as a person who represents a very rural State, in the absence
    of our ability to connect, we would not have small business
    operating in our States. They would locate in larger
    communities where there is full commercial service.
        I wanted to explore the state of this economy.
        Mr. Jones, you outlined the difficulties that the aviation
    industry and its subcontractors are experiencing.
        We are debating a stimulus package and in many ways I think
    most of us wanted to focus that effort on construction, shovel-
    ready projects, things that put people to work. But in the
    general aviation industry and its subcontractors, are there
    specific things that we could do that would stimulate or at
    least reduce the burden of the economy upon general aviation?
        I am thinking about you mentioned some regulatory changes,
    and I am also wondering about tax changes. We have used the tax
    code in the past in order to try to generate additional
    opportunities for people to purchase, repair and maintain
    aircraft.
        Any observations?
        Mr. Jones. Well, a couple I would have, sir.
        First, let me thank the Congress for what it did in
    including accelerated depreciation in the recent legislation.
    That does have a stimulative effect for all companies that are
    in the capital goods segment. I think that is a known and
    proven stimulus that you all passed after the 9/11 downturn and
    that we saw had a direct effect on stimulating aircraft
    purchases. I think that is one thing.
        Obviously, the other one I would say is including something
    to do with aviation in the stimulus. The one that I mentioned
    would put avionics manufacturers--obviously, I have a parochial
    interest in that--to work immediately equipping these aircraft,
    and it would help the airline industry too, as Mr. May said.
        The stumbling block to NextGen, make no mistake about it,
    is going to be aircraft equipage.
        And I think Mr. May said exactly the right thing. It is a
    cost-benefit analysis that has to be shown if we require them
    to spend the amount of money they will need. That is very
    precious in terms of cash for them on these equipments.
        So this stimulus would get us over that hump and then allow
    us to see the benefits of reducing secondary radars and
    accelerating the other aspects of NextGen.
        So I think those are the kinds of things that would
    stimulate this industry and keep these very well-paid,
    knowledge workers in place until the rest of the economy
    recovers.
        Mr. Moran. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Fuller, I look forward to working with you in your new
    capacity. I appreciate our relationship in your previous.
        The FAA reauthorization bill requires the establishment of
    a number of registrations, certifications and related fees for
    services and activities provided by the FAA. Do you have a
    response as to whether they are satisfactory? Are they
    something that is livable or are we, once again, regulating and
    increasing the cost of business in an unsatisfactory manner?
        Mr. Fuller. Thank you for the question.
        We have seen the list. I am mindful of Mr. Oberstar's
    comment of speak now or forever hold your peace. I would say
    that it is a manageable list and there is nothing there that
    should prevent this legislation from going forward.
        I do have my medical requirement up this year. I do pay a
    physician for it, and I pay the cost of that medical, and one
    of those fees has gone from zero dollars to $42 which is a fee
    associated with that medical certificate.
        There are 600,000 pilots in the Country. All of us have to
    get medicals on an annual or twice, some every three years.
    That is generating an awful lot of revenue for filing medicals.
        I might say if there is any one of those on that list that
    we may take exception to, it would be going from zero dollars
    to $42 in a fee associated with that medical.
        Mr. Moran. Thank you very much.
        In the eight seconds I have left, I wanted to give Mr.
    Elwood or Mr. Cohen an opportunity to express any concerns that
    we ought to be aware of in regard to Essential Air Service.
        Again, I represent a State in which EAS is a significant
    component. Both of you have mentioned it. Anything that you
    would like to highlight?
        Mr. Cohen. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Moran, just to thank this
    Committee for its leadership primarily in recognizing that the
    communities, the airlines, the passengers, that there is really
    reform that is needed to be done as the previous panel even
    recognized. We really look forward to working with this
    Committee to get that right now. You have done the most
    important thing, show that you really have a commitment to
    fixing this program.
        Mr. Moran. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you and recognizes the
    gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Graves.
        Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the remarks
    of the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Boswell. I was very concerned,
    being a commercial pilot myself, when we had the outrage that
    we had about individuals flying into D.C. in their private
    aircraft.
        It concerns me a great deal when you have companies. I,
    obviously, don't represent Cessna. It is in Kansas. When they
    are laying off thousands of employees, that is huge to the
    aviation industry, and it affects everybody out there.
        It may not be my district where those thousands of
    employees are laid off, but I have companies in my district
    that supply Cessna and they supply Beech and they supply
    Raytheon. They supply everybody.
        And so, I very much appreciated the comments. I am glad you
    asked how Mr. Jones arrived because I was curious myself and,
    again, just very upset and wanted to express that because I
    think it is very misguided when we hear some of the comments
    that were made by folks, just literally demagogueing the issue
    of aviation which is so vitally important to our Nation and
    particularly our smaller communities.
        So, thank you.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now
    recognizes the distinguished Chairman of the Full Committee,
    Chairman Oberstar.
        Mr. Oberstar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will
    necessarily be brief because I am going to have to go the
    meeting of the Democratic Caucus to hear the report of the
    committee of conference, the House Members of the committee of
    conference on the stimulus initiative, and see what they have
    created for us.
        Mr. Petri. And if it is enough.
        Mr. Oberstar. We will see. Our Committee has a very
    distinct interest in this stimulus initiative.
        Mr. Cohen, the Regional Airline Association has been a
    major partner in the Essential Air Service program which was
    crafted in this Committee room in 1978. My amendment was
    offered when I was sitting right down there in that second row.
    There were fewer Members on this Committee at the time.
        And I remember in concluding my argument in favor of the
    Essential Air Service as part of the deregulation act, that:
    Mr. Chairman, if this amendment isn't adopted, then there are
    communities in my district that are so remote that the only way
    to get there without air service is to be born there.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Oberstar. It was a much bigger laugh at that time
    because it was a much more serious issue.
        So this laughter subsided. The motion was put. The
    amendment passed.
        And then we have seen a whittling away of the funding and
    of the authority and of the application of EAS.
        So, in this legislation, we have included provisions that I
    think will substantially improve Essential Air Service
    particularly in this era of increasingly consolidation of
    airline operations and fewer airlines, fewer competitors.
        So we have increased to $200 million the amount authorized
    for EAS each year. I gather you are in accord with that?
        Mr. Cohen. Absolutely. I thank the Committee and your
    leadership on this, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Oberstar. And we authorize the Secretary to include
    financial incentives based on performance goals.
        Now the reason I have crafted that language is that we hear
    complaints from communities that are at the end of the spokes
    in the hub and spoke system, that they are getting short
    shrift. They are not getting the frequencies they want. They
    are not getting the service they want. They are getting a
    higher number of service cuts, delays or cancellations of
    flights. And, at the same time, the airline is getting the EAS
    subsidy.
        So we want better on-time performance. We want to reduce
    the number of cancellations. We want reasonable fares including
    joint fares from beyond the hub airport. Convenient
    connections, example: I have heard in a recent town meeting
    with airport authority directors and business persons of
    smaller businesses, not Rockwell Collins that have their own
    aircraft but who charter or who have maybe a KingAir, that,
    sure, they get up at 4:00 in the morning, drive an hour to the
    airport. They fly out of northern Minnesota, and then they wait
    at Minneapolis-St. Paul for four hours for the next connection.
    They don't mind getting up at 4:00 in the morning if their 6:30
    flight can connect with something in Minneapolis that is going
    to get them to their destination.
        These are business people. They don't have a lot of leisure
    time. They live way in remote Minnesota, but they are
    conducting a very viable business. Now some of these folks
    can't even time share on an aircraft.
        So I think that we ought to have some accountability. We
    are going to have the Government Accountability Office oversee
    the implementation of this EAS.
        Mr. Cohen, what do you think about that?
        Mr. Cohen. Mr. Chairman, I think the problems you describe
    really are the result of a lot of years of kind of squeezing
    this program down.
        And so, what has happened is that several of our EAS member
    airlines have gone out of business doing this. Getting some of
    the rules that have been put in place there have made it
    impossible for carriers to invest, to try and bring on the
    aircraft that are needed, to bring on the training, to invest
    in commitment to get people flying on those aircraft again, to
    get them back into the system. And it has been this kind of
    drip, drip, drip over those 30 years.
        I had the pleasure of sitting in this very room as public
    relations representative for TWA covering those hearings, and I
    remember your leadership on this very critical issue and that
    promise that was made. Over these 30 years, that promise has
    been whittled away at.
        We really look forward to working with the Members of this
    Committee to be able to try and move this into that 21st
    Century, move EAS into the 21st Century because things have
    changed. Demographics have changed. Transportation modes have
    changed.
        We would caution the Committee because some of the carriers
    that are trying to provide this EAS service offer the kind of
    seamless one carrier service that most of regional carriers do.
    They may not have inter line relationships with major airlines,
    may not have independent ticketing and so forth. So to require
    those kinds of connections by statute may be difficult, and
    might actually make EAS service less convenient and less
    attractive for airlines and communities alike.
        But I cite one of the great success stories. I have a clip
    here from the recent Lebanon, New Hampshire newspaper which
    cited Cape Air.
        Mr. Oberstar. Yes, I am familiar with Cape Air.
        Mr. Cohen. One of our great members who started service,
    and they are raving about the kind of service that Cape Air has
    provided, and I think it is that kind of community,
    Congressional and airline partnership that can provide those
    kinds of success stories that we see.
        And I think we want to thank your leadership on it. We look
    forward to working with you on some of these specifics.
        Mr. Oberstar. My hope is to stimulate more of the type of
    Cape Air service through this EAS program.
        Mr. May, don't think I have forgotten about you. Welcome to
    the Committee again.
        Mr. May. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have never felt
    unwanted.
        Mr. Oberstar. There is a new provision in this legislation
    dealing with anti-trust immunity for international airline
    alliances.
        Mr. May. H.R. 831.
        Mr. Oberstar. I would like your comments.
        Mr. May. With all of the respect that is due the Chairman
    of the Full Committee----
        Mr. Oberstar. You needn't preface. Just say what you think.
        Mr. May.--we will oppose that provision.
        We have no problem at all with the GAO study. There was one
    done a couple of years ago that showed that actually these
    alliances were positive for consumers in a number of different
    respects and to have them renew that study and update it I
    think would be perfectly appropriate.
        But we think to effectively change the rules in the middle
    of the game for alliances that have been long out there and
    effective and working well, in addition to having them then
    expire at the end of three years, would be counterproductive,
    and so we would not support that legislation.
        Mr. Oberstar. Yes, alliances are one thing, but anti-trust
    immunity goes over the edge on this issue. It protects the
    partners against uncompetitive pricing, against, in effect,
    price-fixing.
        I think alliances are one, but the anti-trust immunities we
    wouldn't do that for General Motors and Ford and Chrysler, and
    we shouldn't be doing this for airlines, frankly.
        I think the alliance relationship has provided seamless
    service. There is still a question in mind whether outright
    competition wouldn't bring better fares and greater savings to
    air travelers.
        But the immunized alliances are going to result in three
    mega global carriers who will not compete with each other, who
    will not provide service to communities at the end of the
    spokes in the hub and spoke system, which will diminish short-
    haul service in the domestic United States. And I think it is
    inimical to the future of aviation in the U.S. and in
    international aviation trade.
        You may disagree with that, and your carrier partners in
    the ATA I am sure vigorously disagree with it, but I have to be
    an advocate for the public interest.
        Mr. May. We fully appreciate the intensity of your
    positions, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Oberstar. Thank you, Mr. May.
        I will welcome Mr. Fuller in his first testimony before
    this Committee as head of AOPA. Phil Boyer is, I am sure,
    relishing his freedom.
        Mr. Fuller. He is indeed, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Oberstar. We hope in time you will become as lovable a
    personality at this table as he was.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Fuller. It was all part of the transition, I think. I
    am sure he is watching this on the internet.
        Mr. Oberstar. No doubt.
        And, to ACI and AAAE, thank you very much for your
    continued partnership in the great good of aviation.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Costello. Thank you.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
    Lipinski.
        Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        A couple of issues that I wanted to raise here today.
        First one, Mr. Principato, I fly every week just about, and
    I get my can of diet whatever they have, and every time I am on
    the plane I always think what a great place to do recycling.
    You have 100, 200 cans maybe on each flight, and I know at most
    airports this is just thrown in with the rest of the waste.
        I am aware of Oakland Airport I think has a recycling
    program there, and I am just wondering how much effort, how
    widespread, how many airports actually do this. How much effort
    would that take?
        My understanding is that it really produces great savings
    to have such a recycling program at the airport for the
    airlines coming in there. And so, why is this not more widely
    done?
        Mr. Principato. Congressman, thank you for the question.
        I think that it is being done at a growing number of
    airports. I know Seattle is another one. You are going to have
    the director of the Seattle Airport here in two weeks to speak
    about wildlife management, but you might file that in the back
    of your mind. They have an excellent recycling initiative with
    their airlines up there, and a growing number of airports are
    doing that.
        We have actually just completed both a survey of our
    airports, so we can give you hard data on that. Our staff would
    be happy to get together with yours on the number and
    percentage of airports that are doing recycling and a number of
    other environmental initiatives that they are doing.
        Our board just last week passed a whole set of
    environmental goals that ACI-North America airports will strive
    to achieve over these next couple of years, with this and a
    number of other issues being in there.
        I don't have the specific numbers on the top of my head
    about the percentage of airports that are doing it, but it is
    larger--larger than you think, I think--and growing number.
        We would be happy to get together with you and your staff
    and brief you on our survey, brief you on the goals that our
    board passed just this past Friday, and we are also putting
    together a little publication highlighting what a number of
    airports around the U.S. and Canada are doing on environmental
    issues.
        Mr. Lipinski. Well, what are the main reasons that airports
    do not have a recycling program?
        Mr. Principato. I think it is probably better to look at
    the reasons why growing numbers of them are because of the
    point you are talking about, cost efficiency and all of that.
        Mr. Lipinski. I am interested more just in why they don't
    have them, why they would not have them and what can be done to
    encourage or help.
        Mr. Principato. Again, I think the industry is responding
    to the points that you have made. There are a growing number of
    airports that are doing it. Obviously, 20 years ago, none of us
    recycled anything, and we are all sort of moving in that
    direction.
        I think you will be very pleased with the results of our
    survey, like I said, that we will brief you on, the goals that
    our board passed just this past Friday and the other work that
    the airport community is doing on the environmental side.
        Mr. Lipinski. Thank you.
        I had another question, another issue that I wanted to
    address to Mr. May, something I am sure that you hear a lot
    about. It is, first of all, the fees for baggage on planes. It
    is one thing that these fees were put in when gas prices or
    aviation fuel prices went up and peaked at about $4.00 a gallon
    and now down to about $1.54 a gallon, but we still have the
    baggage fees.
        Now I don't want to get into a debate over the fees
    themselves. I am more interested in issues that since we do pay
    for our bags now on planes, there continue to be issues with
    and problems with baggage. I think especially when passengers
    are paying for the baggage service, that they even should have
    a higher or they even have a higher expectation for their bags
    being taken care of and getting there in a timely manner.
        There was a story in the Chicago Tribune the other day
    about someone whose luggage actually got lit on fire, their
    clothes burned, which, accidents happen, but the problem was it
    took a long time before they ever got any restitution for that.
        I myself, had an experience last month. I was coming back,
    or two months ago, I was taking a flight back. It was late at
    night, and I am at O'Hare Airport, and it took over an hour for
    the bags to get there.
        Finally, after 45 minutes, someone decided that they would
    actually go and check on what was going on after no one else
    would. And they said that they took the bags off the plane and
    they were left somewhere, just sitting there.
        So we have these issues, and I hear other issues.
        Shouldn't there be an expectation, especially paying for
    bags, that their bags are going to arrive in a timely manner?
        It just seems like especially if these fees are going to
    continue to be charged, even though I am not sure why they
    still are, but I just wanted to know what your response would
    be, Mr. May.
        Mr. May. My response, Mr. Lipinski, is that I hear this
    issue as frequently as you might imagine I do.
        The good news is that in the latest report by the
    Department of Transportation, the number of mishandled bags has
    in fact dropped and it has been consistently dropping for the
    past couple of months. So we are getting better at it, but two
    bags or one bag or fifteen is not an acceptable number.
        Our carriers recognize that the construct that you have
    posed here, that it is one thing if you lose my bag and I have
    just checked it and I haven't paid anything, but if I am being
    charged for, then you lose it, that is a whole other metric.
        And so, I think what we are suggesting to you is we
    recognize the problem. We are working on it as we are on all of
    our customer service issues, and it is one that I will make
    sure I raise back with my folks at the earliest opportunity.
        Mr. Lipinski. One quick addition, do airlines, if there is
    a problem, is there a general policy to refund the money that
    was paid if there is a problem?
        Mr. May. Each carrier has in fact a policy. There is a DOT
    policy that governs as well. I don't happen to have the details
    in the front of my memory bank, but I would be more than happy
    to communicate back to your office and provide those to you.
        Mr. Lipinski. Thank you.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now will
    recognize two Members for questions, and then we will go to the
    next panel. Mr. Graves from Missouri.
        Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to follow up
    on my statement earlier, and I didn't want to step on the
    Chairman, because he had to go to the meeting. But given the
    state of the economy and what I mentioned earlier about the
    problems we are seeing, and obviously the attitude toward
    general aviation, and thank goodness, the provision was pulled
    that any company that receives Federal dollars would have to
    sell their private aircraft, which is something that concerned
    me.
        I guess this question would be for Mr. Bolen, possibly for
    Mr. Fuller. But I know for Mr. Bolen, because you represent the
    Business Aviation Association. Can you expand a little bit on
    what kind of impact that would have on an entire industry? And
    I know there are companies out there selling aircraft just
    because of the perception that is going on, which concerns me.
        Mr. Bolen. Well, Congressman, you talked about the attitude
    that was at the heart of the aircraft divestiture issue. I
    believe that is an attitude that is based on a caricature of
    business aviation that is totally unrepresentative of the
    community. The reality is that it is not only unrepresentative,
    it is also very dangerous for our community.
        Business aviation is about jobs, manufacturing and service.
    It is about a lifeline to small communities, and you have
    talked about that yourself. And it is about allowing companies
    to be productive. I think that the reality is that there may be
    times when business aviation isn't appropriate for all
    missions. But let's be clear about something: business aviation
    is prudent and cost-effective in a huge number of situations.
    It is prudent and it is cost-effective when the community you
    are trying to reach has no commercial airline service.
        It is prudent and cost-effective when you are trying to
    visit multiple sites in a single day. And it is prudent and
    cost-effective when you have products that cannot be carried
    aboard the commercial airlines or shipped. And it is prudent
    when you have a team of people who have to quickly get
    somewhere and they need to discuss proprietary information en
    route. Or if there is a team that needs to work together to
    plan a presentation to be given there.
        Those are times when business aviation makes sense. It
    makes up 99 percent of the operations. It is critical to our
    Nation's air transportation system. It is critical to our
    Nation's job space. And I appreciate very much the work of so
    many Members on this Committee who have taken the time to speak
    out about the importance of business aviation, not just for
    their districts, but for the Nation. And thanks to the hard
    work of people like you and others on this Committee, we were
    able to turn that around. We ask that you continue to speak out
    on that.
        Mr. Graves. Mr. Fuller?
        Mr. Fuller. I would just add that we looked on election day
    last year at the question in a survey that suggested that
    almost two-thirds of the people responded that general aviation
    as defined as non-military, non-scheduled carrier was an
    important part of the Nation's transportation system. I think
    one of the reasons that I looked with some horror at the
    singling out of certain individuals or certain practices by
    companies was, I think the vast majority of the American
    people, in community after community, recognized that aviation
    does play an important role. I know we are committed to sharing
    that story more broadly. But I actually think there is a base
    there that supports not only what we believe but what you have
    fought for, and that we are going to continue to carry that
    message out there.
        Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Costello. Finally, the Chair recognizes Mr. Boswell
    from Iowa.
        Mr. Boswell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief, I
    know the day is long, but something I think it is okay to bring
    up, and you can stop me if you wish. And I am sure you will, if
    you choose to.
        I am concerned about some other matters. We were the
    birthplace, after 9/11, of what became TSA. I could tell
    several stories, make a comparison of my life, when people get
    authority sometimes they handle it extremely well, and
    sometimes they don't.
        Well, it seems that right now, they are thinking about
    coming out with a notice of proposed rulemaking which would
    involve general aviation aircraft weighing more than 12,500
    pounds. And I get to thinking about the cost, and the
    involvement to do that, and what it would do to airports like
    in my district and across the Country that I have used.
        And then I think about the efforts, and I want to ask you,
    Mr. Fuller, to say something about this, if you don't mind. I
    think of the effort the general aviation, private pilots and
    general aviation pilots that do things, as Mr. Jones did today
    and so on, we have put genuine effort into making sure that we
    hold up our end of that security and that safety. And the
    record is good.
        And I think we need to discuss this very openly. We have an
    economy that is really in pain. We have budget problems. Yes,
    we have safety problems, but I think we are dealing with it
    pretty well. I think we need to discuss, I don't know, maybe it
    is not fair to you, Mr. Fuller, having you comment as you are
    six weeks into the job. But this weighs kind of heavy. Would
    you want to comment on that? Maybe some of the rest of you
    would, too, because I think it affects everybody.
        Mr. Fuller. Mr. Boswell, I'd be delighted to comment. First
    of all, I think everybody up here, and I know AOPA, absolutely
    stands for making sure that our general aviation fleet and our
    airports are secure. We have had an airport watch program that
    has worked extraordinarily well. We don't see threats of the
    kind that are being imagined that produced this regulation.
        The 12,500 pound number goes to a certification guideline,
    not to some kind of careful study of what constitutes
    hazardous, dangerous weapons of destruction. The KingAir 90 is
    under that limit. I have flown that airplane. The KingAir 200
    is over that limit. I have flown that airplane. We have an
    aircraft in our fleet that takes off at 13,870 pounds, carries
    4,000 pounds of fuel. There are two of us up front, there are
    four or five people in the back. We know exactly who is in that
    aircraft. It is inconceivable to me that the people who fly
    that type of aircraft over the limit are really going to have
    to be subjected to a security system and a security program
    similar to what large, commercial aircraft would have to use.
        We have all testified, some of us have testified around the
    Country in opposition to this. We do fear that TSA feels
    strongly they want to go forward. We would hope that they would
    get into a negotiated regulatory procedure so that we could
    have a rational discussion about what constitutes a legitimate
    threat and what simply constitutes a further burden on an
    already over-burdened private aircraft industry. Thank you for
    raising the question.
        Mr. Boswell. I think, Mr. Elwood, for example, your airport
    you described so well, you know what is going on at that
    airport. Your workers know what is going on at that ramp. This
    watch program we have going on, I am quite sure you have
    implemented, it is working, I am sure it is.
        Mr. Elwood. You have obviously brought common sense to this
    situation, which is refreshing. I think that there is a
    misconception at times that general aviation is a lot like
    picking up a taxi out in front of this Capitol and that people
    don't understand how the background is done. They know who is
    getting on that airplane, they know the role that person is
    going to play on that aircraft, and that the risk is really
    what needs to be focused on.
        And blanket solutions rarely work in aviation, as you all
    know. Every airport has unique circumstances, as well as unique
    security challenges. So from the airport side, we look forward
    to trying to work with the TSA to get a better understanding
    about what the real risks are and where are the resources that
    actually do help protect the citizens of the United States and
    are showing benefit. It is not an easy answer; but it is the
    reality.
        Mr. Boswell. Mr. Chairman, I would guess everybody could
    comment on this on the panel. But I am going to ask that we put
    this on our plate of things to do, not that you need other
    things to do. But I think we have to put it on there, and I am
    going to ask that we put it on our plate.
        Thank you, and I yield back.
        Mr. Costello. I thank you, Mr. Boswell. Points well taken
    and points that I agree with. As you know, we have limited
    jurisdiction with TSA, we have oversight responsibility. But it
    is certainly something that we should weigh in on. And I thank
    you.
        Gentlemen, we thank you for your testimony and spending
    most of the day with us. We hopefully will see some of you
    again in the not too distant future in some upcoming hearings.
        But again, thank you.
        We would ask the next panel to come forward, the witnesses,
    please. I will introduce them as they are coming forward.
        Mr. Patrick Forrey, who is the President of the National
    Air Traffic Controllers Association; Mr. Tom Brantley, who is
    President of the Professional Aviation Safety Specialists;
    Captain John Prater, who is President of the Air Line Pilots
    Association, International; Ms. Patricia Friend; Mr. Robert
    Roach; Mr. Robert Gless and Ms. Kate Hanni. Would you all
    please come forward?
        The Chair welcomes the final panel before us this
    afternoon, early evening. We will begin by recognizing Mr.
    Forrey with NATCA.

     TESTIMONY OF PATRICK FORREY, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC
    CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATION; TOM BRANTLEY, PRESIDENT, PROFESSIONAL
      AVIATION SAFETY SPECIALISTS, AFL-CIO; CAPTAIN JOHN PRATER,
    PRESIDENT, AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL; PATRICIA
        FRIEND, INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF FLIGHT
      ATTENDANTS, CWA; ROBERT ROACH, JR., GENERAL VICE PRESIDENT,
    INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS;
       ROBERT GLESS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, AIR TRANSPORT DIVISION,
    TRANSPORT WORKERS' ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO; KATE HANNI,
                      PRESIDENT, FLYERSRIGHTS.ORG

        Mr. Forrey. Chairman Costello and Ranking Member Petri,
    Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify again.
        My name is Patrick Forrey, I am the President of the
    National Air Traffic Controllers Association. NATCA represents
    over 16,000 air traffic controllers and other aviation safety
    professionals.
        FAA reauthorization is NATCA's highest legislative
    priority. I would like to commend the Subcommittee for its
    demonstrated understanding of the important issues facing the
    Nation's aviation infrastructure.
        I would like to take a few moments to highlight some of the
    aspects of the bill. NATCA fully supports and endorses the
    Federal Aviation Administration Personal Management System as
    written in the Reauthorization Act of 2009. As this Committee
    is well aware, the air traffic controller work force that I
    represent has been working under imposed work and pay rules
    since September of 2006. This action not only violated the
    FAA's legal right and obligation to bargain in good faith, but
    it also violated fundamental principles of fairness. In effect,
    the FAA stripped this Union of its collective bargaining
    rights.
        The effects of the imposed work rules have been
    devastating, not only to the working lives of controllers, but
    to the safety and integrity of the National Airspace System. As
    a direct result of the imposed work rules and pay system, air
    traffic controllers began a mass exodus from the FAA. The vast
    majority of those that left did so not because they reached
    their mandatory retirement age, but simply because they had had
    enough.
        Since the imposed work and pay rules were unilaterally
    implemented nearly 28 months ago, we have lost upwards of
    almost 5,000 controllers, equating to over 46,000 years of
    experience. The FAA is hiring to make up for these devastating
    losses, but they cannot keep up.
        The air traffic control system is clogged with trainees.
    Approximately 25 percent of the controller workforce is still
    in training, and that number will grow. At some facilities, the
    ratio exceeds 50 percent of the workforce.
        They are being placed in high level terminal facilities
    which do not have the curricula to train those with no previous
    ATC experience, and in some cases they are waiting as much as
    18 months for their first day of on the job training.
        For fiscal years 2006, 2007 and 2008, the agency has only
    been able to completely certify 718 trainees out of the 4,480
    hired and still employed in those three years. Mr. Chairman,
    that is only 16 percent. And I want to be clear, the trainees
    and new hires themselves are not the problem. They are
    dedicated professionals who represent the future of the air
    traffic control system, and if given the proper tools and
    training, they will excel in this safety profession.
        The problem is the agency's inability to provide them with
    the comprehensive training they need. They are being denied the
    opportunity to learn from experienced controllers, quickly
    rushed through and flushed out of training, and forced to
    shoulder far too much air traffic control burden at this early
    stage of their careers.
        This staffing shortage has left the remaining workforce
    strained to the breaking point. Fatigue has become a serious
    concern. Controllers are being required to work excessive
    quantities of overtime, and are therefore unable to fully
    recover between shifts. On shifts themselves, controllers are
    often finding they are understaffed and forced to work combined
    positions without radar assistance and with less opportunity to
    recover after major pushes. In short, the imposed work rules
    have meant fewer eyes watching the skies and those that are
    remaining are less experienced and fatigued.
        FAA reauthorization addresses this problem by requiring the
    FAA to return to the bargaining table in order to reach a
    mutually agreeable collective bargaining agreement with NATCA.
    This would effectively stem the flow of experienced controllers
    from the workforce and make it easier to retain new hires.
    Additionally, this section amends Title 49 to ensure that this
    will not happen again in the future.
        This bill also addresses issues of realignment at FAA
    facilities and services. NATCA is extremely concerned with the
    reckless realignment initiatives the FAA has unilaterally
    initiated over the course of the last year. The FAA recently
    split tower radar functions at Orlando into two separate
    facilities, and is planning to do the same in Memphis in June,
    followed by other facilities. This is another example of FAA's
    go-it-alone way of doing business, rather than truly providing
    an operational benefit. These deconsolidations are designed
    only to conceal the staffing crisis at each of these
    facilities.
        FAA reauthorization must ensure that all FAA realignment
    issues are considered in a collaborative environment and
    provide a specific operational benefit. We support the
    establishment of a work group of stakeholders to review all
    realignment initiatives prior to the FAA beginning the
    realignment process.
        As we have said all along, if you make us part of the
    process, we will be part of the solution. NATCA also supports
    the authorization of a scientific study on air traffic control
    staffing to be conducted by an independent third party. Rather
    than consider the safety needs of the NAS, the FAA based their
    current staffing standards on budget alone.
        The justification provided on the FAA's controller
    workforce plan is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. The
    current standards were designed to deliberately conceal current
    staffing crises. For example, according to the FAA's current
    standards, the New York TRACON is over-staffed. Yet the FAA is
    offering controllers a $100,000 incentive to transfer there.
    Why would that be? Because their staffing ranges are
    meaningless and do nothing to reflect the actual needs of the
    facility.
        The staffing study proposed by the FAA reauthorization
    would allow the FAA, Congress and NATCA to truly assess the
    current risks o the system and set benchmarks for resolving the
    staffing crisis.
        And lastly, I would like to address the related issues of
    modernization and maintenance. NATCA fully supports the funding
    levels set aside for the modernization of the air traffic
    control system, but we remain concerned about the direction of
    NextGen. Thus far, the FAA's plans for NextGen remain poorly
    defined and carefully guarded. We believe that the success of
    this or any modernization effort is dependent on transparency
    and collaboration with all stakeholders. It is our hope that
    after the imposed work rules are removed and NATCA and the FAA
    reach a mutually agreeable contract, we can return to an era of
    cooperation and collaboration that will best serve the needs of
    the NAS.
        We also want to be sure that funding for NextGen does not
    come at the expense of NowGen. Under the previous
    Administration, FAA facilities were allowed to fall into
    disrepair while the FAA pursued ill-defined modernization
    goals. This level of deterioration is unacceptable. The FAA
    must maintain and repair existing AT facilities in a manner
    that ensures the safety and security of personnel working there
    and allows aviation safety professionals the tools they need to
    do their job.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the time.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you, Mr. Forrey, and now
    recognizes Mr. Brantley.
        Mr. Brantley. Thank you.
        Chairman Costello, Congressman Petri, and Members of the
    Subcommittee, thank you for inviting PASS to testify today. As
    you know, PASS represents approximately 11,000 FAA employees in
    the United States and overseas, and we appreciate the
    opportunity to present our views on FAA reauthorization.
        Ensuring a fair contract negotiations process at the FAA is
    of utmost importance to PASS. By taking advantage of the
    ambiguities in current law governing those negotiations, the
    FAA has consistently refused to bargain in good faith with PASS
    and other FAA unions.
        The hostile environment this creates threatens the
    productivity of FAA employees and the efficiency of the
    aviation system. And while we are all familiar with the FAA's
    unilateral imposition of changes to working conditions to air
    traffic controllers, I would like to share with you a few of
    the things that we have faced over the years.
        Contract negotiations for four out of the five units of
    employees that PASS represents have been at impasse for six
    years. In our largest bargaining unit, the technical operations
    unit, the agency showed no interest in reaching a mutual
    agreement. As a result, when the agency's final proposal was
    presented to our members for a vote, it was rejected by 98
    percent of those members.
        It is clear that a change is needed in order to ensure FAA
    employees their right to collective bargaining. PASS
    appreciates the language that was included in the FAA
    reauthorization bill introduced this week. PASS is in full
    support of the language clarifying that the Federal Service
    Impasses Panel has jurisdiction over bargaining impasses
    arising at the FAA and that binding arbitration before a
    neutral third party is the method used for resolving bargaining
    disputes.
        Understaffing is also a major concern for PASS, especially
    in our technical and safety inspector bargaining units.
    Inadequate technical staffing has resulted in a move toward a
    ``fix-on-fail'' approach where preventive maintenance and
    certification of NAS systems and equipment are significantly
    reduced. PASS is especially concerned with changes the FAA has
    made to its time-tested certification process in which a
    certificated FAA technician checks or tests these systems and
    equipment on a periodic basis in order to ensure that they are
    safe for use. Not only has the FAA moved away from a proactive
    maintenance philosophy with its new concept, but it has also
    changed its policy to now prohibit certification of all systems
    that it does not own.
        As the FAA works to modernize the NAS, the systems and
    equipment must be properly certified by FAA technicians in
    order to ensure safety and reliability. As such, PASS proposes
    that language be added to the FAA reauthorization legislation
    making it clear that the FAA will make no distinction between
    public or privately-owned equipment, systems or services used
    in the NAS when determining certification requirements.
        With regard to the inspector workforce, PASS appreciates
    the efforts of this Committee to address the inspector staffing
    situation by including language in the reauthorization bill
    authorizing funding to increase inspector staffing.
        With the many challenges facing the aviation industry
    today, including outsourced maintenance work in this Country
    and abroad, it is imperative that there are enough inspectors
    in place to monitor the safety of the system. In particular,
    PASS appreciates the language that was included mandating that
    all certificated foreign repair stations be inspected at least
    twice a year by an FAA inspector.
        Furthermore, in light of last year's Southwest incident and
    questions regarding the FAA's aviation safety oversight
    program, PASS supports the inclusion of language aimed at
    strengthening and improving FAA oversight of the system,
    including improvements to the customer service initiative and
    the voluntary disclosure reporting program.
        PASS is looking forward to working with this Committee to
    ensure the safe and efficient modernization of this Country's
    aviation system. PASS and the employees we represent are
    hopeful that this Committee will enact legislation that will
    allow positive labor management relations and ensure that
    safety of the aviation system is always the top priority.
        Thank you, and I would be happy to answer any questions you
    may have.
        Mr. Costello. We thank you, Mr. Brantley.
        The Chair now recognizes Captain Prater.
        Mr. Prater. Good afternoon, Chairman Costello, Ranking
    Member Petri, and Members of the Subcommittee.
        When passed, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009 should
    make significant strides in advancing aviation safety and
    herald a new era for U.S. air transportation. I will outline
    six priority safety and policy areas for the 53,000 members of
    the Air Line Pilots Association, International. Several are
    covered in the last Congress's reauthorization bill. However, a
    number of critical concerns have not yet been addressed.
        First, no industry was hit harder by the 9/11 attacks than
    the U.S. airlines. To keep our companies in business, our
    pilots took enormous concessions. As a result, our members
    often fly right up to the regulatory limits for flight and duty
    time. Sixteen-hour domestic duty days and longer in
    international flying are a fact of life for pilots. Irregular
    shifts, multiple time zones, all-night operations and disrupted
    circadian rhythms all contribute to pilot fatigue. The eight-
    hour rest period in the current regulations includes travel to
    and from the hotel, and pilots often cannot get time or relax
    enough to receive more than five or six hours of sleep.
        ALPA advocates a complete overhaul of the regulations based
    on modern science. The rules must apply to all sizes of both
    passenger and cargo operations. They must encompass adequate
    rest periods, reasonable duty periods, and provisions for
    crossing multiple time zones and flying on the backside of the
    clock.
        ALPA strongly supports bill language that directs the FAA
    to commission a National Academy of Sciences study to collect
    new data on pilot fatigue and then to use it to update the
    regulations.
        Second, fostering a safe air transportation system also
    requires a foundation of voluntary non-punitive safety
    reporting programs. These programs must be based on the
    unshakable sense of trust among the participants. Most reports
    are sole-sourced, meaning only the person reporting knew that a
    mistake occurred. Without full confidence that reporting an
    error will be used solely to advance safety, employees will
    have little incentive to come forward and valuable safety
    information will be lost.
        Moreover, safety management systems will be stymied without
    them. Programs have been suspended because of mis-used reports.
    We ask Congress to protect voluntarily supplied safety
    information against mis-use for discipline, FAA sanctions, or
    litigation.
        Third, few would deny the need to modernize the Nation's
    air space. It is a priority for ALPA. Infrastructure,
    equipment, and facilities are severely outdated. Modernization
    is a complex, expensive and long-term endeavor that must be
    done right the first time. Long-term stable funding is
    essential. Airlines currently pay the majority of costs for
    operating the national air space system. All users will benefit
    from a safe, modern system. All should bear a fair share of the
    cost.
        A related air space management concern for pilots is
    unmanned aerial systems, or UAVs. Regulations must ensure
    safety before these aircraft can share air spaces with
    airliners. ALPA pilots hail the provisions in the bill to
    enhance runway safety, research wake turbulence, icing and
    other weather impacts on airline operations, and continue to
    operate Midway Island Airfield as a trans-Pacific emergency
    landing option. The Wake Island Airfield must also be included.
        We commend your efforts to establish oversight requirements
    for the airlines using non-certificated maintenance facilities.
    We also note two areas that warrant additional support:
    research to reduce encounters with volcanic ash and to reduce
    encounters with wildlife hazards.
        Fourth, many cargo aircraft operate without flight deck
    doors, a critical layer of safety for pilots who, along with
    their cargo, often fly animal handlers and couriers who are
    vetted using only limited ground procedures. All FAR Part 121
    operations must be afforded one standard of safety and
    security. We call on Congress to ensure that cargo aircraft are
    equipped with reinforced flight deck doors or an equivalent
    level of protection.
        Fifth, ALPA also strongly backs language in the bill
    affirming that U.S. citizens must control key operational
    aspects of U.S. airlines. This bill does that by identifying
    fleet composition, route selection, pricing and labor relations
    among the operational elements that the Department of
    Transportation must ensure U.S. citizens control.
        Finally, while safety decisions must never be based on
    economics, our industry's financial health is extremely
    important to pilots. Large price spikes and jet fuel scarcity
    pose the greatest threat to industry stability. ALPA urges
    Congress to swiftly adopt a national energy policy that will
    increase a stable jet fuel supply, reduce rampant oil investor
    speculation, and hold the line on new fuel use taxes, charges
    and fees.
        This FAA reauthorization bill holds promise for powerful
    change. As the professionals who make the airline industry work
    every day and every night of the year, we are the ones who know
    what works and what doesn't. When in doubt, ask us.
        Thank you for doing that by having us here today.
        Mr. Costello. Thank you, Captain Prater.
        And now the Chair recognizes Ms. Friend.
        Ms. Friend. Thank you, Chairman Costello and Ranking Member
    Petri for giving AFA-CWA, the world's largest flight attendant
    union, the opportunity to testify today.
        My written testimony details a number of critical issues
    for the Nation's flight attendants, from our lack of basic OSHA
    protections to the growing and serious problem of flight
    attendant fatigue, problems with cabin air quality, and lack of
    access to a HIMS program for flight attendants. These are all
    serious problems that the FAA has neglected and refuses, in
    most cases, to even recognize.
        We appreciate that the leadership of this Committee has
    worked closely with us to address these issues and to force the
    FAA to do its job to protect the safety and health of those
    that call the aircraft cabin their workplace and those who
    daily travel with us.
        We also are in full support of the provision the in-flight
    use of cell phones, but we would like to suggest, in order to
    ensure the peace and quiet in the cabin that we know
    Congressman DeFazio is seeking, that the Committee should also,
    as communication technology advances rapidly, consider a
    prohibition on the use of voice-over internet protocol in the
    cabin as well.
        We look forward to continue working with you as this bill
    moves through the legislative process. However, we are
    concerned that the growing safety and security risks posed by
    the exploding number of carry-on bags being brought on board
    the aircraft is not currently addressed in the bill. Since the
    mid-1990s we have tried to force the FAA to adopt and enforce a
    uniform policy for carry-on bags, but again the FAA refuses to
    recognize the problem and has failed to protect flight
    attendants and passengers.
        With airline management imposing checked-bag fees, we have
    seen a dramatic increase in the size and number of bags being
    brought into the aircraft cabin. One major carrier recently
    measured a 25 percent drop in checked luggage following the
    imposition of checked baggage fees. Those bags end up in the
    aircraft cabin. This poses a serious risk to the safety of
    passengers and flight attendants, and poses a security concern
    in the aircraft cabin. We would like to work with the Committee
    to include language in the final bill that would create a
    concise, uniform and enforceable standard to limit the size and
    number of bags being brought into the aircraft cabin.
        This FAA reauthorization process is also a sound platform
    to begin a comprehensive discussion on developing a national
    aviation policy for our Country. This legislation addresses
    some immediate and long-term needs, and that is appropriate.
    But the larger conversation must take place on how we want to
    build a 21st century aviation policy for our Country. It is a
    conversation we believe is long overdue.
        This FAA reauthorization is one of the most comprehensive
    and worker-friendly reauthorization bills in memory, and again
    I applaud the Committee's work. For instance, I am pleased to
    see increased funding for EAS. Service to small and even mid-
    sized communities are the first casualties when airlines cut
    capacity, leaving a trail of wasted infrastructure investments
    and unemployment for aviation workers. I applaud the Committee
    for making a bold policy statement that service to all
    communities is important. This is the type of discussion and
    policy-making that needs to occur on a broader stage.
        Chairman Oberstar's recently introduced legislation, H.R.
    831, is one of those important steps that, along with this FAA
    reauthorization, will help in ensuring a vital domestic U.S.
    aviation system. This, along with provisions in the
    reauthorization that address the issue of foreign ownership and
    control of our domestic airlines, are important in protecting
    U.S. workers and consumers.
        Today's hearing serves two purposes in my view, Mr.
    Chairman. First, AFA-CWA endorses this bill and urges you to
    include a one-size-fits-all carry-on baggage policy in the
    bill. Second, this legislation and this hearing have provided a
    long overdue platform for formulating a national, indeed a
    rational, aviation policy for our Country. In this season of
    change, this is our opportunity to construct a 21st century
    aviation policy that works for passengers, communities and the
    union women and men who each and every day transport a number
    of passengers equal to the size of the city of Chicago.
        It is time that millions of aviation workers are part of
    the debate on what our aviation policy will be, and I look
    forward to working with you to make that happen.
        I thank you for your time, and I look forward to your
    questions.
        Mr. Costello. We thank you for your testimony, Ms. Friend.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Roach.
        Mr. Roach. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of this
    Subcommittee, for the opportunity to speak to you today.
        My name is Robert Roach, Jr., General Vice President,
    Transportation, for the International Association of Aerospace
    Workers, the IAM. I am appearing at the request of
    International President R. Thomas Buffenbarger.
        The machinists' union is the largest airline union in North
    America. We represent more than 100,000 U.S. airline workers in
    almost every classification, including flight attendants, ramp
    service workers, mechanics, and passenger service employees. On
    behalf of those workers who ensure that the United States has a
    safe, secure, reliable air transportation system, I am
    presenting to you today some of their concerns they hope to be
    addressed in the FAA reauthorization bill.
        From the outset, we are looking for a level playing field
    to continue to have a safe, secure transportation system. It is
    in the Nation's interest. As a matter of fact, it is a matter
    of national security that the United States have a safe, secure
    system. Many of our jobs have been forced overseas to foreign
    repair stations.
        We are asking today that the FAA reauthorization bill
    create a level playing field which would incentivize some of
    these domestic carriers to bring some of that work back home.
    Foreign repair stations have little or no oversight.
    Restrictions and testing and background checks are not required
    in these overseas inspection stations. Overseas FAA inspections
    are not announced, and more importantly those that are
    announced very rarely take place. The public deserves one level
    of safety, regardless of where the aircraft are maintained.
        On the issue of express carriers, UPS and FedEx are treated
    differently. The laws are applied inconsistently. Employees who
    work for UPS are governed by the National Labor Relations Act.
    Employees working for FedEx, for some reason unknown to us, are
    covered by the Railway Labor Act, which makes it very difficult
    to organize those employees who, in many cases, want to be
    represented. The express language in the Railway Labor Act
    needs to be modified to provide consistency throughout the
    industry.
        Flight attendant safety. The recent successful evacuations
    of Continental Flight 1404 in Denver, and US Airways Flight
    1549 in the Hudson River demonstrate flight attendant skill and
    heroism. Rest periods should be exclusive of any job
    responsibilities or hotel transfer time. IAM contract times
    exceed FAA mandates, but not every flight attendant has union
    protection. Flight attendants should be covered by OSHA. We
    need to protect the people who protect us in flight.
        Fixed-based operators. There is a great debate in Congress
    and throughout our Country about the Employee Free-Choice Act.
    Conversely, we have a group of people who voted by secret
    ballot, in some cases 40 or 50 years ago, to be represented by
    a labor organization, and now, as a reinterpretation of law,
    not a change of law, these people are told that they are no
    longer represented by labor organizations. These people fix and
    maintain aircraft in our Country. These people fuel aircraft in
    our Country. And as a result, there is an instability in the
    fixed-based operations of people who once enjoyed a decent job,
    who now have transit people making minimum wage working on $40
    million or $50 million aircraft. The misapplication of the
    Railway Labor Act has many workers without a union or a
    contract.
        Since 9/11, airline workers have sacrificed their wages,
    pensions and work rules and more than 200,000 jobs in order to
    rescue the industry. Industry conditions have imposed wage
    burdens on workers and carriers to reduce costs. Such
    extraordinary focus on the bottom line demands greater, not
    less, government oversight and proper FAA funding is a must. We
    were inspired by President Obama's speech the other night about
    taking education, bringing education, educating people to
    attach them to the skills that we will need for the future.
        The IAM is presently involved in a mentorship program with
    Aviation High School. We have met the young men and women who
    graduate from Aviation High School, and then we place them in
    skilled jobs, Pratt & Whitney. We were in discussions with
    Governor Sebelius of Kansas to bring some of these young men
    and women before the economy went bad.
        We believe that some of the billions of dollars that are
    going to be spent to create jobs, to educate people, should be
    spent on programs such as apprenticeship programs so that
    people graduating from high school with skills can be mentored
    and placed in skilled jobs in our Country.
        We look forward to working with the Department of
    Transportation, and whoever the FAA administrator is, that they
    should have the flexibility to work with us to create better
    programs so that we can have better jobs, better skills, and
    our work will not have to go overseas because we will have the
    workforce in America to do those jobs.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to speak, and
    we look forward to working with you and this body, and the
    opportunity to speak with you.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Costello. We thank you, Mr. Roach.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Gless.
        Mr. Gless. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, the Transport Workers of America, on behalf
    of its 200,000 active and retired members in the transportation
    industry, including the airline mechanics at American Airlines,
    American Eagle, and the flight attendants of Southwest
    Airlines, appreciate the opportunity to appear before the
    Committee.
        In particular, I would like to thank the Committee for its
    diligence in passing H.R. 2881, the FAA reauthorization bill in
    the 110th Congress, and we look forward in this 111th Congress
    to the successful passage in the House and Senate of a
    reauthorization bill that discontinues the double-standard that
    is applied to aircraft maintenance.
        In addition, we hope to see the FAA put in place critical
    and timely provisions for flight attendants that will enable
    them to perform their duty safely. Briefly, since Mr. Roach and
    Ms. Friend have spoken specifically on flight attendant issues,
    we support occupational safety and health standards for flight
    attendants. We think they are long overdue. Completing the
    study on flight attendant fatigue is another endeavor that will
    ensure that flight attendants will be able to perform their
    duties to the best of their ability.
        Specifically today, I would like to speak on the issue of
    aircraft maintenance. The TWU represents roughly 15,000 workers
    who fall within the category of interest. There are four
    recommendations regarding aircraft maintenance that we see as
    necessary to ensure safe and secure air travel for the American
    public.
        One is to require that all maintenance on aircraft used in
    domestic U.S. service be done in FAA-certified repair
    facilities. Two is to require as a condition of FAA
    certification is that all repair stations meet the same
    standards. This would include, but not be limited to, drug and
    alcohol testing, background security checks, and Part 65
    aircraft mechanic certification.
        Three is to reconfigure the FAA inspection and oversight to
    place the greatest scrutiny on those repair stations whose
    audits determine to propose the greatest risks to safety and
    security.
        And four, requires conditions of FAA certification that all
    repair stations be subject to unannounced FAA inspections. The
    FAA should be prohibited from certifying any repair station in
    a country that does not allow unannounced inspections and
    should immediately revoke any existing certifications in such a
    country.
        There is no doubt that maintenance work that is done in-
    house by the U.S. carriers themselves is probably the safest,
    most secure type of maintenance. This is because the work is
    done under the direct control of the carrier supervisors and
    there is an additional layer of supervision and inspectors
    dedicated to completing the tasks. They ironically receive the
    highest scrutiny and FAA oversight of all.
        As reported in the FAA's recent report, the Air Carriers
    Outsourcing of Aircraft Maintenance, issued on September 30,
    2008, out of the nine carriers that were reviewed, 71 percent
    of their heavy airframe maintenance check was outsourced to
    repair stations. Since 2003, the trend of sending this work out
    of house has more than doubled, from 34 percent in 2003 to 71
    percent in 2007.
        In 1989, the TWU testified against the FAA rule change.
    Unfortunately, we were right in predicting that the elimination
    of limits on movement of maintenance would result in the
    outsourcing of tens of thousands of jobs to overseas
    facilities. Just days ago, Congress passed an economic stimulus
    package that would put some people back to work. My suggestion
    to keep the airline industry afloat is to keep it safe and
    secure by encouraging more air carriers to ensure safety by
    establishing the same rules and scrutiny on foreign maintenance
    bases as are here in the States, which will keep the U.S. air
    carrier mechanics working.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today.
    We look forward to answering any questions that you may have to
    my testimony.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Costello. Thank you, Mr. Gless.
        The Chair now recognizes Ms. Hanni.
        Ms. Hanni. Chairman Costello and Ranking Member Petri,
    thank you for inviting Flyersrights.org to testify in
    connection with the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009. We were
    pleased with the last Congress's legislation, and we were
    disappointed that it did not get enacted, but we see that as an
    opportunity for this Congress to enact even stronger
    legislation in regard to airline passengers' rights.
        We applaud the provisions recently introduced in H.R. 915
    by Chairman Oberstar and Chairman Costello, but we also ask you
    to consider language suggestions to the Subcommittee staff.
    Specifically, we hope you would consider Congressman Mike
    Thompson's H.R. 624, the Passengers Rights Act of 2009. It has
    24 co-sponsors already and mandates effective minimum standards
    for water, food, working toilets, tolerable temperatures, and
    an option to deplane after three hours if it can be done
    safely.
        An identical bipartisan bill has been introduced in the
    Senate, and our Members are working to garner additional
    support for these bills in both chambers.
        You will hear from the airline lobbyists that we are doing
    a better job reducing our handling of long tarmac delays. Let
    us handle it, they say, using the same arguments they advanced
    in convincing Congress in 1999 to stop working on passenger
    rights legislation and accepting voluntary airline customer
    service commitments instead. However, the DOT's Inspector
    General testified here in 2001 and 2006 that airline efforts
    slacked off after the threat of legislation abated and that
    those commitments to customer service plans aren't enforceable.
        The airlines will also say the Tarmac Delay Task Force
    Report and DOT-pending regulations eliminate the need for
    Federal passenger rights provisions to be included in your FAA
    Reauthorization Act legislation. Well, we asked the task force
    to establish minimum standards for passenger health and safety
    issues and for a maximum period for tarmac strandings.
        I even asked that they clearly define what is a long delay
    or what is an excessive delay, and we could not get a
    definition. Instead, the airlines on the task force accepted no
    standards with everything still being left to their unregulated
    discretion and with no penalties for negligence.
        Similarly, in DOT's current draft of its weak, toothless,
    Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections regulation, the
    airlines are permitted to crate their own contingency plans
    with no DOT review for adequacy, no minimum standards, and no
    practical way for passengers to enforce whatever the carriers
    propose to offer.
        The airlines' lobbying and litigation activity over the
    past year make it clear that they don't want any Government
    body or individual passenger to be able to enforce any
    standards of airline behavior during long tarmac delays, and
    not the States. The airlines successfully defeated the State of
    New York's attempt to establish minimum standards for air
    passenger health and welfare, imposing fines for violations.
    The court's ruling was that only the Federal Government may
    regulate the airline in this preempted area. And then they turn
    around and say, not Federal regulation.
        The airlines are opposed to DOT's requiring them in its
    pending rulemaking to list their 1999 commitment and their
    tarmac stranding policies in their contracts of carriage for
    fear that some passengers will try to litigate those promises
    in state courts. Thus, only Congress can assure minimum
    protections for passengers.
        Mr. Chairman, time limits restrict me from explaining how
    we know from our 24/7 hotline calls and investigations into
    airline statistics show that airline and Federal agency
    treatment of stranded airline passengers is getting worse and
    not better. In the audience today is Wayne Burnett. He is a GE
    jet engine engineer. He had a blood clot and pulmonary embolism
    after a three and a half hour stranding event on the tarmac. It
    nearly killed him. His life will never be the same.
        The bottom line here, Mr. Chairman, is that unless Congress
    mandates in your FAA reauthorization legislation minimum
    standards for adequate food, water, working toilets and a
    passenger option to deplane after three plus hours of a tarmac
    delay, if it can be done safely, tomorrow's passengers will
    continue to be as exposed to airline negligence during tarmac
    strandings as they are today.
        Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be
    pleased to answer your questions.
        Mr. Costello. We thank you for your testimony, and as I
    stated earlier, there is no question that if we leave it up to
    the airlines to regulate themselves, it will not happen, and
    that is why it is necessary for us to put this in legislation
    and to pursue it. So we thank you for your testimony and thank
    you for your advocacy on behalf of passengers.
        Mr. Forrey, we don't want to get into the NATCA contract
    issue. We all know that. We have discussed it. I think everyone
    on this Committee is aware, and I think can say in a bipartisan
    way that we believe that what has taken place is unfair. The
    question is, what is the remedy, and we have proposed the
    remedy in our legislation and we have stressed, I personally
    have stressed it to the new Secretary and others, what needs to
    be done. So I am not going to get into that now.
        But what I do want to get into is to talk a little bit
    about testimony that we heard from both Dr. Dillingham, and we
    have heard from others in the past, about morale and what it is
    doing to the agency, the concern about the morale having an
    effect on NextGen and the lack of involvement in all of the
    stakeholders, including the controllers, Mr. Brantley's people
    that he represents, and Mr. Prater as well.
        We heard in the past Administration testimony here in this
    room about how NATCA in particular has been invited to the
    table to participate. My question to you is, with NextGen in
    particular, because everyone is concerned about NextGen and
    modernizing the ATC system, have you been at the table? And
    have your people, have you been invited to come in, give your
    views, and help try and design the system?
        Mr. Forrey. Mr. Chairman, I am aware of all those comments
    made by the previous Administration and the FAA. They are just
    patently false. The FAA has not invited us to participate in
    any technological improvements or modernization of the system.
    In fact, they don't want our opinion on anything. They view us
    with disrespect, or they have in the past, and continue to do
    so today. I think and hope that that will change with the new
    Administrator and this new Administration. We look forward to
    that.
        A collaboration is the only way this agency is going to
    move forward. It is the only way we are going to be able to
    train people. It is the only way we are going to be able to
    keep the experienced controllers from leaving the system. They
    are just treated terribly.
        Mr. Costello. Well, it was refreshing for me to hear from
    the new Secretary about how he wanted to be inclusive and
    wanted to have the opinions in not only designing NextGen, but
    in other aspects of the operation of the agency, all the
    stakeholders, including specifically PASS, NATCA, ALPA, and the
    flight attendants as well. So hopefully that dialogue will take
    place in the future, once they are organized and get moving. I
    made the point earlier that I think we are into 22 days of this
    Administration, so it is going to take some time to get the
    appropriate people in place.
        At this time, the Chair would recognize the Ranking Member,
    Mr. Petri.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you all for your testimony, and putting in a little
    overtime here in this hearing room today.
        I really wanted to take the short time I have to first of
    all make a comment, and that is, as you know, we have had
    several years without a fatal accident in commercial aviation
    in the United States, an absolutely remarkable record. That
    record was in very great jeopardy quite recently with Flight
    1549, and at least three of you have members who were involved:
    an air traffic controller who helped to alert people around the
    area, of course the flight crew, stewardesses who managed to
    prevent as best they could a potentially catastrophic
    situation, turning into an orderly evacuation, and especially
    your I think member, Captain Sully Sullenberger, and the
    tremendous job he did in acting very quickly, as it turned out,
    under great pressure.
        This is a testimony to the professionalism and
    effectiveness of experienced crews. We keep trying to make the
    system better, but we can all be very proud of the performance
    of the people involved in saving all the lives, even someone
    who was in a wheelchair, with very few serious injuries and
    almost everyone walked away and everyone lived. So it is a
    testimony. I just wanted to say that.
        The other thing, I did have a question for Mr. Forrey, the
    bill, H.R. 915, has what is called a binding arbitration
    provision, but when the arbitrator comes out with an award, as
    I understand it, and I would like you to comment on this, it is
    binding on the taxpayer, but not on the union as there is a
    possibility of a vote to reject the binding arbitration
    agreement. How is that necessarily going to move things
    forward?
        Mr. Forrey. Well, the binding arbitration process is very
    similar to what is used in the Postal Service today.
    Essentially, anything that is determined by the arbitration
    panel is not ratifiable. In other words, it has to be accepted
    by the parties. The rest of the agreement that was agreed to
    voluntarily would be ratified. So anything that was determined
    by the arbitration panel is set in stone.
        I believe there are also circumstances where there
    certainly couldn't be an award or a settlement, so to speak,
    without the government's approval. Obviously, if Congress isn't
    going to fund it, they are not going to fund it, and that is
    all there is to it. I mean, you guys make the laws, right?
        So that is kind of where it goes. It is a very good
    process. It is very productive. It cuts out the strife.
    Everyone gets to have their day in court and present their
    evidence in support of what they want to do. An independent
    panel will determine what makes the best sense.
        So we believe that is the only way to go. It is similar to
    what is done with the Federal services in past panels. It is
    just that they don't deal with funding, basically, or with pay
    in the other Federal parts of the Federal sector, like the FAA
    does.
        So we think it works very well. It has worked very well for
    the Post Office for several years now, and it should create a
    more productive environment.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you very much.
        I wonder, too, just one thing very briefly, if you could
    comment, if you were here during the Inspector General's
    testimony. There seemed to be some, at least certainly an
    increase in recruitment that they have hit their targets or
    exceeded them. There is still concern about inexperience or
    opportunities for proper training, but there were predictions a
    year or so ago about how we were going to have trouble
    recruiting or keeping the air traffic control force, especially
    in the absence of a contract settlement. That does not, in
    fact, seem to have happened. Would you like to address that?
        Mr. Forrey. Well, I think it comes down to a question of
    what you are recruiting, how qualified they are, and how
    successful they will be in the training.
        Mr. Petri. These are your members. I understand that. I
    completely understand that. What we want them to do is be put
    into an environment where they are going to have the best
    opportunities to succeed, and that it not being done.
        Mr. Forrey. You have to understand, air traffic control is
    an inherent ability, not something you learn. If you don't have
    the inherent ability to multi-task, three-dimensional imaging
    and all that kind of stuff that us weirdos have, you probably
    won't succeed in the job.
        So first of all, you have to get the right pool of people
    in there. Certainly, we hope that is what the FAA is doing. We
    don't have any say in that.
        Secondly, you have to provide an environment where they can
    learn their craft and their profession, and they are being
    placed in the facilities that don't have the curricula for
    training them, for people that don't have experience. They are
    putting too many in places at once where they can't get proper
    and on-time training.
        The experience-level of the controllers that are supposed
    to do the training are leaving, so there are fewer of them
    around to show them how to do the job. And as Chairman Costello
    said, he was in Orlando tower the other month, and there were
    ten people in that tower and only one of them had a year or
    more of experience.
        Now, if we had a situation that happened with US Air 1549,
    would that controller have had the experience and been
    subjected to that kind of a condition in his or her working
    environment for less than a year, to be able to handle the
    situation like that controller did, or those controllers did?
        One was in the tower at LaGuardia, Bill McLaughlin, and
    Patrick Harkin in New York TRACON. Both had years of experience
    and they didn't miss a beat, just like the crew didn't miss a
    beat, neither the cabin crew nor the flight crew. People were
    called in to help as quickly as they could, and no one got hurt
    in that thing.
        So that is what we are hoping, to stop the flow of these
    experienced controllers from leaving the system, to provide
    these new folks coming in a decent training program that they
    can be successful and be the next generation of this system. We
    are concerned about that. You can hire all you want, but they
    only certified 700 of them in the last three years. That is a
    problem for us. We lost 5,000 and certified 700. You do the
    math.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and now
    recognizes the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Boswell.
        Mr. Boswell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I don't think I have questions. I would like to make a
    couple of comments, if I could.
        Mr. Forrey, in all my years of being around flying, I still
    an impressed when I go to a tower or control room. Pass word
    back to your people that we love them, we respect them, and we
    are going to continue to work our best to get the numbers you
    need.
        I could go right down the line. I could brag on all of you,
    and I do. I think I will pick on the lady in front.
        Unsung heroes. We fly a lot. Thank you. Those flight
    attendants are really great, and they don't get much help from
    we passengers sometimes. We get cranky and so on.
        The mechanics, Mr. Roach, you make a good point.
    Unbelievably costly airplanes, and then we want to shortchange
    the people that keep them flying. It is ridiculous.
        Mr. Gless, thank you.
        Don't give up, Ms. Hanni. We are going to win this sooner
    or later.
        I guess I will stop with you, Captain Prater. I was
    thinking back to the days of my own flying, when I was
    learning. As you know, and the rest of you who fly, we practice
    and practice and practice with that engine out. When I was
    instructing, we wouldn't solo somebody until they could prove
    to us they understood what they are supposed to do.
        Nevertheless, I think that the Hudson River landing tells a
    story to the world, really, that you guys are professional. You
    are really, really professional. Calm and cool, you have to be,
    and people of few words. Just do what you have to do.
        I think of all the possibilities that could have gone
    wrong, one wing being a little low or something, just the wrong
    time, and what could have happened. I think that there was a
    guiding hand possibly, but there was a heck of a hand on the
    yoke. Our compliments to those of you that give us the
    confidence to get in the back of some of those monsters, and
    not being able to see what is going on. That is kind of one of
    the harder things for pilots, to get in the backseat and sit
    there knowing you can't do a darn thing if something goes
    wrong. Then there are the flight attendants to take care of us.
        Mr. Chairman, this is a great panel. I wish the whole
    Country could have heard what they had to say and what they do
    for us. It means a lot.
        Thank you very much.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you, and recognizes the
    gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski.
        Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I guess I am to a large extent what stands between all of
    us being able to finish this hearing today, but I just want to
    echo my colleague Mr. Boswell's comments here, that we
    unfortunately with all the problems going on in our Country
    right now, we would like to focus on things that don't work and
    haven't worked. All of you are part of making this system work.
        Every time I get on a plane, I still think about the fact
    that all of these things have to work--the pilot, the flight
    attendants, those that work on the plane, air traffic
    controllers--everybody has to do things right so that
    everything works. I also every time I get on a plane think
    about how things can be better. So I thank Ms. Hanni for her
    work.
        I just want to ask one question of Ms. Friend. In your
    written testimony, you express strong support for placing
    limits on the size of a carry-on bag that may be brought onto
    planes. So I just wanted to ask you, with the decision of many
    carriers to charge for bags, I just want to ask you how that
    has impacted the number of bags, the size of bags that
    passengers carry on, and what effects that this had on flight
    attendants.
        Ms. Friend. Well, as you can imagine, people are reluctant
    to pay anything more than they have to. So a lot of the baggage
    that used to be checked is now ending up in the cabin of the
    aircraft, more and larger pieces of luggage. We do know that,
    as I testified earlier, at least one major carrier, two months
    after implementing the checked baggage fee, they revealed that
    the amount of their checked baggage was down by 25 percent.
    From our viewpoint, that 25 percent reduction is now in the
    cabin.
        We see a number of problems with that, obviously. There
    isn't room for it. It causes problems in evacuation. Some of
    those passengers who were in the Hudson River felt compelled to
    try to take their carry-on baggage with them as they were
    leaving, which they will inevitably do.
        We believe that additional carry-on baggage coming through
    the security checkpoints adds an additional burden to the
    screeners. It just magnifies their workload and makes it more
    difficult for them to identify dangerous items.
        So we are once again, as we have for as long as I can
    remember, urging the enactment of a uniform carry-on baggage
    limitation, size and number, that can be enforced.
        Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. They still have those metal things
    that are sitting there before you get on the plane that say
    your bag must fit in here. I kind of wonder why those are still
    sitting there. I don't think I have ever seen one of those
    really used.
        Ms. Friend. They are actually a handy receptacle for
    anything, you know, that you can't find a trash can for. That
    is about what they are good for.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Lipinski. Thank you very much. I thank all of the
    panelists for your testimony. Hopefully, there are a lot of
    people watching this and understand the job that you do, the
    people that you represent.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Costello. Thank you.
        The Chair thanks all of you for your testimony and for your
    patience today. We think that we have a good bill that we have
    introduced. We have every intention of moving the bill as
    quickly as possible. We will schedule a markup as soon as we
    possibly can, and we will get it to the floor quickly.
        As I said earlier, with the Ranking Member of the Full
    Committee who is here, most of the items in the bill are issues
    that we had previously agreed on. Mr. Mica, Chairman Oberstar
    and Mr. Petri and I went through item by item in the bill. So I
    would guess that about 90 percent is agreed upon. The labor
    issues are not agreed upon, not surprisingly, but there were a
    couple of other issues, too, that were put into this bill that
    we believe are noncontroversial.
        So we fully intend to move this as quickly as possible. We
    want to move it prior to the expiration of the extension, which
    of course is the end of March. So we will be doing our work to
    attempt to get that done.
        We appreciate your input. As I said in my opening
    statement, the bill that was introduced and passed out of the
    Committee in the House in 2007 had input from all of you, and
    from a lot of other stakeholders as well. This bill does as
    well, and we appreciate your testimony, your input, and we look
    forward to having you back before the Subcommittee in the
    future to talk about other issues.
        We would encourage you to talk to our colleagues in the
    House and the other body as we move the bill forward, so that
    we can get the bill passed out of the House and then you can go
    over to the other side of the building and work hard to try and
    convince our friends in the other body to pass a
    reauthorization bill.
        It is important. It is not only important for NextGen. It
    is not only important for a lot of the reasons that you heard
    today, but I think it is important to the flying public and all
    of the stakeholders involved in aviation.
        So again, we thank you for your patience and we thank you
    for your testimony.
        With that, the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 6:48 p.m. the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]