[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
REVIEW OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL REFORM PROPOSALS
=======================================================================
(114-33)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 10, 2016
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation
____________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
98-580PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
_______________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee, ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
Vice Chair Columbia
JOHN L. MICA, Florida JERROLD NADLER, New York
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey CORRINE BROWN, Florida
SAM GRAVES, Missouri EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DUNCAN HUNTER, California RICK LARSEN, Washington
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
BOB GIBBS, Ohio STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
JEFF DENHAM, California JOHN GARAMENDI, California
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky JANICE HAHN, California
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois DINA TITUS, Nevada
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
ROB WOODALL, Georgia ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
TODD ROKITA, Indiana LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
JOHN KATKO, New York CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
BRIAN BABIN, Texas JARED HUFFMAN, California
CRESENT HARDY, Nevada JULIA BROWNLEY, California
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana
MIMI WALTERS, California
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
CARLOS CURBELO, Florida
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York
MIKE BOST, Illinois
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ v
TESTIMONY
Paul Rinaldi, President, National Air Traffic Controllers
Association.................................................... 11
Nicholas E. Calio, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Airlines for America........................................... 11
Edward Bolen, President and Chief Executive Officer, National
Business Aviation Association.................................. 11
Robert W. Poole, Jr., Director of Transportation Policy, Reason
Foundation..................................................... 11
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Paul Rinaldi..................................................... 69
Nicholas E. Calio................................................ 71
Edward Bolen..................................................... 77
Robert W. Poole, Jr.............................................. 85
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Hon. Bill Shuster, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Pennsylvania, submission of the following:
Letter of February 1, 2016, from Hon. Byron L. Dorgan, U.S.
Senator from North Dakota, 1992-2010, et al., to Hon. Bill
Shuster, Chairman, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure............................................. 93
Open letter to Congress of February 8, 2016, from Pete Sepp,
President, National Taxpayers Union, et al................. 95
Letter to members of the National Air Traffic Controllers
Association (NATCA), from Paul Rinaldi, President, and
Trish Gilbert, Executive Vice President, NATCA............. 98
Letter of February 9, 2016, from Antony Tyler, Director
General and CEO, International Air Transport Association,
to Hon. Bill Shuster, Chairman, Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, et al.................................. 100
Press release of February 3, 2016, ``ATC Modernization Would
Move U.S. Into 21st Century,'' Business Roundtable......... 102
Press release of February 25, 2016, ``SWAPA Urges House
Passage of AIRR Act,'' Southwest Airlines Pilots'
Association................................................ 103
Press release of March 3, 2016, ``Allied Pilots Association
Endorses AIRR Act,'' Allied Pilots Association............. 104
Letter of February 10, 2016, from Ronald P. Brower, Corporate
Secretary, and Robert E. Tanner, Vice President, Corporate
and Government Affairs, NetJets Inc., to Hon. Bill Shuster,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure... 106
Letter of February 8, 2016, from Logistics Supply Chain
Coalition, to Hon. Bill Shuster, Chairman, and Hon. Peter
A. DeFazio, Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure............................................. 107
Report, ``Air Traffic Control Reform: Frequently Asked
Questions/The Aviation Innovation, Reform, and
Reauthorization Act Offers Opportunities for Needed
Modernization,'' February 9, 2016, by Marc Scribner,
Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute................... 108
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon, submission of the following:
Letter of February 2, 2016, from Richard H. Anderson, Chief
Executive Officer, Delta Air Lines, Inc., to Hon. Bill
Shuster, Chairman, and Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, Ranking
Member, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure..... 114
Statement for the record from Experimental Aircraft
Association................................................ 120
Statement for the record from Thomas L. Hendricks, President
and CEO, National Air Transportation Association........... 138
Letter of February 1, 2016, from Hon. Harold Rogers,
Chairman, House Committee on Appropriations, et al., to
Hon. Paul D. Ryan, Speaker of the House of Representatives,
et al...................................................... 143
Letter of January 27, 2016, from Hon. Thad Cochran, Chairman,
Senate Committee on Appropriations, et al., to Hon. John
Thune, Chairman, and Hon. Bill Nelson, Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.. 145
Petition by Americans Against Air Traffic Privatization,
``Signature Needed: Tell Congress Not To Privatize Our Air
Traffic Control System''................................... 147
Press release of February 3, 2016, ``ALPA Calls Proposed FAA
Reauthorization Bill Unsafe and Unfair,'' Air Line Pilots
Association, International................................. 149
Letter of June 24, 2015, from Scott Frey, Director of Federal
Government Affairs, American Federation of State, County
and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO........................... 151
Letter of April 22, 2015, from J. David Cox, Sr., National
President, American Federation of Government Employees, et
al., to Hon. Bill Shuster, Chairman, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, et al................... 152
Press release of February 3, 2016, ``Regional Airline
Association Statement on the Introduction of the Aviation
Innovation, Reform, and Reauthorization (AIRR) Act,''
Regional Airline Association............................... 154
Letter of February 5, 2016, from Donald Cohen, Executive
Director, In the Public Interest, et al., to Hon. Paul D.
Ryan, Speaker of the House of Representatives, et al....... 155
Report, ``Pitfalls of Air Traffic Control Privatization,''
February 2003, by Professor Elliott Sclar, Columbia
University and The HDR Management Consulting Group......... 157
Report to Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, Ranking Member, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, and Hon. Rick Larsen,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Aviation, ``Federal
Aviation Administration: Preliminary Observations of
Potential Air Traffic Control Restructuring Transition
Issues,'' February 10, 2016, by U.S. Government
Accountability Office...................................... 190
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
REVIEW OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL REFORM PROPOSALS
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2016
House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in
room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bill Shuster
(Chairman of the committee) presiding.
Mr. Shuster. The Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure will come to order. I would like to welcome
everybody this morning. Looks like we have got a packed house,
a lot of interest in the hearing today on reviewing the ATC
[air traffic control] reform proposals. Again, I want to
welcome everybody here.
Last week Chairman LoBiondo and myself introduced the AIRR
Act, the Aviation Innovation, Reform, and Reauthorization Act
of 2016. This bill provides transformational reform of the U.S.
aviation system, something that is absolutely necessary to
modernize our air traffic control system, to ensure the system
is both safe and efficient, and--let me say that again, safe is
the number-one priority of this effort, and has always been of
the effort at the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration], but we
need to make sure it is efficient, and presently it is not
efficient, and studies I see, it is working backward from
becoming more efficient--and to ensure America leads the world
in this industry, an industry that we invented.
A key reform in this bill takes the ATC out of the Federal
Government, and establishes a federally chartered, independent,
not-for-profit Corporation to provide that service. This
Corporation will be governed by a board representing the
system's users. Today's hearing focuses on the ATC reform piece
of the bill.
I believe Ranking Member DeFazio and I agree that the
status quo at the FAA is unacceptable, and that real change is
necessary. We have worked together on large parts of this bill
in the same bipartisan spirit as other bills this committee has
passed and sent on to the President. I think we are on the same
page on many reforms and provisions.
We do have an honest policy disagreement on the approach to
fixing ATC. I have been talking about my ideas for improving
ATC for over 2 years, and I have put them on the table. I know
the ranking member has some ideas, as well. Today is the
opportunity for the committee to discuss the ideas we have put
forward.
As I said, I believe we have to do better. Delays,
congestions, and inefficiencies cost our economy $30 billion a
year. And in the next decade we will be up to 1 billion people,
1 billion passengers flying. And without real improvement, the
system is only going to get worse. Unfortunately, FAA has
proven it can't modernize the air traffic system. Delays, cost
overruns, and setbacks have been going on for 30 years.
And we just got the newest report from the DOT OIG [U.S.
Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General].
January 15th it came out. The FAA reforms have not achieved
expected cost, efficiency, and modernization outcomes. And they
did this looking back over the last 20 years. And if you go
back even further, and report after report has said the FAA is
incapable of developing and rolling out and modernizing the air
traffic control system, among other things, among things they
have--1995 we exempted them from a Federal human--or the
personnel hiring/firing under the Federal Government, we
exempted them from that.
And today we hear about the need to hire 3,000 traffic
controllers roughly a year, and they are only able to do about
half of it. So throughout the system, throughout the reforms
they have had available to them, they have not been able to do
that. And, as I said, this is just the latest report from the
inspector general.
The IG [inspector general] has testified here that, while
initial cost estimates for NextGen were about $40 billion, and
the cost would double or triple and take a decade or more
before it could be--possibly be deployed. So instead of costing
$40 billion and hopefully finishing in 2025, realistically we
are looking at upward of over $100 billion, and a completion in
maybe 2035 or beyond.
Without a doubt, Congress and the political interference
are part of this problem, whether it is the 23 extensions we
faced before, the sequestration, Government shutdown,
congressional--Members of Congress weighing in when the agency
tries to streamline, when it tries to close a facility or
consolidate a facility, and some Member of Congress, powerful
Member of Congress says, ``You are not going to close down my
facility,'' it has caused big problems when you are trying to
run an operation that is in need of consolidations, in need of
reducing its footprint because of the technology that should be
available to do that. So Congress has been a problem.
But the basic problem is that the FAA is a huge
bureaucracy, it is not a high-tech service provider. That is
what we are talking about, telecommunications provider to the
flying public. The planes are up in the air, the folks on the
ground, making sure they are communicating to keep that
airspace safe. Congress has tried procurement and personnel
reforms at FAA, which I have mentioned, and they failed to
implement them.
The time for piecemeal reform is over. For 30 years we have
tried this, a little bit here, a little bit there, even some
big stuff. But it just was rearranging the deck chairs on the
Titanic.
The AIRR Act takes air traffic control out of the FAA and
transitions it to a new Corporation, a not-for-profit
Corporation, over the next 3 years. It's a 6-year bill, 3 years
for transition and then the next 3 years to--for the startup of
this new entity.
And I just want to mention the Canadians and the Germans
and the Australians across the country--were 50 of them--have
done something very similar to what we are talking about here
today. But I just want to say that August of this year, the
Canadians will launch their first satellites into space. And by
the end of 2017, they will have over 70 satellites launched.
They will have their GPS [Global Positioning System] up in
space. Currently, today, we can only see 30 percent of the
airspace on our current technology. When they deployed those 70
or so satellites, they will be able to see 100 percent of the
airspace in the globe, the Canadians.
I am told there are already 15 or 16 countries that have
signed up for their services. So the Canadians, Nav Canada and
their partners, they are developing this system. I believe they
are going to become the dominant controller of airspace in the
world. They are going to be able to fly planes over the North
Atlantic and over the Pacific, straighter lines, closer
together, more efficiently. And that is when we are going to
really see our loss in the leadership in the world, when it
comes to controlling airspace and being the gold standard.
Again, this Corporation we are setting up is completely
independent of the Federal Government. This is not a Government
Corporation, a quasi-governmental entity, or a GSE [Government-
Sponsored Enterprise]. It is not that. The Federal Government
will not back the obligations, the financial obligations, for
this Corporation. The Corporation will simply provide a
service.
The bill does not give the airspace to the Corporation;
that remains the public trust. That belongs to the American
people. And the FAA remains absolutely responsible for
regulating the airspace and aviation safety.
We do this in a way that protects the GA [general aviation]
and the rural communities. Noncommercial GA is exempted from
fees or charges. Let me repeat that again, because everywhere I
go in this town, it doesn't seem to resonate with people.
Noncommercial general aviation is exempt from fees or charges.
Now, there are some folks in this room and around town that
don't think that is right, but I think that is the fair way to
move forward. And the Corporation can't tie airspace access to
what users pay. Again, can't tie their access to what they pay.
In fact, in talking to the folks in Canada, the GA community
has had a very positive experience up there.
This structure gets ATC away from the budget process and
political decisionmaking. I know the notion goes against the
establishment. We have already had some very senior Republicans
on very important committees say, ``Oh, we can't do this,'' and
that is, again, the establishment pushing back, saying we can't
do this. We can do this. We need to do this. We must do this.
And we can do what is best for the American aviation system if
we show the political will.
And let me tell you, it is--this has not been an easy--I
know a couple of you here at the witness stand have gone
through some tough days and weeks. I appreciate you staying
strong.
And this isn't a new idea. This idea--one of our folks'
testimony today, Mr. Poole, he has been at that desk I don't
know how many times over the last 30 years, talking about this.
The Clinton administration tried to do it, the Bush
administration tried to do it. And, since that time, since
Clinton's time and Bush's time, it has become the global
standard, having an independent air traffic control system,
independent from the regulator.
ICAO [International Civil Aviation Organization], who is
the--sort of sets the standards for the world, has said that is
what we should be doing all over the country, over the world.
And more than 50 other countries have successfully done this,
with benefits across the board. Safety is maintained--in some
cases it goes up, it is even safe. We have modernized systems,
we have improved efficiencies and service, and costs have gone
down.
We will see more effective use of the airspace, airspace
capacity increased, more direct routes, which will save time
and money, increased capacity, shorter flight times, reduced
delays and cancellations, and reduced pollution and noise. With
the operational efficiencies, I believe we can save billions of
dollars in the new system like this.
And again, the FAA will focus on what it does best, and
that is regulate safety of the system.
We started this process over 2 years ago. We have worked
with stakeholders throughout the aviation community to address
issues they have raised. In this bill, we have worked to
streamline the certification process, address safety issues,
improve passenger experience, provide robust funding for the
AIP [Airport Improvement Program], and address the safety--
integration of drones into the airspace.
Taken as a whole, the AIRR Act does what is best for all
users of the system, and the future of U.S. aviation. I want
our country to have the safest--or continue to have the safest
aviation system in the world, as well as the most efficient,
cost-effective, and advanced system. We don't have that today,
but I believe we will under this bill.
So, with that, I would like to now recognize Ranking Member
DeFazio for an opening statement.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I--Mr. Chairman, we
have worked together on many issues that relate to FAA
reauthorization, and I appreciate working together. And there
is much agreement, a couple of disagreements outside of the
area of ATO [Air Traffic Organization], which we will go
through tomorrow.
The ATO is the major stumbling block, and I believe it
jeopardizes all of the other work, the essential work in that
bill that deals with drones and, you know, other safety issues,
a whole host of issues: certification reform, which we have--
been long overdue, which is crucial to keeping our lead and
manufacturing and software that relates to aviation in the
world. And I fear that this proposal jeopardizes that.
We do agree on enduring issues that Congress identified in
the 1990s--1996 attempted to reform procurement and personnel
at the FAA. The FAA blew it off. I will have targeted proposals
on procurement and personnel, which I will offer tomorrow. And
then, yes, there have been tremendous problems, and I believe,
in part, NATCA [National Air Traffic Controllers Association]
is here today because they are still really angry about
sequestration shutdowns and layoffs that happened because of
the budget shenanigans which were, of course, caused by the
majority party.
Now, how do we protect ourselves against Congress is a big
issue. This is one particular solution. I believe there is a
better solution, because this one actually fails that test. I
raised last summer the issue that this would be
unconstitutional. We cannot devolve regulatory or ratemaking
and other competitive impacting issues to a private entity
under the Constitution. It is very, very clear we can't do
that.
I was first blown off, but now the chairman's proposal
actually recognizes it, and we have what I would call a Rube
Goldberg, which I would like them to put up on the screen now.
[Slide]
Mr. DeFazio. And I guess this is the diagram of how this
would work. Here is the new private ATC Corporation. Now, if
they make a decision over here on aviation taxes, they have to
refer that to the Secretary of Transportation, who has 45 days,
yea or nay.
Then it can be rejected, in which case the Corporation goes
to court. Or they can be accepted, and passenger fees go up. No
involvement of that messy little Congress thing in raising the
fees on passengers or any other users of the system.
Now, let's say that they want to change flight paths into
an airport, including a metropolitan airspace that might have
some noise implications. Well, that is what you call an
external diseconomy. They don't care about noise. It is cheaper
to come in over this route. So there is a lot of objections to
it. It goes to the Secretary, the Secretary decides it.
In any case, this is how it would all work. There is one
exception for--contract air towers are exempt from this scheme.
But everything else that relates to ATO would be in it, which
is kind of odd that we would exempt the contract towers.
Now, I think this is a potential morass. And we did just
receive--and I regret it came out today, but look, we have been
talking about this for 30 years. We have had the bill 1 week,
we are holding one hearing with four witnesses, and we are
marking the bill up tomorrow. The largest devolution of public
assets to a private interest in I said the history of America.
My colleague this morning, Earl Blumenauer, said, ``No, in the
history of the world this is bigger than what happened in
Russia when the oligarchs took over public assets.''
We are talking about an asset--no one has valued it--worth
between $30 billion and $50 billion that will be given to the
private Corporation free of charge. That is unprecedented.
There have been two privatizations, one privatization in
Canada--they paid $1.4 billion, it was later found that it was
undervalued by about $1 billion. I believe in Britain they paid
a little over $1 billion for it. We are going to take a much
larger entity, controlling a lot of real estate, some in some
very expensive areas like New York City, and we are going to
give it to a private Corporation. And the day after they
establish, they can do with those assets whatever they wish.
They can sell them, and we have no say. That, I think, is a
cause for real concern.
There are other major transition issues. Yes, there have
been 81, actually, countries that have transitioned to a
different form on ATO. Only two are private, unless you count
the Emirates, where they control everything, including the
airlines, so I won't talk about them. But there were huge
transition issues in all these countries.
There is a MITRE report, which I would recommend to people
to look at, which raises concerns, as was referenced, you know,
earlier, on how long this transition might take, and how
disruptive it could be of the progress we are making on
NextGen. I believe it could be very, very disruptive.
And we have today--and again, I regret it just came out
today, but it is like everything else here, we have to rush for
the biggest change in our aviation system since it was created
in its modern form in the 1950s, which took 2 years. In 1 week
and 1 day we are going to spout it out of this committee. I
think that is wrong, I think we should take more time. I think
we should have more discussion of these issues, I think we
should have more hearings, and I think we should work through
this more thoughtfully, and over a longer period of time.
The GAO [Government Accountability Office]--Mr. Chairman,
you took 11 minutes and 35 seconds, so I hope you are not going
to tell me to be quiet, because I am nowhere near there yet.
Mr. Shuster. No, wouldn't think about it.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Laughter]
Mr. DeFazio. The GAO report that came out this morning
raises very, very serious questions, which will not be answered
between today and tomorrow. They couldn't possibly be answered
between today and tomorrow. And this is where they went out and
surveyed 33 aviation experts about the privatization proposal.
And again, I regret it only came out today, but this whole
thing is being hurried through.
Finally, you know, the issue before us about airspace, it
was a statement the chairman made--and I hate to disagree with
my chairman, but if someone controls the routes, and they
control the conditions under which you access those routes, and
they control the investment in the system itself, which means
maybe we don't want to invest in things that serve medium and
small cities--they aren't profit centers; why should we be
putting investment there--you know, we are keeping control of
the airspace? I guess there is some technical way we are
keeping control of it, but none of that will be subject to any
elected Representative.
Now, in some cases, maybe that is good, and some other
cases maybe that is not so good. In some cases that might be
really, really bad for a certain community, parts of the
country, or a certain user of the system, or maybe passengers
themselves, who will perhaps now be charged a new fee for
accessing the airspace over the United States. It is like you
got to pay $25 for your bag, and what is this $10? That is for
using the airspace. Nothing in this bill says that that
couldn't happen. And, in fact, that would be up to the private
entity.
And it is a private entity, profit or not-profit, big deal.
It is a corporate, private entity. But it does have the Rube
Goldberg control. Ultimately, the Secretary gets a, ``No, you
are not going to charge passengers $10 to use the airspace.''
Then the Corporation sues the Secretary, and how long does that
take in the courts, and what kind of uncertainties do we
create? Same thing with any rationalization of the system,
where there is a disagreement between the Secretary and the
board.
So, I feel that, you know, we should perhaps slow down a
little bit here, think about alternatives.
I did spend a lot of time trying to develop a freestanding
Government-sponsored, or a constitutionally chartered
Corporation, because the chairman tells me on his side of the
aisle you can't have the word ``Government,'' which would not
have to report back to the Secretary of Transportation and have
him say yea or nay on everything they do, and wouldn't have
been a field day for lawyers. I couldn't generate support for
that idea, and so, therefore, I will not be offering an
alternative, but targeting reforms at the existing FAA in the
hope of having more support for the needed reforms.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this
one hearing with four witnesses, and you know, I look forward
to the discussion.
Mr. Shuster. Well, I thank the gentleman. And just to point
out, you know, this has been ongoing for 30 years. You have
been here for almost 30 years, and you have been on this
committee part of this discussion.
And again, we know there is serious problems at the FAA--
and listening to you talk in many, many hearings about the
problems. And let me just--for the record, we have had--this
has been ongoing for 2 years. My colleagues on the other side
were involved in many, if not all, of the discussions of
stakeholders. They received the bill 10 days ago in its
entirety. They have been looking, and we have--negotiating on
much of the bill for months now, literally. So to say that this
is--try to make this sound like it is a last-minute deal is
just absolutely not the case.
The--as I said, they have had it for 10 days, and I was
under the impression--I was very eager to see your concept,
because it seemed to me to be similar to mine--of course,
different entities, but I was eager to see that. Now we are not
even going to see that.
And what we are seeing today for the first time is this
Rube Goldberg chart, which I am sure, if we would have had 10
days to look at, I am sure we could debunk it in its entirety.
So again, that is the last thing here.
And finally, let me just say we are having this hearing
based on the request of the ranking member. He was insistent, I
said, ``OK, fine, it is great, let's do that. If that is
important to you, then we are going to go through with this.''
So here we are today.
Again, I just want everybody to realize this has not been
done in the dark, and it has not been done at the last minute.
There has been lots and lots of discussion. And again, I think
you will see other parts of the bill, that there is--their
fingerprints are all over it, which is a good thing.
So with that, I recognize----
Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Chairman, just for a moment?
Mr. Shuster. Yes.
Mr. DeFazio. If I could, since you referenced me. Your
staff has the proposal that I worked on, and we have made it
available to others. So it is not a secret. So you do have it.
And I tried to get discussion going about an alternative with
you, with A4A [Airlines for America], with NATCA, and others.
And that--the reciprocity was not forthcoming. It had to be a
private Corporation.
At this point I would ask unanimous consent to include in
the record written statements in opposition to the ATC
privatization from the following three organizations: Delta
Airlines, the Experimental Aircraft Association, National Air
Transport Association. In addition, I ask unanimous consent to
include the following letters in opposition to ATC
privatization from the bipartisan leadership of the House and
Senate Appropriations Committees, 130,000 consumers, there are
28 organizations--I will not read those, I will submit them for
the record.
And I would also like to enter into the record a report,
``The Pitfalls of Air Traffic Control Privatization,'' February
2003, commissioned by the National Air Traffic Controllers
Association.
And finally, I would like to enter into the record the--
today's Government Accountability Office report on concerns
they have over this proposal.
[No response.]
Mr. Shuster. Without objection, so ordered.
We will enter all of our organizations that support us at
the end of the hearing, which I am sure is equal to or greater
than the number that is there.
With that, I would like to recognize the subcommittee
chairman, Mr. LoBiondo, for a statement.
Mr. LoBiondo. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Shuster.
As was referenced, over the last 2 years the Subcommittee
on Aviation has held more than 180 listening sessions,
roundtables, and hearings on the state of the Nation's air
traffic control system with stakeholders identifying the
perpetual challenges the FAA has faced in modernizing the
National Airspace System. And, as the chairman noticed, while
we currently enjoy the safest air traffic control system in the
world, it is no longer anywhere close to the most efficient.
The FAA has been attempting to modernize our safe yet
antiquated ATC system since President Reagan's first year in
office. Since that time the DOT Office of Inspector General,
the Government Accountability Office, and numerous bipartisan
Federal airline Commissions found that the FAA's progress with
delivering planned NextGen capabilities has been plagued by
significant delays, cost increases, and absence of promised
benefits to the traveling public and industry stakeholders.
In testimony before the subcommittee in 2014, DOT Inspector
General Scovel warned that the NextGen implementation costs for
Government and industry--and this is the stuff that sort of
makes your hair catch fire and your eyes pop out--initially
estimated at $20 billion for each, could double or triple. So
we are talking about possibly $40 billion or $60 billion. And
that NextGen implementation may take an additional decade. That
is what is at stake here.
Since 1981 we have invested over 70--7-0--$70 billion in
taxpayer money to the air traffic control modernization, and
yet we are still using essentially the same air traffic control
system which is based on World War II-era technology. After $70
billion.
While stakeholders unanimously support NextGen, they have
been unable to agree on how to address these well-documented
implementation obstacles. As Chairman Shuster has stated, the
committee has a historic opportunity to drive the
transformational change needed to ensure that we have the very
best ATC system in the world.
Three years of Federal budget disputes led the FAA decision
in 2013 to furlough 10 percent of its air traffic control
workforce, and nearly close 149 contract towers to meet
sequester-driven budgetary cuts. According to a December 2015
report by GAO, budget uncertainty has also contributed to
NextGen delays and cost overruns. Continued delays resulting
from sequestration, employee furloughs, unpredictable
continuing resolutions, and Government shutdowns have had a
devastating impact on the FAA's ability to achieve
transformational results.
Only 2 months ago we were voting here again to keep the
Government open while the FAA, many of my constituents, more
than 3,000 working at its Technical Center in my district, were
forced to make preparations in the event they needed to shelve
the projects and be ready for a shutdown. That is why the AIRR
Act, we worked to ensure that critical projects and safety in
the skies continue without interruption.
Included in the bill, section 241, will empower rather than
stifle the employees involved in ATC modernization,
particularly those at the FAA Tech Center. It will allow the
Corporation to utilize the resources and extensive
institutional expertise of the employees of the Tech Center to
improve upon the already sterling safety record that we have
all come to expect.
We are the only developed country whose ATC system can be a
political football, frequently held hostage to Federal budget
disputes like the sequester, which threatened not only the
ongoing operations of the system, but also the successful
implementation of NextGen. Unless the ATC reforms in the AIRR
Act are enacted, we risk failure in delivering NextGen as it
was promised to the traveling public.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on how the ATC
reforms included in the AIRR Act will ensure we have the
safest, most efficient, and modernized air traffic control
system in the world. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the
opportunity.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. LoBiondo. Now I recognize the
ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Larsen.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks for
agreeing to hold this hearing, and for the opportunity to
discuss the proposal to privatize the ATC system.
Before we talk about that, I do want to thank you and
Chairman LoBiondo, who have worked with Ranking Member DeFazio
and myself, and all the Members on every other title, as well,
in the FAA reauthorization bill that was introduced last week.
As a result, the bill is full of bipartisan provisions to
increase airport investment, to improve U.S. manufacturers'
ability to get products to market, to integrate unmanned
aircraft, and to improve air service for the traveling public.
A majority of the bill is a product of bipartisan efforts that
will move the country's aviation system forward in a big way.
However, I still continue to believe that privatizing the
ATC in the U.S. would be a science experiment with a lot of
potential to go wrong. I want to highlight two areas where I
think the implications of this mistake are most evident and
problematic.
The first deals with NextGen. Now, while we can acknowledge
that the implementation has been slow and expensive, it is now
moving forward, thanks in large part to Chairman LoBiondo's
efforts. The FAA is finally reaching and passing important
milestones on major industry priorities such as DataComm,
multiple runway operations, and other things. So I guess I
would just note that breaking apart the FAA at a time when it
is making real and important strides as far as NextGen
implementation would be unwise. I would say, in fact, that we
are on a nonstop flight with NextGen implementation, but we are
headed for a 7-year-plus layover with privatization.
The other area that causes me great concern, and where the
proposal is only partially thought out at best, is what
privatization would mean to the Department of Defense. Earlier
this week I had the opportunity to speak with representatives
from the Department of Defense about ATC privatization. The
last conversation we had about this was in May, and the
concerns have not changed. While they have a list, and I have a
few of those that is in my statement there--so it is not an
exhaustive list--I think it is critical for the committee to
hear a few takeaways from that meeting.
First, the one thing that is clear to me about where DOD
[U.S. Department of Defense] fits into ATC privatization is
that we have very little clarity on this issue. DOD currently
controls nearly 15 percent of the Nation's airspace. Not 15
percent of the flights, but 15 percent of the airspace. But
this bill gives the Department a mere advisory role on the
board of directors, a demotion from its current equal footing
partnership with the FAA. The Department of Defense may have
little to no say about routes and airspace because the bill
does little to explain how the board would make these decisions
with the DOD.
Additionally, after decades of Government-to-Government
relationships, the FAA and the DOD conduct day-to-day ATC
operations under the guidance of various MOUs [memorandums of
understanding] and policy agreements. How would this
relationship be handled under privatization? How would dispute
resolution be settled? We aren't sure, because the bill is
silent on these issues.
If the Corporation's goal is to maximize efficiency and
reduce user fees, how would it maintain assets like primary
radar that the DOD uses?
We are also--I'm not sure how special-use airspace will
operate, how user fees will be charged to international state
aircraft, or how joint civilian and military installations will
handle air traffic. And the list doesn't stop there.
As we all know, the FAA's role in securing our national
airspace is critical to homeland defense. This has been
accomplished through longstanding and well-articulated
agreements between the FAA and the DOD. I am concerned that
entrusting this mission to a private-sector entity separate
from the Government would be a reckless decision with
potentially dire consequences that we may not have thought
through yet, and they have not been fully aired.
DOD's role in this privatization is undeveloped, uncertain,
and undermined. Giving DOD a mere advisory role with no other
discussion about the challenges reminds me of the role that
Coldplay had in the Super Bowl halftime show.
[Laughter]
Mr. Larsen. Billed as a headliner, but quickly outshined.
Sorry, Coldplay.
[Laughter]
Mr. Larsen. As we sit here today, the simple fact is that
privatization raises too many questions that we just cannot
answer, especially 1 week after seeing the legislation. I do
not see how this proposal can go through until we get clear
answers on these issues.
Before this legislation moves further, this committee has
responsibility to get clarity about what privatization means
for national security, what impacts it could have, not on some
users of the system, but on all users of the system. We haven't
had those conversations, and we must.
In conclusion, I do want to reemphasize there is much to
commend in this legislation. There is much bipartisan work that
has been done. And, like a ship that is weighed down by an
anchor so it can't go any farther, I think we should lop off
the anchor of ATC privatization, and let the rest of this bill
sail on.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Shuster. I thank the gentleman. Now we will go to our
witnesses. We will introduce all four of you first, and then
let you proceed.
Joining us here today Paul Rinaldi, who is the president of
the National Air Traffic Controllers Association; Nick Calio,
president and chief executive officer of Airlines for America;
Ed Bolen, the president and chief executive officer of the
National Business Aviation Association; and Bob Poole, the
director of transportation policy for the Reason Foundation.
Again, I appreciate you all being here today. I believe all
four of you have been here at least once or a couple of times,
and over the last decade probably many times. So, again,
appreciate you being here today.
And we will start with Mr. Rinaldi.
TESTIMONY OF PAUL RINALDI, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC
CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATION; NICHOLAS E. CALIO, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AIRLINES FOR AMERICA; EDWARD BOLEN,
PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL BUSINESS
AVIATION ASSOCIATION; AND ROBERT W. POOLE, JR., DIRECTOR OF
TRANSPORTATION POLICY, REASON FOUNDATION
Mr. Rinaldi. Didn't realize I was going to be first. Thank
you, Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio, Chairman----
Mr. Shuster. Pull that mic up a little closer. We want to
hear every word.
Mr. Rinaldi. Yes? Can you hear me now?
Mr. Shuster. Thank you.
Mr. Rinaldi. Thank you, Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member
DeFazio, Chairman LoBiondo, and Ranking Member Larsen, and
members of the committee. I am grateful for the opportunity to
testify today as we discuss air traffic control reform and the
FAA reauthorization bill, H.R. 4441.
We all have a stake in our National Airspace System. It is
an economic engine, contributing $1.5 trillion to our gross
domestic product, and providing over 12 million American jobs.
Currently we run the largest, safest, most efficient, most
complex, most diverse airspace system in the world. Our system
is unique, unequaled, and unrivaled by any other country. This
is due in large part of the impeccable work of the men and
women that NATCA represents.
The United States airspace system is considered the gold
standard in the world aviation community. And yet we have come
to a difficult reality that change is needed. Globalization and
innovation are driving some dramatic changes in the world
aviation industry, and sadly, our current structure cannot keep
up.
The current aviation system has served us well until recent
years. Unfortunately, we no longer have a stable, predictable
funding stream, and this uncertainty has caused serious
problems in the system. We all remember the disruptions we
experienced in 2013 with sequestration, where the FAA had to
scale down all modernization projects. The agency looked at
closing 238 air traffic control towers, tried to close 149 of
them, not because it was safe or it was efficient, but to save
money.
They continued and they stopped hiring air traffic
controllers for a full year, which we still are having a
problem today in our system getting air traffic controllers.
And currently we are at a 27-year low of fully certified
controllers. The FAA forced controllers onto furloughs, which
caused rippling delay effects throughout our system. Further,
the agency went to a fix-on-fail on maintenance philosophy, and
stopped stockpiling critical parts of essential equipment we
need for the operation. These decisions were all made to meet
budget restrictions from sequestration, not for the operational
reasons, and certainly not for the safety of our National
Airspace System.
Mr. Chairman, our 24/7, 365-day-a-year aviation system has
been challenged over the last 10 years. We have experienced 24
short-term extensions of authorization, a partial shutdown of
the FAA, a complete Government shutdown, and numerous threats
of Government shutdowns. Aviation safety should not come second
to defunding Obamacare, Planned Parenthood, Syrian refugees, or
gun control, or any other important issues that come before the
body.
We should have aviation safety be the primary issue when we
talk about aviation in this country. All the stakeholders in
the National Airspace System should work together to ensure the
United States continues to be the world leader in aviation.
With all of these challenges in mind, we applaud the hard work
that the members on the committee did to draft a comprehensive
FAA reauthorization bill to address these longstanding
problems.
NATCA has publicly stated that any FAA restructuring must
achieve the following to maintain NATCA support. Any new
structure must ensure that our employees are fully protected in
our employment relationship. Maintaining our members' pay
benefits, retirement, health care, along with our negotiated
agreements for our work rules are crucial to safety of the
system. Any new structure must make safety and the efficiency
of the National Airspace System a priority. This means we
cannot allow maintenance to lag, and cannot reduce staffing to
save money.
Any new structure must have a stable, predictable funding
stream, and must be adequate to support all air traffic control
services, included but not limited to staffing, hiring,
training, long-term modernization projects, preventative
maintenance, and modernization to our physical infrastructure.
Many of our controllers are working in buildings over 50 years
old.
Any new structure must improve upon the status quo by
providing an environment that promotes and grows aviation in
this country, that allows us to continue to provide services to
all segments of the aviation community. The commercial
airlines, the cargo haulers, from the business jets to the
general aviation, from our major hub airports in this country
to our very small, rural America airports in this country are
all important to our diverse community.
NATCA supports this bill because it provides a stable,
predictable funding stream, and contains necessary reforms that
we believe will help us continue to run the world's safest,
most efficient system. A not-for-profit, independent
organization run by the board of stakeholders could deliver
results similar to those we have seen in Canada.
Finally, I want to state clearly that we will continue
carefully to review this legislation. If at any time there are
changes to this bill, we will immediately examine them to
ensure the bill continues to align with our organization's
policies, practices, and principles. And, if the changes don't,
we will reserve the right to withdraw our support.
I thank you for the opportunity to comment on the bill, and
I look forward to answering any questions you guys may have.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you very much.
Next up, Nick Calio, A4A.
Mr. Calio. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank
you for the opportunity to testify today. A4A commends this
committee----
Mr. Shuster. Pull your mic as close as you can to you
there.
Mr. Calio. We got a wire problem. OK.
A4A commends this committee for the bipartisan manner in
which it handles its business over the last 3 years. You
repeatedly have shown that you can come together on complex
issues and work together to address problems that impact the
daily lives of the American people. We hope that that will be
the case on this critical issue, as well, ultimately.
The committee has a historic choice. Are you going to vote
to correct the shortcomings of the FAA that you have dissected
in this room for years and years, or are you going to vote to
continue to talk for another 30 years about the problem of a
governance and funding structure that has not been working, is
not now working, and will not work in the future?
A4A supports the AIRR Act, despite the fact that it has not
had many things that we wanted, and has many things that we
don't want, including the concern and the uncertainty of a
board in which a super-majority of members are not airline.
However, we do believe that this bill, if enacted, will make
our air traffic control operation even better and safer than it
is today.
We support the creation of a federally chartered
nonprofit--and I stress ``nonprofit,'' it is not privatized,
most people who use that word want to get you to be against
it--enterprise to run the air traffic control system, because
it would separate the air traffic organization from the safety
regulator, and it would put the FAA in a position to do what it
does best, and the Government, which is regulate safety, not
run a high-tech, 24/7 service business, which is what the air
traffic control operation is.
The reasons for change have been laid out before this in
other committees and Congresses for over 30 years, as has been
pointed out. You have held scores of hearings, hundreds of
roundtables, multiple listening sessions, and directed the
Office of Inspector General and the Government Accountability
Office to study why the FAA has such troubles in procurement
and delivering on technology.
Those studies, as well as studies by at least four
presidentially appointed, nonpartisan Commissions, the National
Academy of Sciences, and scores of independent private aviation
experts, have all pointed to the problems that the FAA has in
keeping us at the forefront of modern aviation and innovation.
It is all right here--I should say it is not all right
here.
These are the studies that have been done and reported
since 2005, not going back 20 years or 30 years. I couldn't
bring that stack because it was taller than I am. But I brought
these for a reason. They are hard to ignore. The facts are all
here, and they have been discussed and discussed. And while we
have been talking and talking and analyzing and debating, other
developed countries have moved forward.
This bill is not proposing a radical change. Quite the
contrary. It would simply put us in line with the international
best practices norm that is found in over 60 developed
countries who have done similar things, and since 1987. In
essence, those 60 countries have done pilot programs for us. We
can take best practices and lessons learned from them and apply
them here. And international best practices, again, dictate the
separation of the safety function from the operation of the
system. Look at the other modes of transportation within the
DOT. They are not like the FAA. They don't control both, it is
one or the other.
More legislation, more direction, yearly appropriations--
FAA authorization bills are not going to correct the problem.
That has been tried for years, and it has failed. We can't
simply keep rearranging the deck chairs. The DOT inspector
general's report that came out in January references this. It
points out that Congress has enacted legislation multiple times
to try to make the FAA a performance-based organization that
can deliver on the technology. It found that it really can't.
As a result, the FAA has completed multiple
reorganizations. Nothing is happening. Air traffic productivity
has declined, despite a greater budget. Any of the opponents of
this bill who tell you differently are either not recognizing
the facts, or are distorting them.
For example, some of the detractors will tell you that
NextGen is getting much better, and point to the on-time
performance by airlines. We would point out that, you know,
block time, which is gate-to-gate flight time, is how you
measure whether a flight is on time. Most, if not all of you,
have flown from Washington to LaGuardia. That flight 20 years
ago, when Washington and New York were the same distance apart
they are now--at least to my knowledge--was blocked for 56
minutes. Now it is blocked for 80 minutes. And that is so that
flights can be on time to take care of congestion and some
other issues.
Safety I am just going to mention very quickly, and then I
will conclude, Mr. Chairman. International experience and best
practices have shown that safety can be maintained or made
better by doing what is proposed here today. The FAA itself
commissioned a study by the MITRE Corporation. That study
looked at six other ANSPs [air navigation service providers]
across the world, many with complex airspace like the United
States. It found that in every case safety was maintained and,
in many cases, made better. It also found that in every single
one of those cases, both the safety regulator and the operator
of the system increased their focus on safety. When
interviewed, all of the parties involved on both sides said
they wouldn't return to the old system.
We have the opportunity here--you have the opportunity here
to make a really good system that much better, cutting edge,
and put us back at the forefront, where we belong in modern
aviation. This is not a Democratic issue, it is not a
Republican issue. It is a policy whose time has come to make
our system better. Thank you.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you.
Next we go to Mr. Ed Bolen, president and CEO of the
National Business Aviation Association.
Ed, proceed.
Mr. Bolen. Well, thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to
be here today.
It seems to me that, as we talk today about ATC reform,
there are really three areas where we need to focus. First, we
need to understand where we are today. Second, we need to
understand where we want to be in the future. And, third, how
best to get from where we are to where we want to be.
As Paul Rinaldi indicated in his statement, today the U.S.
has the largest, the safest, the most diverse, the most
complex, and the most efficient air transportation system in
the world. It is currently enjoying the safest period of
history that we have ever seen. But being the best today is not
sufficient. In order for our country to thrive, we need to be
the best 5, 10, 25 years from now. The question is how do we
get there?
H.R. 4441, we believe, takes us down the wrong path. This
bill takes our air traffic control system and turns it over to
the big airlines. We think that is the wrong path. We think it
is a dangerous path. We think it is a path that should be
rejected, and here is why.
Our Nation's air traffic control system is a monopoly, and
it will stay a monopoly, going forward. The airlines, for 30
years, have been lobbying Congress so that they can seize
control of that natural monopoly and exert their authority over
it. We think that is a fatally flawed concept. The public
airspace belongs to the public, and it should be run for the
public's benefit. Do we really think that, given control of
this monopoly, the airlines would run it for every American's
benefit? Reading the headlines over the past year would suggest
that is probably not the case.
``Airline consolidation hits small cities the hardest,''
wrote the Wall Street Journal. ``Justice Department
investigating potential airline price collusion,'' wrote the
Washington Post. ``Airline complaints on the rise'' was the
headline in the Hill. ``Airlines reap record profits and
passengers get peanuts.'' That appeared in the New York Times
this past weekend.
Now, people have asked, ``If we give control to the
airlines, what protections would consumers need, small towns
need, general aviation need?'' But the very question itself is
a tacit acknowledgment that protections are necessary. This is
a little bit like someone saying, ``We want to put the fox in
charge of the chicken coop. What do the chickens need in order
to feel comfortable with that decision?'' We know that,
ultimately, the fox is going to find its way around any
protections, the chickens are going to be had. And when that
happens, it is going to be too late to do anything about it.
When the full dangers of putting the airlines in charge of
our Nation's air traffic control monopoly are understood,
Congress will be left with no resource. We need to find a way
forward. Status quo is not acceptable. But turning our air
traffic control system over to the airlines is just a bad idea.
It is a dangerous idea. We are talking about giving them
unbridled authority to make decisions about access, about
rates, charges, about infrastructure. This is a sweeping
transfer of authority, it is breathtaking in its magnitude, and
it is potentially deadly in its consequences.
We do not want to keep the status quo. We want to move
forward. We don't want this path, however. We would advocate
for targeted solutions to identified problems. We have talked
about ways that we can address the funding issue. We are
looking for ways to enhance business practices. We already know
that the bill itself includes a lot of very important
certification reforms.
As Mr. Larsen said, there is an awful lot that's very good
in this bill. There is a lot of important stuff in this bill.
But at the heart of it is this sweeping transfer of authority
to the airlines that we believe is a poison pill. It is a
poison pill for communities, a poison pill for customers, it is
a poison pill for general aviation. And no amount of sugar
coating is going to change that.
We believe this portion of the bill needs to be rejected,
and we need to move forward with a long-term FAA
reauthorization bill that is in the best interests of all
Americans, not just those in large-hub cities, but including
those in small towns and rural communities that depend on
access to airports and to airspace, so that we can have a
strong national economy and a strong air transportation system.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you.
And now Bob Poole, the director of transportation policy
for the Reason Foundation.
Mr. Poole, proceed.
Mr. Poole. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member DeFazio, and Members. I have been researching the air
traffic system since----
Mr. Shuster. Can you pull the mic up a little bit closer?
Mr. Poole. Yes. I have been researching----
Mr. Shuster. Hold on a second. Are we going to turn those
mics up a little bit? Good.
Mr. Poole. I have been researching this subject since 1977,
believe it or not, and have written many reports and journal
articles about it. I am a member of GAO's National Aviation
Studies Panel, was part of working groups on ATC reform at the
Business Roundtable and at the Eno Center for Transportation.
There is a growing consensus that our ATC system no longer
has the most modern equipment, the most efficient airplane
routings, or the best technology. So the question before us
today is what is the best way to reform the system?
Over the past 25 years, as has been said, more than 60
countries have corporatized their systems, and 51 of those are
commercialized, meaning that they have separated safety
regulation from ATC service provision, they are self-funding by
means of customer charges to ensure independence from
Government budget problems, and they are designed, basically,
as a customer-serving utility. And that is a very important
word, which I will get back to.
ATC is a monopoly, and there are three different ways of
dealing with a monopoly: number one is a Government
Corporation; number two is a private, for-profit company with
rate regulation; and number three is a nonprofit, user co-op
with self-regulation, because the users are basically the ones
making the policy decisions on the board. These are the same
three alternatives we have in public utilities in the United
States, like electricity, water supply, telecommunications, so
forth. There is a huge literature on how to do utilities, and
these are the ways--these are the choices we have.
There have been many independent studies of the performance
of these numerous--50 or so--corporatized ATC providers over
the years, including two full-length academic books. All of
these studies have found reduced costs, increased efficiency,
better technology, and no reduction in air safety and, in many
cases, improvements in air safety.
The main problems we are faced with today, as has been
said, are uncertain and inadequate funding for ATC, a flawed
governance model, and a status quo-oriented culture. In the
study that I did for the Hudson Institute on innovation in air
traffic control, 2 years ago, I concluded that the biggest of
these three problems, which has not been mentioned much at all
today, is the organizational culture, which is very status quo-
oriented.
With inputs from a lot of current and former FAA people, my
conclusion was that there are four reasons for this status quo
culture in the ATO. Number one, the ATO self-identifies as a
safety agency, rather than as a service provider to its
customers. Number two, it has inadequate, let's say, senior
management and high-technology people. Therefore, it is way
overly dependent on contractors. Number three, it has excessive
external oversight, as the GAO and the inspector general have
reported out. The problem is called ``too many cooks'' to try
to manage the business. And finally, a lack of customer focus.
De facto, the ATO considers Congress, you folks, as its
customer that it has to satisfy, rather than its aviation
customers.
Based on global best practice, we now have a recipe for how
to fix these problems. Number one would be to separate the air
traffic organization from the safety regulators, so that an
innovative culture can develop in what would then become the
corporatized provider. Number two, shift to direct charging to
develop a customer-provider nexus. In other words, serve the
customers who are paying the bills. User pay means user say, as
they say in Canada. And, third, shift the governance from
numerous overseers in Government--Congress and many agencies,
including OMB [Office of Management and Budget], et cetera--and
shift it to a core group of knowledgeable aviation
stakeholders, carefully balanced among all the different
stakeholders, including those who use the system and those who
make it run. The best fit for these features is the user co-op
model, and the best example of that is Nav Canada.
You have two reform proposals before you today: Chairman
Shuster's ATC Corporation and Ranking Member DeFazio's proposal
to exempt the funding from the trust fund from sequestration
and to mandate further personnel and procurement reforms. In my
judgment, the Corporation plan is consistent with global best
practice. It would address the funding, governance, and culture
problems.
The DeFazio alternative would keep air traffic control and
safety regulation in the same organization. That is
problematic, because it is contrary to ICAO principles. It
retains the conflict of interest between regulation and service
provision, and it reinforces the identity of the ATO as a
safety agency, rather than as a high-tech service business that
it really is and ought to be.
There is also a major difference on funding. The
Corporation would be paid by its customers, like a utility,
which again would focus its attention on serving those
customers. The DeFazio plan would retain funding from taxes,
which means all the oversight to protect taxpayers' money would
have to remain. And that is the biggest part of the problem,
the ``too many cooks'' problem. It would also mean it is
impossible to issue revenue bonds like airports can do.
I am also dubious about further mandates for procurement
and personnel reform. We know previous reforms like that have
failed, but we have seen transformation in country after
country that have converted ATC systems to corporate forms. I
would rather go with what has been shown to work than what has
been shown to fail.
To sum up, the ATC Corporation proposal is based on global
best practices. Arm's-length safety regulation is a
precondition for developing the kind of innovative technology
culture that our system needs to have to go forward and retain
its status as the best in the world. Self-funding would free
the company from budget constraints and allow it to issue
revenue bonds as airports do.
In reaching this conclusion--last point--I am most
impressed by the findings of aviation professionals who know
the system better than you or I know it. That includes the
controller's union, obviously, represented by Paul Rinaldi here
today. But it also includes all three people who served as
chief operating officers of the ATO. Each of them tried very
hard and very diligently to run the ATO as a business, and
concluded that it was simply not possible, given the
institutional constraints of being trapped inside a large tax-
funded bureaucracy. I take their judgment very seriously, and I
hope you will, also. Thank you very much.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you very much, Mr. Poole. And now we
will go to questions. I want everybody to keep it to 5 minutes
so we can get through as many questions as possible. And, if
need be, we can go to a second round. And I will start.
Mr. Bolen, first, I would say to you that saying it is
efficient, the numbers just don't bear out. Delays have
increased over the years, and especially at our big airports.
Flight times between cities has increased because of the
system. And you go on and on about the efficiencies. It is
becoming less efficient, from what I can see from these studies
I have, and I am sure that that pile there on the desk is--
would bear that out, also.
And to say that the airlines are taking over this
Corporation, I--there is an 11-member board. The GA community
gets two seats, the Government gets two seats, the airlines get
four, which is not a majority. ALPA [Air Line Pilots
Association, International] gets one, NATCA gets one, and then
there is a CEO. So I am--how do you--if they don't have a
majority on the board, how do they gain control of the board,
in your view?
Mr. Bolen. Well, I think, as you indicated, the board
itself starts with 10 people who then hire a chief executive
officer. In most corporations, 30 percent or more is considered
effective control. Here we start with the airlines controlling
four seats. We then have the airline pilots. So airlines and
their employees control five seats. We will then have people
who are nominated to the board. Potentially, they could have
airline backgrounds. And then this group will hire the CEO. So
I think it is, by any definition, effective control of the
system.
I just want to go back and touch on the flight delays
between two cities. It is my understanding that a lot of the
block times were increased because 20 years ago, 10 years ago,
there was a lot of advantage for companies putting in the block
times with the shortest terms possible, so that their flights
would appear at the top of the computer reservation scheme.
Today there is much more focus on predictability. So some of
that gaming of the system and saying what the flight times
would be to get a bump up in the computer system is now gone
away.
Mr. Shuster. And so today I was hoping we would have two
comprehensive proposals to look at, but unfortunately we have
one, and it is the one that we have presented.
So you don't like what we have, so what is your proposal?
What would you do to change the system, strengthen the system?
You say you don't want status quo, so what would be your
proposal to change the system for the better?
Mr. Bolen. Well, I think the idea of strengthening the
funding stream is key. That has been identified by everyone at
the table as a challenge.
Mr. Shuster. The funding stream?
Mr. Bolen. Yes. And I think that can be addressed. If you
look at the revenues that come in today through the dedicated
aviation taxes, that provides a very strong revenue stream. It
seems to me that the revenues that are generated by a dedicated
tax on aviation could and should be used for the purpose for
which they were intended.
So I think you could require mandatory spending, or
automatic appropriations from the revenues that are coming in
from the trust fund. And I think that would provide a strong
base. I think you can also pass a long-term reauthorization
bill. That would address some of the lapses that have been
talked about. I think you could take steps to identify the U.S.
air transportation system as fundamental to safety, so that it
is not subject to some of the shutdowns that have been talked
about.
In terms of management practices, I think we can do more to
enhance performance, procurement, and accountability. And I
think we can create a board that can focus on those things.
And then you have already addressed the certification, and
I think that is a key part. You know, our members fly all over
the world. And so they use all of those air traffic systems.
And to a member, they believe that flying in the U.S. is the
best system in the world. But they are very frustrated with
other parts of the FAA, the approval parts, the certification
parts.
We have an opportunity in this bill to address what is
broken in the FAA. The air traffic control system is
currently--as has been described--the gold standard, and
progress is being made moving forward. So I think we are
focusing on the wrong part of the FAA in this bill.
Mr. Shuster. Well, what you have just described is what we
have been talking about for the last 30 years, and there is--I
think that is only--they said only 10 years of reports. We have
tried those things over and over, and so I just believe the
time is now where you have got to do something fundamentally
different to be able to achieve some of those things that you
said, because it hasn't been done. It just hasn't been done.
We can sit here, and we can keep talking about it. And if
we don't do something like this, my guess is 10 years from now
some of you guys will still be here, and ladies will still be
here, you will be talking about the same thing.
Bob, I am sorry, I thought you had only been working on
this for 30 years. You have been working on it for 40 years. So
again, this--the time has come. And Bob, if you could just talk
a little bit about--Mr. Poole, what do you think the cost in an
organization like this--based on your study, is it going to go
down? Is it going to go up?
Mr. Poole. Well, I think the cost should--the unit cost
should come down. There are--we know there are economies of
scale in air traffic control. The larger the number of
transactions, the more you can spread fixed costs over a larger
number of customers. So, we should have the lowest unit costs
of any air traffic system in the world. We don't. We have a
decent level of productivity. But Nav Canada, with one-ninth
the number of transactions, has a lower unit cost than we do.
And so, that suggests to me there is large potential for
cost savings for a more efficient and productive system--new
technology is really the key to that, but it also depends on an
organizational culture that says we want to do what is best for
our customers. That means that we are going to do the service
at the lowest cost possible, given adequate safety
improvements. You know, safety should only get better. It
should definitely not get worse.
But if your goal is to serve the customers in the most
cost-effective way, now that would drive reflection of how you
use technology to get the most bang for the buck.
Mr. Shuster. So, with Nav Canada deploying their
technology, their GPS-based system, by the end of 2017, that
will allow them to get even more planes into their space, which
should drive down their costs even greater.
Mr. Poole. Absolutely, and that is true globally, as you
mentioned in your opening comments. The satellite-based ADS-B
is going to mean we can have radar-like separation over all of
the world's oceans, where it is impossible to have radar, and
that means more flight tracks closer together safely, so that
planes can fly at the optimum altitudes, and so forth.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you very much. With that, I recognize
Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The--we have put $53
billion into the facilities and equipment over the last 20
years. And, as I mentioned earlier, we are going to give that
asset to a private Corporation for no remuneration. And I would
say that that has been paid disproportionately by passengers,
taxpayers of the United States of America who are passengers on
airlines. They--the ticket tax is the disproportionate amount.
Yet there is no consumer or passenger rep on the board. And
this is a yes-or-no question: Do you believe there should be a
consumer passenger representative on this board? Yes or no, Mr.
Calio? You can pass if--it is yes or no or pass.
Mr. Calio. I am not going to do a yes or no----
Mr. DeFazio. OK. All right, then----
Mr. Calio. That doesn't show anything, Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Then on--Mr. Rinaldi, yes or no?
Mr. Rinaldi. I would be OK with it.
Mr. DeFazio. I am sorry?
Mr. Rinaldi. I would be OK with it.
Mr. DeFazio. OK.
Mr. Poole. Yes, and I think that the Secretary is going to
appoint such people.
Mr. DeFazio. Well, that depends upon the Secretary. Mr.
Bolen?
Mr. Bolen. I don't think there should be a board. I think
the public airspace should be governed by the public's elected
officials----
Mr. DeFazio. So you didn't--OK. All right, you got around
the question, too. All right.
[Laughter]
Mr. DeFazio. But in any case, so--all right. Now, let's go
to another issue that is of tremendous concern, representing a
smaller airport.
The GAO report--which, again, I apologize, people haven't
had a chance to read, but since today is the only hearing,
tomorrow is the markup--one of the points they make is that
small and rural communities could be negatively affected under
this construct, and they go on to say, ``In the case of the
Canadian restructure, Canada's law addresses this issue by
providing protections for designated services in northern or
remote areas.'' This bill has no such provisions.
There will be another yes-or-no answer here in a second.
So Robin Hayes, JetBlue CEO, said the Corporation ``would
direct infrastructure improvements to regions of the country
where they will produce the most benefits, like the
Northeast.''
Jeff Smisek said, ``United's domestic network would be only
as big as necessary to feed its international network.''
Now, does that sound like we are going to have a
comprehensive system that serves everybody and everybody's
interests, and everybody's interests are protected?
I will start with you, Mr. Bolen, yes or no.
Mr. Bolen. No.
Mr. DeFazio. Come on.
Mr. Poole. No, but I think----
Mr. DeFazio. OK, that is good----
Mr. Poole. That is an airline----
Mr. DeFazio. We only have 5 minutes. So yes, Mr. Rinaldi?
Mr. Rinaldi. What you quoted, no, but I don't believe----
Mr. DeFazio. OK.
Mr. Rinaldi. That is just the opinion of airline CEOs.
Mr. DeFazio. Yes, that is right. And they only have four
seats on the board.
Mr. Calio?
Mr. Calio. No.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, thank you. That is good. All right.
Let's move on to air traffic control, because we are
talking about--now, you know, one of the issues--and I would be
interested how the board might deal with this, and this is a
quote from Randy Babbitt. And you can talk about satellite
base, you can talk about the spiffiest system in the world.
``We can do everything in the world, but at the end of the day
at LaGuardia Airport where it is a one-runway operation, you
can still only land them once every 54 seconds.'' And he goes
on to talk about airlines opposing PFCs [passenger facility
charges] and that. We won't get into that debate today.
But the point is this new board is going to have--want to
make the system more efficient. Regional airlines, of course,
are opposed. What would happen if the board said, ``You can't
land a plane that had--carries less than X-number of passengers
at LaGuardia Airport,'' essentially putting the regional
airlines out of business? Is that possible, under this
construct? Yes or no.
Mr. Bolen. Yes, it is, and that is one of our fundamental
concerns about it.
Mr. DeFazio. Yes. Mr. Poole?
Mr. Poole. I don't think so, because I think that is an
airport question----
Mr. DeFazio. Well, yes, OK, you don't think so, but you
won't--Mr. Rinaldi?
Mr. Rinaldi. I don't believe it is.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. What?
Mr. Calio. No, it is not possible.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. It is not possible? OK. Then----
Mr. Calio. No. Under Federal regulations, it is not.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Well, good. Then wouldn't--let's go back
to my previous point. Would any of you support the provision
that we have in Canada, which says, on a statutory basis, their
law addressed the issue for protections for designated services
in northern remote areas. Should we adopt something similar for
small and medium airports in the United States of America? Yes
or no.
Mr. Bolen. I think we should have as many protections as
possible, and I am not sure those protections are going to be
sufficient----
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Mr. Poole?
Mr. Poole. Yes.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Mr. Rinaldi?
Mr. Rinaldi. Yes, of course.
Mr. Calio. For remote areas? Yes.
Mr. DeFazio. Well, we didn't get remote, I want to go
beyond remote.
OK, all right. Let's move on now to the issue of, you know,
getting new technology on board. Where is that? Quickly,
quickly, quickly. Sorry, I--you know, I haven't figured out how
to write notes on my iPad yesterday, and you know, on the text
of your statements. Well, never mind, we can't find that one
right now. I will get it my next round.
Let's go to another one. So we are creating--we are
always--you know, here we are really upset about things that
are too big to fail, and I couldn't create a Government
Corporation because that would be like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac,
any of those GSEs, whatever, we can't have that because we have
to bail them out. Well, what happens if this system goes
insolvent? Wouldn't you say that the air traffic control of the
movement of goods and people across the United States of
America is too big to fail, that it is an absolutely essential
service, and if it became insolvent Congress would have no
option but to bail it out, as happened in Great Britain after
it was privatized?
Mr. Bolen, yes or no?
Mr. Bolen. Yes.
Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Poole?
Mr. Poole. No.
Mr. DeFazio. We wouldn't bail it out? We would just let it
shut down?
Mr. Poole. No, no, no----
Mr. DeFazio. OK, good----
Mr. Poole. The customers would have to pay more.
Mr. DeFazio. Well, oh, the customers would have to pay
more. OK. What if the Secretary disapproves that?
Mr. Rinaldi?
Mr. Rinaldi. Yes.
Mr. Calio. No.
Mr. DeFazio. No? OK. So we have some disagreement there. So
we are creating something that is too big to fail. In the case
of Great Britain, because of a downturn in air traffic, they
had to bail it out. Mr. Poole says we shouldn't bail it out,
they should just raise fees. But as we saw in the Rube Goldberg
construct, if you raise fees--for instance, you want to charge
passengers for using the airspace over the United States--the
Secretary has to approve it.
Bernie Sanders, Secretary of Transportation, says, ``Hell
no, we are not going to charge people to use the airspace of
the United States.'' We have an impasse here. So, you know, I
think there are a lot of unanswered questions.
I am over my time--thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your
indulgence. And we will get to another round.
Mr. Shuster. I thank the gentleman. Again, yes-or-no
answers I don't think really give the witnesses a fair and
constructive hearing here. I mean you wanted a hearing, Mr.
DeFazio, you have got a hearing.
Mr. DeFazio. I am trying to--questions, Mr. Chairman----
Mr. Shuster. Well, Mr.--those aren't--you are trying to----
Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Chairman, when we have----
Mr. Shuster [continuing]. Get a yes or no----
Mr. DeFazio. When I have four witnesses and 5 minutes, I
have got to get a lot of questions in, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shuster. Mr. DeFazio, you know very well the way I
operate. You will get your opportunity. Let these folks answer
the question, because they are not yes-or-no answers in many
cases.
For instance, we do not discriminate against--we say in
this you can't discriminate to--air access. We also, in rural
areas--you know, the technology that Sweden uses today, they
have these rural airports that aren't--they don't need a
controller. The technology is there. We are incapable of doing
that today, stuck in this system that doesn't work.
So, again, I will give you ample time, but just please
allow these people to give you an answer that is--there is not
a yes-or-no answer. So let's move on.
Yes, I will give someone--answer to Mr. Calio, you started
to----
Mr. Young. Yes, look, but the time is over.
Mr. Shuster. Well, the good news about--I am the chairman,
I get to decide when the time is----
Mr. Young. Yes, I realize that, but----
Mr. Shuster. So, Mr. Calio, you were questioned on--you
were going to make an answer. Could you expound upon any of
those ones that you wanted to?
Mr. Calio. To be honest, they came so fast I can't remember
which one it was.
[Laughter]
Mr. Shuster. OK. Well, Mr. Bolen, in all fairness, is there
any one that you--you had a couple yes-or-noes. Is there any
one you want to expand on and say why, one way or the other?
Mr. Bolen. Well, we are concerned about rural access to all
of this. I mean what we are--have been told is that this new
system is going to save billions of dollars. We have not seen
where services and equipment are going to be cut. We haven't
seen where jobs are going to be lost.
When we look at the protections today, as I understand them
about access to airports, the protection is only based on the
rates and charges one pays. This says nothing about the size of
the airplane, the type of operation it is. We have seen in
other parts of the world where commercial airplanes have
priority over noncommercial airplanes, and there are a number
of other ways that discrimination can take place. So that is a
concern----
Mr. Shuster. OK, we put in there that we don't want to see
that discrimination occur. And again, it is--where are jobs
going to be gained, where is technology going to be gained,
that is the other side of the coin. And that is what I am
actually focusing on, looking forward.
With that, I will go to Mr. Young, Chairman Young.
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to ask every one
of these Members in this room, on this committee, how many of
you are happy with the airline that serves you--is happy with
the airline that serves you now? You are happy with the one
that serves--two?
[Laughter]
Mr. Young. I mean I am bringing out a point. This is on the
board. Four members from--airlines, there is not one of us
really happy with the airlines. Alaska Airlines does the best
job, that is recorded. But just think about that when we
organize this bill, when we deal this bill in creating the
board.
Now I am personally involved in this legislation. If
anyone's State is affected by this legislation, it is Alaska.
You take all the land east of the Mississippi to the tip of
Maine to the tip of Florida, that is Alaska, part of it. And
you have 253 congressmen and 52 Senators in that area. And in
this bill we eliminate--they say you do not--eliminate
essential air service. In a sense I have to take and fight each
year to get appropriations to fund it. And that is wrong. I
have told the chairman of this. Essential air service is
crucial to my State.
Second part is if we take--the 135s are exempted or not
exempted from the taxes. That is what serves my community. I
don't have highways, I don't have streets. I have got air. And
what this bill does, a lot of--in this bill is good, Mr.
Chairman, I will admit that. I have gone through it. FAA has
got too big, and they are incestuously created. They have been
around too long and they get involved in golf courses, getting
involved in some silly-ass things that have nothing to do with
safety, and that has to be changed.
But the idea we are going to penalize a State--and I have
asked you to exempt Alaska. Don't just give it to the big
airlines, because what will happen is the consumer will not be
served correctly.
We started out, when I first got elected, we had 29
airlines. We have got basically four now. Four. And if they are
going to run this FAA, I don't think the consumer is going to
get the right representation on that board. I am glad to hear
the witnesses say that they would support at least a consumer
being on that board. And that is for the airlines.
Mr. Chairman, I will say again this bill, if it is not
fixed, I am not going to support it. It had better be fixed. I
yield back.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I just want to
point out--a couple times mentioned about the board makeup.
There are two seats for the Government, public interest. That
is where we believe the public interest will be served with our
voice there.
Mr. Young. Will the gentleman yield? Let's talk about the
board.
Mr. Shuster. Certainly.
Mr. Young. You got four big airlines as board members.
NATCA now is supporting it. And I question that, by the way. I
fought for you every inch of the way, and we want to find out
what is behind that.
General aviation has one. Two? General aviation has two.
OK, two. What is the other one?
Mr. Shuster. Two to the Government.
Mr. Young. Two--and who are they going to be? Do we have
any input on that? No. We do not. The President has----
Mr. Shuster. The Department of Transportation will have it.
Mr. Young. The President. And we are the Congress of the
United States. I would feel a lot better if we were to appoint
them. Why should we let a President appoint them? This is our
job as legislators.
If we are going to change the system, let us change it with
us having some control over it, financially. And the board
members should be appointed from the Congress. I am not going
to give any President any more authority. That is the wrong--we
have done this over and over again. We give the President--we
might as well have a king. I don't want a king.
Mr. Shuster. Claiming back my time. With that, Ms. Norton
is recognized.
Ms. Norton. Let me say the point that the gentleman from
Alaska was making is that there is no requirement that there be
a member of the public, or a consumer, on the board. There may
be, but a President may decide that, ``With all these experts
on the board, I better make sure that I have my own expert.''
So there is no requirement. That could have been in the bill.
Mr. Rinaldi went down a list of problems with which I could
not be more sympathetic, but they are congressionally inflicted
problems: sequester and shutdown and the appropriation process.
So what we have in this bill is that the FAA, not the Congress,
should change. And the frustration with the Congress--and, for
that matter, even with NextGen--is well placed, although we see
some movement on NextGen.
So, I want to say I appreciate how the chairman has reached
out to the minority so that there are provisions in here with
which I agree. And I understand the frustration. And I don't
believe that there is any case to be made for the problem--FAA.
I really don't. But its dysfunction does not make the case for
this proposal.
What is most surprising to me--because I am trying to find
out how this would work in practice--what is most surprising to
me is how it encourages litigation. The last thing I would have
expected from my friends on the other side is a system that
said, ``Hey, sue me if you don't like it,'' and that is
essentially--and I want to ask you about this--that is
essentially what I think it says.
If the Secretary--you can go to the Secretary. If the
Secretary disagrees, and you can't reach some agreement, then
somebody has got to bring a court suit. So it goes to another
part of our separation-of-powers system that is the judiciary,
which is the slowest, and the framers made it the slowest on
purpose. I am trying to find out how this thing would work. How
does this creature work?
For example, there is a problem in this region, the
District of Columbia/Maryland/Virginia, of unbearable noise. So
we go to the FAA. Actually, they have some powers. They can
issue rules. There are things they can do. I don't like the
fact that there is not a firewall between them--that gets into
legal technicalities.
So how would this work? Is there rulemaking power here?
Does it have the same presumption of--that unless it is
arbitrary, it goes into effect? Because that is how the courts
operate it when it is an agency. So how does it work?
I am a member of the public that can't stand this noise.
Actually, that is the case all over America now. Would somebody
tell me how I get this Corporation to respond to that consumer
problem that is now plaguing all parts of the United States?
[No response.]
Ms. Norton. Somebody speak up.
Mr. Shuster. Well, what is your question?
Ms. Norton. My question is how would this----
Mr. Shuster. To the noise?
Ms. Norton. How would one get from this body a remedy for
this problem? I am asking----
Mr. Shuster. I missed the problem. What----
Ms. Norton. Rulemaking authority? I am asking----
Mr. Shuster. Is that a noise problem?
Ms. Norton. I am giving that as an example.
Mr. Shuster. We have in the bill that--remedies to have the
community be involved to make sure that, if there is noise
problems, that they are going to be addressed----
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, only because that is in my
district--I am trying to ask how the public addresses this
agency. I know how it addresses the FAA. I know how the FAA
communicates the rulemaking, et cetera. I am trying to find--
suppose it is with NextGen, whatever they are doing. How do I
approach this agency, and how do the courts respond?
Mr. Bolen. Well, the bill itself is very vague.
My understanding is that it appears to be largely modeled
after Canada. I had an opportunity to visit Nav Canada last
summer. We asked specifically about concerns like that, noise
concerns, for example. We were told that they have an
opportunity to call up and register their concern, and that is
the end of it.
We see that they also have that ability in determining
levels of service and in rates and charges in Canada. They put
forward, ``Here is what we want to do,'' and as long as they
follow the methodology that they said that they would follow,
then there is no real appeal to that.
So we think you are raising a concern that is very
important.
Mr. Shuster. Will the gentlelady yield?
Ms. Norton. I would be pleased to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. Shuster. It is in the bill that we get communities
involved in these decisions. But at the end of the day, as we
have pointed out, the FAA, which--back at Government, the
regulator--would be involved in this, similar to the way it is
today.
Ms. Norton. That is what I am trying to find--I was just
trying to find out the mechanism. I know how I approach the
FAA.
Mr. Shuster. That----
Ms. Norton. I don't know how I would approach this entity.
Mr. Shuster. You would approach the FAA like you do today
in this situation----
Ms. Norton. Well, you know, they might issue a rule. Can
they issue a rule? Can this entity issue a rule?
Mr. Shuster. No. They are not--it is not a regulating body.
It is a service provider. It is a service provider that will
manage the airspace.
When it comes to safety and regulatory things, it goes back
to the governmental body. So if there is an issue like that--
and hopefully they can work through the process with the
airlines on a noise problem, for instance, because I know we
got noise problems in many cities--but at the end of the day it
would go back to the regulator, and the regulator is the FAA in
Government.
Ms. Norton. You see, Mr. Chairman, then we still have them
mixed together, and the public doesn't know, really, to whom do
I go to get, for example, a NextGen remedy.
You know, most of the noise is NextGen--is a NextGen
problem. And if it is this entity that is going to revise
NextGen, I would think I should go to them to talk to them.
Mr. Shuster. Well, NextGen would--because of a--because of
the reduction in the way that people are able to land, you
would have less noise, we believe. But also, if there is a
remedy needed, just as there is today, you go back to the
regulator, and that would be the FAA that remains in
Government. This is not a regulatory body, it is a service
provider.
And with that, I yield to Mr. Mica, Chairman Mica.
Mr. Mica. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I salute you.
Also Mr. LoBiondo. You have taken on a tough challenge. We have
tried to do this over the past three decades, as you have
heard.
Everybody is in agreement that FAA, as it is currently
structured to oversee and operate air traffic control, is
dysfunctional. I think we are living on borrowed time. We are
going to have a major incident.
At the bottom of the barrel are our air traffic
controllers. The working conditions for our air traffic
controllers are shameful.
You were in Canada, you said, Mr. Bolen. Some of you have
been there. We are so far behind. The way we treat our air
traffic controllers--I used to have to go out--and I know they
still have the same lousy working conditions. I remember going
to, like, the Atlanta TRACON [Terminal Radar Approach Control],
mold growing there. That is no way to run a system in the 21st
century, in 2016.
Now, we have some disagreement on how we restructure this.
And we have got to come together, guys.
Mr. Poole, we are falling further and further behind,
internationally. I don't want to adopt the Canadian system, I
don't want the German system, I don't want the U.K. system. We
need a system design that works for the United States. Right?
And this is important, economically. If we lose our edge here,
we will lose manufacturing. We will lose technology. We will
lose opportunities for employment. And we will be left behind.
We are still writing a--aren't we, Mr. Poole, a ground--
1950s radar-based system, and the rest of the world is looking
at----
Mr. Poole. Essentially, yes. I mean we have paper flight
strips and----
Mr. Mica. Yes. Here, here. I held this up at the press
conference. Here is my--this--Mr. Rinaldi, isn't this what we
are operating with, paper strips?
Mr. Rinaldi. Yes, it is.
Mr. Mica. It is shameful. Now, I know there is
disagreement. Some of you are getting pressure. The biggest
pressure is probably general aviation, and they want to be
treated fairly.
Mr. Bolen, if we can come up with something that satisfies
your concern about the financing not going into user fees or
not overburdening general aviation, could you cooperate?
Mr. Bolen. A couple weeks ago, 15 general aviation
associations----
Mr. Mica. No----
Mr. Bolen [continuing]. Sent a letter saying that our
concerns about----
Mr. Mica. I know, but----
Mr. Bolen [continuing]. This go well beyond----
Mr. Mica. OK----
Mr. Bolen [continuing]. The fee issue.
Mr. Mica. And if some of the----
Mr. Bolen. And get to the structure.
Mr. Mica. Well, currently--Mr. Calio, the commercial
aviation, passenger aviation, you are 7.5 percent, and the
other money you put into the trust fund is about 94 percent, is
that correct?
Mr. Calio. Yes, Mr. Mica, it is.
Mr. Mica. And what percentage of the flights in the
airspace do you have?
Mr. Calio. Seventy-seven percent.
Mr. Mica. And general aviation, what do you contribute
financially?
Mr. Bolen. Financially, the last time we saw IRS (Internal
Revenue Service] records was 8.5 percent.
Mr. Mica. And what number of flights do you have?
Mr. Bolen. Well, we have, depending on how you look at the
controlled flights, somewhere between 17 and 22 percent, and
that is----
Mr. Mica. But we----
Mr. Bolen [continuing]. ICAO has said you look at----
Mr. Mica. We can come up with a fairness ratio. We can
guarantee that we are not going to overburden general aviation
and have the user pay a fair fee. You don't want it to be a
user fee, but you pay through primarily fuel tax, right?
Mr. Bolen. Yes. But again, our concerns go well beyond the
fee structure and get to who is in control of the airspace. We
believe that the airlines----
Mr. Mica. So you would like better representation, too.
That is another element that you would like to see on the
proposed board, right?
Mr. Bolen. Again, we----
Mr. Mica. Yes or no? I mean----
Mr. Bolen. We think this is a fundamentally flawed----
Mr. Mica. No. Again, what do you want? Don't tell me it is
fundamentally flawed. I am trying to put together something
that will work. You have got an air traffic system that is
headed for disaster. It is going to happen, I am telling you.
Tell us what you want. So something in finance, better
financing, a guarantee, and then you want better
representation. Those are a couple major things gathered from
your testimony and what I have seen. Right?
Mr. Bolen. Ensuring public access----
Mr. Mica. Yes, and public access----
Mr. Bolen [continuing]. To airports and airspace is
fundamental, ensuring----
Mr. Mica. OK. Well, what I want from you guys to give to
the chairman--the two chairmen and Mr. DeFazio--is the positive
things that we can agree on. We have got to make a good attempt
to get this done.
I am telling you, you are living on borrowed time. This is
not fair to our air traffic controllers. We are using paper
slips, technology that is dated back to the 1960s and 1970s
that should be replaced. The system is on the verge of melting
down.
And then to--the biggest concern I have is also losing our
place. Right, Mr. Poole? Say it again to these folks, because
they don't seem to get it, not only that unsafe system behind
the technology, but as far as our place in aviation, which we
have always led, we will not lead. Is that correct, or----
Mr. Poole. We are not leading it today, for example, in
space-based----
Mr. Mica. Exactly, exactly.
Mr. Poole [continuing]. ADS-B and in DataComm.
Mr. Mica. I yield back the balance of my time, and I look
forward to working with the chairman. Bring these guys together
and Members. We have got to get it right. Amen.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Mica. And I just want to make
it clear to all the Members. I know some of you have had ample
time, some of you may not have looked at it.
But just to be very clear on this, in the business jet
community, the general aviation community, there is basically
three tranches of them. there is the single-piston folks that--
they are going to pay the gas tax they pay today. We have said
we are not changing that. And the business jet folks, the folks
that Mr. Bolen represents, we have said the same to them. You
pay a gas tax, that is where you are going to pay. So that is
really unchanged for them. The third piece of that is what you
call part 135, it is the--and those two, they are
noncommercial, which I just named.
Then, if you become a commercial operator, and you want to
get passengers and make a profit, what you do today is you pay
a ticket tax, a segment tax, and a gas tax. What we have said
to that is we are going to do away with the segment and the
ticket tax, and you would pay the user fee based on your weight
and distance, which we think is fair.
There is some notion out there that they are going to raise
the user fee so high that a fellow or woman who wants to fly a
G5 or a G6 is going to be forced to fly first class on an
airline. I just cannot imagine that is going to happen.
Now, the issue Mr. Bolen does bring up, airspace, we have
to make sure that the airspace--there is access to it. I have
got about maybe three people that work in the airlines in my
district. I have got several hundred GA pilots. I am from a
rural area, I have a rural airport. So we want to take care of
rural airports, we want to make sure that we don't harm the
general aviation community.
So those of you that haven't really looked at the structure
of what we are doing, funding-wise, that is what we are doing
to the general aviation community, and I think it is more than
fair, what we are--what we have proposed.
So, with that, go to Mr. Nadler.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, just 2
months ago this committee enacted a major surface
transportation bill that made significant improvements to our
highway transit and rail system. That bill was developed in a
bipartisan manner and passed overwhelmingly.
Unfortunately, this FAA bill represents a departure from
the bipartisan tradition of this committee that has been
successful under Chairman Shuster's leadership, and will set--
--
Mr. Shuster. Would you yield for just a second?
Mr. Nadler. Yes.
Mr. Shuster. I would object to that. We have done--much of
this bill is done on a very bipartisan basis.
Mr. Nadler. Reclaiming my----
Mr. Shuster. We have fundamental difference on policy,
but----
Mr. Nadler. Reclaiming my time----
Mr. Shuster [continuing]. Bipartisan.
Mr. Nadler [continuing]. Much of the bill has, but
everything is overshadowed by privatization of the air traffic
control system, and will set back our efforts to modernize our
aviation system and ensure the safety of the flying public.
This air traffic control privatization scheme is an extreme
and risky venture that will hand over control of our airspace,
in effect, to the major airlines.
One of the stated motivations is that we need to speed up
modernizing our airspace and the installation of NextGen
technology. But progress is finally being made on that front.
Completely disrupting the ATC system and splitting up the FAA
will probably set back NextGen implementation by quite a few
years. So modernization cannot be the real motivation.
The other stated reason some support this plan is to
preclude furloughs and delays caused by budget cuts and
possible Government shutdowns. There is, of course, a much
safer and simpler solution: Just don't shut down the
Government.
Nor should we risk the safety of the flying public because
a few Members of Congress and Senators--arguably, one Senator
who is just leaving New Hampshire--want to impose drastic
budget cuts, or hold the budget hostage in an attempt to enact
an extreme agenda. And even if this plan were to go through,
the rest of the FAA, including safety inspectors, would still
be vulnerable to sequestrations and shutdowns.
And how can citizens talk to or influence or pressure--
effectively pressure this Corporation? I know they can be
heard, but they will be ignored with respect to noise or other
problems.
Mr. DeFazio and Mr. Larsen have offered reasonable
solutions to address any legitimate concerns that have been
raised with respect to airspace modernization and budget
uncertainty, but so far their suggestions have been rejected,
which leaves us the only real reason a simple--which only
leaves us the real reason: a simple, ideological devotion to
privatizing everything, and eliminating as much Government as
possible. If air traffic control isn't an inherently Government
function, what is?
Proponents of the bill would give away billions of dollars
in taxpayer-funded assets to the airlines. The FAA--and thus,
Federal taxpayers--have invested at least $53 billion over the
past 20 years in capital investments in these assets. Some of
the same Members who complain about the deficit and rail
against Federal spending are perfectly willing to give away $53
billion of Government property to private companies as a gift.
That is more than we spent on the entire NIH [National
Institutes of Health] budget last year. That is more than we
spent last year on the TSA [Transportation Security
Administration], VA [Department of Veterans Affairs] medical
services, clean water and drinking funds, section 8, Head
Start, energy efficiency, and violence against women combined.
We can't provide $600 million to the Flint water crisis,
but we can give away $53 billion to the airlines? This bill
goes beyond the public policy disagreement. It is a complete
special interest giveaway.
Supporters of the bill will claim that ATC will be managed
by a nonprofit entity. But make no mistake, this so-called
nonprofit will be dominated by for-profit airlines. The same
companies that nickel-and-dime passengers for baggage and leg
room will be making decisions about routes, and taxing the
public to manage the airspace.
Luckily, there are many groups and Members on both sides of
the aisle in both chambers who see this plan for what it is,
and it is worth commending Delta Airlines for acting
responsibly, and outlining numerous concerns with this
privatization scheme in a very detailed letter referenced by
Mr. DeFazio.
As Delta points out, the U.S. has over 13,000 airports and
about 7,000 aircraft in flight at any one time. U.S. airspace
is dense, congested, diverse, and unique. Privatization has
never been attempted in airspace of this nature, nor should it
be. Performing an unprecedented and uncontrolled experiment on
the American flying public will be risky, unsafe, and unfair to
the flying public and to taxpayers.
Mr. Calio, the U.K. and Canada have been cited as examples
of where privatization has been done before. But they both
receive payment for ATC facilities and equipment they
transferred to the private corporation. Is privatization so
important? Would the airlines be willing to reimburse the
Federal taxpayers for the fair market value of the physical--of
the assets being transferred, in effect, to them?
Mr. Calio. It is true that the--there was a reimbursement.
It was about $1 billion in the U.K., $1.4 billion in Canada. I
would point out, Mr. Nadler, that the airlines aren't going to
run this new entity. It is going to be a variety----
Mr. Nadler. But they will dominate it, effectively.
Mr. Calio. I don't believe that is true. I----
Mr. Nadler. All right. We can dispute that. But I asked you
a simple question. Would the airlines be willing to reimburse--
or would this company reimburse the Federal Government over
time $53 billion, or whatever the fair market value----
Mr. Calio. I think it is the beginning of the process, and
that could be determined down the line. I think you would have
to look----
Mr. Nadler. Would you support that in the legislation?
Mr. Calio. No. Airline passengers----
Mr. Nadler. OK, thank you.
Mr. Calio [continuing]. Will pay for----
Mr. Nadler. Mr. Bolen, I have--I am concerned about how
consumers will fare under this proposal. It seems consumers
will have no recourse under this system that would be heavily
dominated and controlled by the commercial airlines.
How would the Republican--how would this proposal ensure
that the commercial airlines are not able to collude, reduce
capacity, and close out competition? What specific safeguards
are in place to ensure that this cannot happen?
Mr. Bolen. I think a lot of the protections are supposed to
come later. These are things that the board itself, I believe,
is supposed to develop. But I----
Mr. Nadler. Supposed to develop. But nothing is guaranteed.
Mr. Bolen. I think that is a legitimate concern.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. My time is expired.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you. Members, certainly you can use your
5 minutes in any which-way you want. I would encourage you to
ask questions. That is what the hearing is really about,
getting information from our witnesses.
And I would just answer I do--it is not--the airlines are
not going to own this equipment. It is still going to be owned
by a Corporation that is going to be a--it is going to be
independent, but the airspace is still owned by the American
people, and this equipment has been already paid for by the
flying public. Those taxes you pay, that 20 percent of your
ticket tax, that is what has paid for this system. It is paid
for.
Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman----
Mr. Shuster. The problem is, to buy this stuff, if you went
on the open market, you would probably get 10 cents on the
dollar because it is so antiquated.
So again, we are looking for an agency that can go to new
technology, not stick with this 1950s--yes, I will yield.
Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman, just in response, yes, the flying
public, or the public paid through a tax for this equipment,
paid about $53 billion in the last 20 years. I don't know
exactly what the fair market value is now. It is somewhat less
than that, I presume. But, nonetheless, it is being given to a
private Corporation, and that private Corporation should
reimburse the public for it.
Mr. Shuster. But a nonprofit Corporation run at the
benefit----
Mr. Nadler. Nonprofit or otherwise, it is still a private
Corporation----
Mr. Shuster. Run at the benefit of the American traveling
public.
Mr. Nadler. As they see it.
Mr. Shuster. That is as it is, not as anybody sees it. It
is as it is.
Mr. LoBiondo?
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rinaldi, could you give us a little color commentary on
what the state of technology is in our towers that air traffic
controllers are using, and how it matches up with what might be
available?
Mr. Rinaldi. Well, we are--thank you, sir. We are behind in
technology. Canada, the U.K., most of the modern world is using
more modern technology than we have in our system. Our
controllers are doing a fantastic job with the equipment they
have, but the paper flight strips that Mr. Mica held up is a
perfect example.
There have been renditions after renditions of the FAA
trying to move us to an electronic flight strip program, and we
are still, actually, right now testing one. We have one
deployed in a Phoenix tower, and we have one in a Newark tower,
and we are setting requirements. But that will--through the
procurement process, and certainly through requirements, this
will be a long, drawn-out process. It will be 2025 when our
towers will actually start to see, actually, an electronic
flight strip program.
Mr. LoBiondo. So just in case anybody missed that, what was
that year you said when that new technology would appear in our
towers?
Mr. Rinaldi. We are looking about 2025, and that is if we
are funded properly, and that is certainly if the contract is
written in a way where human factors are actually on the
forefront so it is--you don't have the cost overrun once it
gets to the Tech Center in Atlantic City.
Mr. LoBiondo. So the next question I would like to ask--and
we had devoted--and I would like to take the time to thank Mr.
Larsen, because a lot of the--all of the 180 stakeholder
meetings that we had we did in a very bipartisan manner, and
that--we tried to get at a lot of the situations that we were
trying to deal with.
And one of the things that we looked at was the air traffic
control shortage that we may be facing. And we didn't really
get to a conclusion by the--at that stakeholder meeting. Will
you give us your take on what we are looking at here, and when
we are looking at it, and what the numbers look like?
Mr. Rinaldi. They are pretty scary. We are at a 27-year low
of fully certified controllers through the system. The number
is 10,760, of which those 10,760, 3,355 of them could retire at
any moment. That would be--that would cause delays throughout
the system, because we just would not be able to open up
positions and open up facilities to run the system as we are
today.
We do have 3,229 in some type of developmental training
status. That status can take any time from 1 to 5 years,
depending on the facility they are in, and depending on how
they are progressing through the OGATI program.
The agency has made a commitment to hire an appropriate
amount this year. I have no faith that they will hit that
number, because they haven't in the last 5 years hit their
hiring mark.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Poole, did you--looked like you had
something you wanted to add to that.
Mr. Poole. Actually, I just--I have written about the
subject, and even I was shocked today to hear what he said
about the date for electronic flight strips. I didn't realize--
I knew that there was work going on, but I didn't realize it
was going to be 2025. That is pathetic.
Mr. LoBiondo. OK.
Mr. Rinaldi. Just to clarify that date, they are rolling
electronic flight strips into a time-based metering and ground-
based metering program, so they are making it more complicated.
And if they were just to take a system that is off the shelf
today, that some of the manufacturing companies actually have,
we could get it a lot sooner. The problem is they are rolling
it into some broad initiative of time-based metering.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Chairman, I have additional questions,
but they would run over my time limit. I will wait for the next
round. So I yield back at this point.
Mr. Shuster. I thank the gentleman. With that, I recognize
Ms. Brown.
Ms. Brown? Oh, I am sorry, Ms. Brown. Mr. Larsen is next in
line, sorry about that.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Poole, thanks for
being here, helping us out again on this. One day you and I
will agree on something.
[Laughter]
Mr. Larsen. But I wanted to get back to my opening
statement and ask your opinion about Coldplay--no, about----
[Laughter]
Mr. Larsen [continuing]. About defense issues, in
particular. You have done quite a bit of work on this issue of
privatization and--but I am wondering if you have thought
through--beyond a seat at the board, which is what you have
recommended.
Mr. Poole. Right.
Mr. Larsen. But this is really more than just about a seat
at the board, it is about operations and such.
Mr. Poole. Sure.
Mr. Larsen. Have you thought through or done any writing on
that particular issue?
Mr. Poole. I have not. I am aware that this subject has
come up in every single country that has corporatized their air
traffic control. And in some--the solutions vary. Some of them
have had civilian controllers take over for the Department of
Defense controllers, but with still having interfaces,
obviously, on policy and operations with the defense agency.
Others have had, basically, co-training to make the two parts
work together a little more smoothly.
But, I mean, there is an annual conference on civil-
military air traffic control that is sponsored by ATCA, the Air
Traffic Control Association, and it was here last November,
across the river in Maryland.
Mr. Larsen. Right.
Mr. Poole. So this is a subject that everyone in air
traffic control knows a whole lot about, and is continually
monitoring. It is a subject that every country that is
corporatized has had to deal with. But I have not studied it in
any----
Mr. Larsen. Yes, I can't imagine that the other countries
that we have discussed today probably have--would have the--to
the extent that the MOAs [memorandums of agreement] and the
MOUs exist between FAA and DOD, it is probably a unique pile,
probably higher than the pile of paper that Mr. Calio has on
his desk.
Mr. Poole. It is probably so, given the size of our country
and the size of our defense budget, yes.
Mr. Larsen. So then, you couldn't estimate today sort of
how long it would take to either unwind those and wind them
back up, or to review and replace and--so that those
relationships----
Mr. Poole. Well, my suggestion would be that, as with
existing contracts, both internal contracts with employees, and
external contracts with suppliers and so forth, all of those
would remain in force. You don't just disrupt those at the time
of transition. They would remain in force and then, over time,
once the Corporation is up and running, they could be reviewed
and evaluated and, you know, discussed: Do they still make as
much sense as they did when the FAA was running the system?
Mr. Larsen. Yes. There are some issues, though, with
regards to that very question. And you touched on it earlier,
you suggested that a more cost-effective air navigation service
provider would drive down a unit cost and provide services. And
that has been the focus, cost effectiveness. Not as a criticism
of the DOD, but a lot of times cost effectiveness isn't the
primary goal----
Mr. Poole. Sure, sure.
Mr. Larsen [continuing]. Of the----
Mr. Poole. It is a factor, but it is not the primary
purpose, right.
Mr. Larsen. It is certainly a factor, but not the primary
purpose. And so, how--has there been anything--and maybe not
your thinking. Has anyone else thought about how the DOD would
reconcile its needs vis-a-vis the Corporation, when--if the
Corporation is determining cost effectiveness, but the DOD has
other----
Mr. Poole. Well, one example is the primary radars, which--
--
Mr. Larsen. Yes, right.
Mr. Poole. That is, in effect, a joint operation between
FAA and the DOD. And the primary radars need to be retained for
defense purposes, defense and homeland security purposes,
regardless of whether they are still cost effective for air
traffic control. So there is a situation which--that
relationship will remain in some form.
I agree, details definitely are going to need to be worked
out on this, and that is why you have a several-year transition
period before the Corporation would be in full operation and
full control of a system.
Mr. Larsen. But then do you--you know, I had all these
great questions for you. It is hard to ask them, because if you
haven't thought about these over your 30 years of experience,
who has thought about these questions over 30 years of----
Mr. Poole. Well, every other country that has implemented a
corporatized air traffic system has thought about and worked
out the relationships. And this is just not something that I
have--you know, there are a lot of subjects in my portfolio,
and this is just not one that I have gotten into in detail. But
I know that it has been dealt with and is being dealt with all
over the world.
Mr. Larsen. Well, it just--it seems to me that--this is
just the beginning of the questions I have about this issue.
And it actually might be better for the Armed Services
Committee to explore these issues from a DOD perspective, as
opposed to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
solely exploring these from a----
Mr. Poole. Yes, it certainly----
Mr. Larsen. You would agree with that?
Mr. Poole. It is their turf also, definitely.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you. We agree on that.
[Laughter]
Mr. Larsen. I appreciate it. I yield back.
Mr. Shuster. I thank the gentleman. And, again, within this
bill there is a provision that those contracts go over,
transfer over, stay in place, and to be worked out with DOD and
DHS [Department of Homeland Security], those various issues
you're talking about. So we have a provision there to deal with
it.
With that, Mr. Barletta?
Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, when I was
a little boy, I can remember my father taking me to Connie Mack
Stadium in Philadelphia. And to go from Hazleton there you
would have to get on to Schuylkill Expressway. Connie Mack--it
was a long time, it was back in the 1960s. You know, Schuylkill
Expressway is like the same Schuylkill Expressway today that it
was back then. Imagine how many more cars are on the road since
then. And, you know, I look at passenger rail. It probably
hasn't improved much in time, either. We go to the airport,
takes longer to go from point A to point B.
You know, transportation is important, it is critical in
our lives, in everybody's lives. Time is money in the business
community. They are competing in a global economy. But it is
also--time is also valuable in the lives of everyday people,
whether they are going on vacation, or they are just going to
visit a friend or a relative. Delays and cancellations cost
money, but it costs people time. And America's transportation
system is falling further and further and further behind other
countries' in the world.
I commend the chairman, because it is about time we
modernize our system, we focus on safety, on efficiency, and
lowering the cost to the users of the transportation system.
My question, Mr. Calio, how does a modern air traffic
control system allow your members to better serve the flying
public?
Mr. Calio. In many different ways. First of all, it would
provide more direct routes, so you get there quicker and
faster. You could reduce those block times that we talked
about. People would have a better idea, less time spent at the
airport. It would be a far more efficient flight, and--which
would reduce emissions. It would allow us to fly probably more
routes than we have now, and more choice of routes down the
line, if you get the system in place.
Right now we are hamstrung by the system we have. Again,
well documented both here and by this committee in many
different cases. I agree with you, the time to act is now, and
I would also say that, you know, we got right out in front of
this issue.
And I would like to make one thing clear. We have said
before this committee, the Senate Commerce Committee, publicly
and privately, in terms of how this system operates, as
Congressman Mica was pointing out, we do pay more than our fair
share right now. And my members said--and we, again, have said
this all over the place--we will continue to do that.
We told Mr. Bolen's people, you know, we don't care about
what you pay. And, you know, I would like to correct--Mr. Bolen
says they pay 8.5 percent. He is including commercial activity
in that. It is not--what his members pay is not quite that. So,
long story short, we will pay--we will continue to pay. Paying
is worth it, if we get a better system, arming Mr. Rinaldi's
controllers and getting more controllers to do the job that
should be easier than it is for them.
Mr. Barletta. Any time you want to do something big there
are issues. But they are not issues that can't be overcome. And
I wish, you know, we all sit and realize that. You know, if it
was easy, somebody else would have done this already. And it is
not easy. But I don't believe we should be throwing the baby
out with the bath water. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you.
Mr. Capuano?
Mr. Capuano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, is
Representative Young in the room? Because I was actually
considering yielding my time to him. But----
[Laughter]
Mr. Capuano. Don Young, did he--I was thinking about it,
but I guess not.
Mr. Chairman, I guess--here is my problem. I think we have
a pretty good system. Can it be improved? Of course it can be
improved, anything can be improved. We have the safest system
in the world, most complicated system in the world. And most of
my complaints about flying is that my knees are too close to my
person in front of me, that I am squeezed like this, that I
have to pay for overhead, I am about to probably have to pay
for the oxygen, but that is--those are other complaints that
the FAA doesn't have much to do about.
My complaints don't really go to the system. Can it be
better? Of course it can. And I really look forward to the
point where we get over this obvious bump in the road and get
to the rest of the bill that we pretty much agree on.
But in the meantime, Mr. Poole, do you own an automobile?
Mr. Poole. Yes, I do.
Mr. Capuano. Could I have it?
[Laughter]
Mr. Poole. No.
Mr. Capuano. Why not?
Mr. Poole. Well, because it is mine, and I paid for it.
Mr. Capuano. Ah. But the taxpayers are supposed to give
over billions of dollars of property to a private----
Mr. Poole. Well, those--the general taxpayers did not pay
for this. Aviation taxpayers paid for it through aviation
excise taxes, so----
Mr. Capuano. See, as a Libertarian, I think any time the
Government says, ``I am reaching in your pocket,'' call it
whatever you want, it is a tax. And when the Government reaches
in my pocket as a passenger, and says I have to pay this fee,
this fee, this fee, call it what you want, it is a tax when the
Government makes me pay that. And I am not opposed to that.
So, therefore, I did pay for it. And yet this bill would
have me give it away. I think you should give me your car.
Mr. Poole. Well, the problem with that--I mean there is a
practical problem, in that if you say--put some arbitrary
value--let's say--call it $10 billion. If you put that into the
cost base of a system that is going to be supported by fees and
charges paid by airlines, that gets incorporated into the cost
of operation----
Mr. Capuano. I know it is expensive, but why won't you give
me your car?
Mr. Poole. Why would you do that? Why would you make it----
Mr. Capuano. Why won't you give me your automobile? All
right, I won't take your automobile. How about your suit?
[Laughter]
Mr. Capuano. You don't give things away, nobody does. And
neither should the Government. So that is one minor little
problem.
But I guess--can anybody tell me--my biggest problem with
the FAA--and I am no lover of the FAA, I have had problems with
them, and the air traffic controllers have been great help to
me on my local issue. I have Logan Airport in my district, and
I have a very urbanized area. And, like everybody here who
lives near an airport, I have problems underneath the flight
paths of people complaining about noise. It is not new. It is
trying to find a balance.
And the air traffic controllers have been great, educating
me on what can and cannot be done reasonably to try to address
those issues. And I am trying to get the FAA to be as
reasonable as other people have been in trying to attempt to
get planes where they need to go, understanding there are real
people who live under those flight paths and deserve some
consideration.
Who would I call when there is a private company and when I
have those complaints and I have those issues? And why would
the private company give a hoot about my constituents? They
would only be interested, as private companies are and should
be, in the bottom line. Who do I call? Who----
Mr. Calio. The FAA will still have control over routes and
procedures. You would call the FAA. You could--also can call
the EPA, because NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] stays
in place.
Mr. Capuano. Well, EPA hasn't been helpful at all. And, by
the way, the FAA--this is the part of the FAA that I think is
broken. I would really rather work on this part of it, to get
to fix that, than the parts that we are doing with this bill.
I don't see how a private entity could possibly care--or
should care, again, that is not their role--in the interests of
the general public who live underneath these flight paths. And
my big concern with NextGen? It used to be funding it and
whether it is worth it or not.
Now it is OK, we have got it, and it is kind of hindered
and harmed, the quality of life of the people under those more
narrow flight paths. And up until this point, no one seems to
care except the elected officials. And I don't think this is
going to improve that, or get anybody else to care about that.
I don't see how this could work.
And again, I look forward to getting past this issue and
back on track to get another FAA reauthorization bill done that
we can all agree on. And I think it is here, in the substance.
Just move it a few inches aside. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you. With that, Mr. Graves.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Shuster. Mr. Ribble?
Mr. Ribble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think, first of all,
we need to kind of put--or set aside some myths that have been
going on. I have heard it both on the other side, I have heard
it from some of our panelists related to--that the problems
with the FAA are in part centered around Government shutdowns
and inconsistent funding.
In the last four decades there has only been 50 days of
Government shutdowns. Over 14,600 days, there has been 50 days
of Government shutdowns. And some of those the FAA was exempt
from. So that is a tiny, tiny number, about 1 day or 10 days
per decade. The Republic will survive.
Secondly, on funding, we talked about inconsistent funding.
I am not going to give you budget numbers, I am going to give
you appropriated numbers. In fiscal year 2013 they were funded
at $15,238,000,000. In fiscal year 2014, $15,734,000,000. In
fiscal year 2015, $15,847,000,000. And in fiscal year 2016,
$16,011,000,000. So each year the funding has been relatively
consistent, and has been growing modestly every single year.
And so, our problems with the FAA are not because they have had
inconsistent funding, or irregular funding, or Government
shutdown. It has been more of what the inspector generals and
Government Accountability Office has talked to us about.
Now, related to this fix, whether the fix is the right fix
or not the right fix, I think that is all up for debate. And I
think that we can try to figure out how in the world we can
move forward and actually get a fix that actually works for
everybody.
First of all, Mr. Rinaldi, air traffic control workers have
done, really, quite an extraordinary job.
Mr. Rinaldi. Yes, they have.
Mr. Ribble. I mean, I----
Mr. Rinaldi. They are outstanding.
Mr. Ribble. You need to know that when I get on an
airplane--and I get on an airplane every single weekend to fly
back to Wisconsin and then back to Washington, DC--safety never
enters my mind. And so I want to commend the air traffic
controllers for how good they actually are.
Mr. Rinaldi. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that.
Mr. Ribble. You are welcome. And I think they will continue
to be good, even if we have a different structure. And just
because Government is out of the way and a not-for-profit
organization is running it doesn't necessarily mean safety or
things go bad.
In fact, if Government shutdowns are, in fact, a problem,
maybe we just get the Government out of the way and then there
would be no shutdowns. But I just wanted to make it clear that
your team and the workers that do this every single day have
been doing a terrific job. And I want you to know that.
Mr. Bolen, you mentioned numerous times in your testimony
both written and spoken today that one of your concerns is
turning over this new, not-for-profit organization to the big
airlines, because they will have, in essence, 50 percent of the
board for representatives, and then someone from the airline--
--
Mr. Bolen. Well, they will have effective control.
Mr. Ribble. Yes, effective control. But yet I thought I
heard you say when you were asked a question, ``Would you
restructure the board then,'' you said no. Did I misunderstand
you?
Mr. Bolen. Well, I think the scope of power that is granted
to the board should not include things like taxing authority.
It should not include things like the ability to determine who
can fly where and when. So there are some fundamental issues
that go beyond just the structure of the board and the number
of seats.
Mr. Ribble. OK.
Mr. Bolen. So, you know, I think that is kind of a
fundamental question, is should a board reflect the public's
interest, and will it. And certainly currently, as it is
structured, I don't believe that is what this bill does.
I think trying to fix it raises some questions about what
is the scope of the authority that we have turned over. Taxing
authority, as was said by the first Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court, the ability to tax is the ability to destroy.
And whether you call it a rate or a charge or a fee or anything
else, that is what we are talking about doing by giving this
board the ability to set rates and charges.
Mr. Ribble. Mr. Bolen, wouldn't that basically--wouldn't
moral hazard come into play then, and consumers would respond
to it?
Mr. Poole. Well, let me answer that. I object strenuously
to characterizing this as giving taxing authority. A tax is
something only Government can do, and I agree with Mr. Bolen on
that point. But let me give you the example.
The Government owns a utility called the Tennessee Valley
Authority. It sends electric bills every month to its customers
for the services that they purchase. Similarly, an air
traffic--a federally chartered nonprofit air traffic
Corporation would send bills to its customers for the services
that they deliver to it. That is a charge, just like an
electric utility bill. It is not a tax in any way, shape, or
form, legally or in any commonsense interpretation.
So, I think this is really distorting the reality of what
is proposed here. It is proposing to create a nonprofit
utility, not a taxing agency.
Mr. Ribble. All right, thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I
am out of time, I yield.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Ribble. Where am I? Mrs.
Napolitano?
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are a lot
of good provisions in this bill regarding safety, technology,
and addressing the concerns of the local communities over the
Metroplex flight routing plans. But, unfortunately, the bill
also includes several poison pills that I cannot support, and
find very objectionable.
One of them--and I strongly oppose the inclusion of section
611, which overturns a Federal court decision that protects
meal and rest breaks for truckers, truck drivers, as required
by California law. And it is a law in 21 States. On July 4,
2014, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that
trucking operations in California must allow for 30-minute meal
breaks after 5 hours of work, and a 10-minute rest break after
4 hours of work, a very reasonable standard when you consider
that truck drivers can be subject to 14 hours of on-duty time.
Section 611 would not only preempt California's law with
regard to trucking operations, but would also preempt laws in
these other 21 States and territories that currently guarantee
a meal break. States are Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware,
Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode
Island, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Guam,
and Puerto Rico.
States should be allowed to set their own meal and break
standards as they see fit for the health and safety of their
workers and of the general public. This section has no place in
this aviation bill, as it is a provision that was addressed in
the motor carrier labor standards, which we already debated in
the FAST Act, the transportation bill currently just passed.
And the conference committee wisely agreed that we should not
interfere with State laws. This provision was not included in
the final FAST Act.
And, Mr. Chairman, I will be offering an amendment with my
colleagues, Ranking Member Norton and Mr. Nadler, to strike
this section from the bill. I urge my colleagues to support it.
Secondly, I have strong concerns and do oppose the
proposals included in this bill that privatizes our air traffic
control system. I have visited several of my small areas and
talked to the traffic control persons, and they may have
challenges, but it is still the safest and most efficient in
the world, when you consider how many flights per day operate
in our country.
One of the greatest challenges facing our air traffic
control and aviation system is a lack of investment by
Congress, by this Government, in new technology, safety, and
our airports. We should be using this bill to address our
investment challenges and give our airports the tools to
increase investment and raise the cap of passenger facility
charges if local agencies want to raise the revenue for airport
improvement.
Mr. Chairman, I want to show this chart that was prepared,
the comparison of air navigation service providers.
[Chart]
Mrs. Napolitano. And, as you can see, the United States is
way ahead, and 15,539,009. This is in movements--compared to
the United Kingdom and Canada, which are not even half. And the
smaller number of airplanes is 209,034, where--this is the
number of general aviation aircraft, and you should have it
somewhere up there, too--whereas the closest one is the United
Kingdom at 1,480. This is just not a comparison.
And then, when we have the big giveaway, value of assets
for Canada is $3 billion, of the United Kingdom is $1.3
billion, and in the U.S. is $53 billion. Not quite the
comparison that I would say is adequate.
I have concern the new air traffic controller system would
address recruitment, retention, and training of a diverse air
traffic control workforce. It is a giveaway, and I think one of
the issues I have is the flight paths that I have taken up with
FAA.
And, Mr. Rinaldi, under this privatization proposal what
requirements and standards will apply with respect to the
organization's recruitment and retention of a diverse
workforce? And how will the proposal work in maintaining
standards for training air traffic controllers, and making sure
they are prepared and fit to protect our Nation's skies? And
who will be in charge of and make those decisions?
Mr. Rinaldi. Thank you, Congresswoman, great question. I
believe, by bringing all of the negotiated agreements and work
agreements over intact, and having a robust transition period
to work all these issues, to make sure we have no unintended
consequences on the safety and efficiency of the system, and to
ensure that we continue to hire diverse--in a diverse pool, and
make sure that we are training properly and using modern
technology for training tools--right now our training system is
pretty antiquated. And using modern technologies for training,
we can, you know, hopefully streamline the training and speed
it up to the point that we can actually see a controller be
fully certified in less than 5 years.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Well, there is a lot of other
questions I would have, Mr. Chair, but I really thank you for
bringing this forth. I yield back.
Mr. Shuster. I thank the gentlelady. With that, Mr. Massie
is recognized.
Mr. Massie. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, Mr. Rinaldi, I just
want to reiterate something my colleague said earlier, that air
traffic controllers, particularly in my district, do a
wonderful job, and we feel very safe with your men at the helm,
and women.
I want to ask you the first question, though. I was able to
go into an air traffic control tower at CVG [Cincinnati/
Northern Kentucky International Airport]. And the first thing
that struck me, besides the professionalism of your crew, is
the antiquated technology. I mean it looked like a computer
room from the 1980s, and that is being kind. Could you share
with us what sort of tools that you would like to have that the
FAA has not incorporated into the air traffic control regime,
and what the benefits of those are?
Mr. Rinaldi. Sure, I--you know, I think one of the first
things that we talked about were our electronic flight strips.
I think when you went into the facility, you probably saw them
walking around with pieces of paper, and that a controller that
was working one position would walk a piece of paper to another
controller, and then they would walk it around as the airplane
was moving throughout the airport movement area. And then,
eventually, once the airplane took off, then it would be either
some type of manual way to get the information to the radar
controller. That would be--to us, that is the technology. It is
hard to even say that is modern technology.
In the Nav Canada world, they have been working on this,
working with this for 20-plus years. They are selling it around
the world. I mean if you ask how would we enhance the tower
environment, that would be something, certainly, we would do.
Our radar environments in our large centers and our
TRACONs, how we would enhance that is to give us, you know,
more tools and modern technology, better voice switch systems.
And, most importantly, better staffing. We are crucially,
crucially--at this point with our staffing our controllers are
having tough times to get breaks, take time off, to make sure
they have appropriate amount of, you know, fatigue mitigation
going on. Our staffing, we must address the staffing of our
facilities, and that is a deep concern of ours, as we move
forward.
Mr. Massie. Thank you.
Mr. Poole, I don't think there has been enough time
dedicated in this hearing to the sorts of technological
advancements that we have missed out on in this country, in air
traffic control, and what the advantages of those would be, and
that we have seen in other countries. Could you talk to that?
Mr. Poole. Well, one of the most important is data link,
controller-pilot data link, which substitutes electronic
digital information about changes in altitude and things like
that for voice transmissions. Voice transmissions are subject
to errors, mishearing, static on the line, and so forth. It is
a safety problem in some respects. It is also--it slows things
down if they have to repeat the communication because of
interference, and so forth. So that is another big one that is
already operational, nationwide, in Canada, and has been for a
couple of years.
Nationwide, data link in this country is probably the early
2000s, at best--2019 is the starting point, as I believe. Is
that right, Paul?
Mr. Rinaldi. That is about correct.
Mr. Poole. So typically, it takes years to roll this out to
all the facilities. So that is another--that is a good example.
The chairman mentioned earlier--I am not sure if you were
here then. Nav Canada is the lead investor with Iridium
Corporation in developing global satellite-based ADS-B, which
provides radar-like separation in oceanic and polar airspace,
where currently, for the most part, you have huge boundaries
around how far apart--how close flight tracks can be, and the
altitude separation, and so forth, because of the inaccuracy of
knowing exactly where the planes are in real time.
With ADS-B over the oceans, thanks to satellites, it is
just as if they were over land, and you can space flight tracks
close together, people can get the optimum altitudes for
minimum fuel burn, and things like that.
Mr. Massie. And would----
Mr. Poole. Huge benefit.
Mr. Massie. Would those advantages be available to general
aviation, as well?
Mr. Poole. That will be available to anybody who equips
their plane to have ADS-B, which is required by 2020 in this
country. So, yes, it would be available to all GA, as well.
Mr. Massie. So, what leads you to believe that we are going
to see these advancements if we pass this bill?
Mr. Poole. Well, I mean, the difference is you are going to
have an organization dedicated to providing the aviation
customers with the best cost-effective technology as soon as
possible. And it will have its own private-sector kind of
procurement system, not Government procurement methodology, not
the kind of long, cumbersome process that leads--by the time a
new system gets implemented into the field after these long,
long procurement periods under the current regime, a lot of the
technology is already obsolete.
You need to have a system developed where you have
continuous incremental improvements to take advantage of
rapidly changing technology in all of these areas. And the FAA
is incapable, it appears, to have that kind of a system because
of their long, cumbersome, bureaucratic processes.
Mr. Massie. Well, I like your model, that they need to
think of themselves more as a customer service utility----
Mr. Poole. Yes.
Mr. Massie [continuing]. Instead of just a safety
organization whose only customer is Congress.
But, Mr. Chairman, my time has expired, and I yield back.
Mr. Shuster. I thank the gentleman. And I don't know if I
heard you--you talked about the deployment of the Canadian--
that their--that organization. They are going to have 100
percent of coverage of worldwide airspace by the end of 2017.
Mr. Massie. So we may be renting their system.
Mr. Shuster. Very much. Today 30 percent of the world is
covered. With the deployment of their technology, they will
have 100 percent coverage. They have already had--I believe the
number is 15 other countries have already signed up, they are
going to subscribe to use their airspace, and it is going to be
more efficient than our space. So that is something that, you
know, we need to look at. So, thank you.
With that, Mr. Lipinski is recognized.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to start by
thanking you for the exemplary way that you put together--
leaving aside the ATC part--putting together the rest of this
bill. It doesn't mean I won't have any amendments tomorrow, but
it will be far fewer than the 19 I had on the FAST Act.
First thing, a question of who should the FAA serve,
because that seems to be something that is floating around. I
am--I was very happy to hear the chairman say that it is the
flying public they should serve. It seemed that Mr. Poole might
have been suggesting that that is not, because he said the FAA
shouldn't have safety as the number-one priority. I think it
needs to be the number-one priority, because that is--they are
serving the public, and that is their number-one priority.
We need to have airlines that are successful in this
country, in order that we have a successful aviation industry,
it could move people around. But it is important, I think, that
the flying public is the--is who is served by the FAA, served
by ATC.
And Mr. Calio seems to suggest that, well, the A4A should
have a super-majority, so they are really giving something up
by only having four seats on the board. But that is assuming
that the A4A is who ATC--who their customer--who the primary
entity they should serve. And A4A is simply an organization
that represents not all of the airlines--although maybe the
three I fly are all in the A4A, maybe that would be good for
people flying in and out of Chicago. But let's keep our eye on
we should be serving the flying public. That is what the air
traffic control should be doing.
Now, noise issues. We have gone over this. I just want to
make--be clear on this, because we had a discussion on it, but
the bottom line--we have heard people can go to the FAA,
because they are still the regulator, if there are noise
issues.
Does the FAA have any authority to require this private
Corporation to change their routes, or to change anything that
would lower any--or eliminate noise problems, or try to--does
the FAA--will they have the--OK, people can go to the
regulator. Do they have any authority here, with the
Corporation? That is a big thing that has been missing. We have
been told you can go to the regulator. But can they do
anything? Does anyone have any----
Mr. Rinaldi. Well, I think if you--and I am going to answer
in simplistic terms, because I don't know the exact answer to
your question. But if we bring everything over as is, the
approaches, the flight paths, and as is into this not-for-
profit Corporation and don't make any changes, then the noise
complaints that you are getting today are as you were getting
them then.
If there are any changes that we were going to do to
modernize the system, that would have to go through the
regulatory safety and certification function of the FAA for
approval.
Mr. Bolen. Mr. Lipinski?
Mr. Lipinski. So you--yes?
Mr. Bolen. At least in Canada they don't have that. And, as
I understand from this bill, airspace redesign is not subject
to that review.
Mr. Lipinski. All right, thank you. I have to move on, just
because of time.
Mr. Calio. Excuse me. That is just not true. First of all,
you could go--a consumer or someone aggrieved about noise could
go to the FAA and through--to the Environmental Protection
Agency. The NEPA protections stay in place, they don't
disappear. That is what currently exists under the system.
Mr. Lipinski. I am not sure that would cover all of it, but
we can have a further discussion on that.
Now, the legislation allows an air traffic service user to
file a complaint with the Secretary that a fee increase is
unreasonable. An ``air traffic service user,'' does this
include an airline customer? Are they included in that, in this
bill? Is that how air traffic service user is defined, or is it
just the airlines?
Mr. Poole. My understanding is it is those who pay the
bills. And those who pay the bills would be airlines and
anybody else that is a commercial operator, not----
Mr. Lipinski. So the flying public should--and I think--
before I move on to the next question, I think we are getting
this--this idea keeps getting thrown out that the airlines are
paying the bills. But who pays--who really pays them? They have
to be passed on to the flying public. They are not just eaten
by the airline. It goes in. So--and I certainly think that the
public should have more of an input here.
Now, the last question is about insurance coverage. The
bill says that the new entity must maintain adequate insurance
coverage. Nav Canada currently maintains a roughly $5 billion
policy, according to the 2015 annual report. How much coverage
do you expect that a new entity in the U.S. would have to have?
And I also notice that Canada maintains an indemnification
program at no cost to Nav Canada to protect it from terrorist-
related loss that may be in excess of the insurance coverage.
So how much do you think that this Corporation is going to have
to have in the insurance company? And then, will the Government
still have to have an indemnification program?
[No response.]
Mr. Lipinski. Is anyone----
Mr. Rinaldi. From what I understand--and I am not an expert
in the insurance business at all--I do know that the Nav Canada
system is set up for the unthinkable to happen, and litigation
coming down. The fact that we run about 10 percent--they run
about 10 percent of the traffic that we do, you would think
that might be about, you know, 8 to 10 times more than that.
Not an expert in insurance by any stretch of the imagination.
Mr. Lipinski. All right. I ran through this very, very
quickly, just because of lack of time. A lot of questions. I
thank you for your answers. We need--I think we should be doing
something, looking at how we can make changes to make things
move more quickly forward, especially NextGen, but I still have
questions about the proposal that we have before us.
With that, I will yield back.
Mr. Shuster. Mr. Graves?
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill
has been an interesting endeavor, and all the meetings that we
have had over the last several weeks, trying to understand this
bill. It is very disappointing to see the loss of the bromance
between our chairman and ranking member, and I hope that you
all are able to rekindle the flame.
Mr. Poole, what kind of car do you drive?
[Laughter]
Mr. Poole. I drive an Infiniti G37.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Whoa. I was trying to decide if I
was going to ask you for your car, as well, and that is
definitely an upgrade from mine. That informs my decision.
No, but seriously, going back to the gentleman from
Massachusetts' line of questioning earlier, he asked about if
you would give him your car. But in reality, under this
legislation, the car--there is not an ask of Congress to
effectively just hand over your car without any type of----
Mr. Poole. No.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana [continuing]. I guess, continued
service. And this--perhaps a comparison would be something more
along the lines of you are giving access to your car to someone
else, but they are continuing to provide you with car service,
effectively. And the idea is that they will do a better job
maintaining your vehicle than you are doing. Is that----
Mr. Poole. That is a reasonable analogy, certainly, yes.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. OK, great, thank you. Look, I got
to be honest. The whole paper strip idea is very, very
concerning. It really is. I mean what happens if I drop one in
between the desks? What happens there?
Mr. Rinaldi, I certainly appreciate your comments and
commend you and your organization for the great and safe air
service we have, but it is important for us to recognize we
can't rest on our laurels, that we need to continue to
innovate, we need to continue to make sure that we improve upon
safety, we improve upon our records.
And I do have strong concerns about the current service
that we have, in terms of the billions of dollars that have
been spent upgrading to--attempting to upgrade to NextGen
without actually seeing the results. I think the ranking member
used to refer to it as NeverGen at one point, and there are
fundamental concerns there.
Mr. Poole, would you be willing to give Government control
over your personal finances, yes or no?
Mr. Poole. No, I certainly would not.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. All right, thank you. I mean the
point is I have been here about a year, and I am not sure that
I have seen many things that the Federal Government actually
does really well. And there are models out there where you see
significant improvements.
Mr. Poole, some of the meetings I have had, general
aviation has raised concerns about shifting costs over to the
general aviation community. But under the bill it seems that,
unless they cross over into a profit or commercial-type
activity, they are largely held harmless. Is that accurate?
Mr. Poole. That is correct. I mean the distinction that is
drawn in the bill is between commercial and noncommercial. And
commercial has historically been defined in U.S. aviation law
and practice as selling services to passengers.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. OK.
Mr. Poole. So Exxon Mobil's Gulfstream is defined as
noncommercial because they are not selling the service to
anybody, they are simply using it themselves.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. OK.
Mr. Poole. And, in my view, Exxon Mobil should pay a user
fee if they are going to fly their Gulfstream in U.S. airspace,
but that is not the way the bill is written, so----
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. I know the--I am not real sure who
to direct this to, but Louisiana, where I am from, we are
susceptible to hurricanes and disasters, and things along those
lines. Can someone help me understand? If we have a situation
like we have had in the past, where a hurricane comes through
and you destroy a tower, who in that case would be responsible
for the rebuilding and restoration of that facility?
Mr. Poole. Well, it certainly would be the Corporation.
That would be part of its capital budget.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. So there would be no expectation
that taxpayers would come in and----
Mr. Poole. No, not at all, no.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana [continuing]. Kick in to cover
that?
Mr. Poole. That is part of the point.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. OK. Mr. Calio, could you address
oversight issues? And I will tell you it is a strong concern of
mine that Congress continue to have a role in oversight,
considering that this is a Federal asset. And, obviously,
strong public interest there. Can you share a perspective on
how you expect this committee and others to conduct our
oversight responsibilities under this legislation?
Mr. Calio. Sure. Chairmen Shuster and LoBiondo's proposal
would focus the oversight of the Congress and the FAA on the--
on safety, which is where it belongs. That is what we do best,
is what the Government does best, is regulate safety. That
would put oversight of the flying public and the airspace in
the same position as all the other modes of transportation that
are underneath this committee.
If you look at the NTSB [National Transportation Safety
Board] as an example, the Federal Railroad Administration, this
committee has oversight there, as do other committees, but not
over the operator of the system. You know, and that, again, is
international best practice. Over 60 countries, developed
countries, have that kind of system in place where you separate
the air traffic operation from the safety regulator. And it is
done because there is considered to be an inherent conflict of
interest in keeping the two in the same place.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Could this--I am sorry, last
question--could this Corporation sell the assets if they are--
under this legislation, could they sell the assets and profit
from that? Anyone have a--Mr. Poole?
Mr. Poole. The answer--it is clearly spelled out in the
legislation that they can dispose of assets considered to be
surplus to the business purpose of air traffic control. But
they are required to--I mean, since it is a nonprofit
Corporation, the proceeds from those assets would go toward new
capital expenditures, modernization, facility consolidation,
and this sort of thing. It is not like they would be putting it
in their pockets and walking away with it.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Calio. Can I make one point about these assets we keep
talking about? They are mostly antiquated or don't work, and
they have significant liabilities attached to them. So this is
not a zero-sum game.
Mr. LoBiondo [presiding]. Mr. Sires?
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I want to commend
the chairman and the ranking member for all the hard work, and
the committees that worked on this. You know, there are a lot
of good things on this bill, but there are some things I just
can't live with.
First, I represent part of Newark Airport. For my
constituents, noise is a big issue. And I would like to follow
up on what my colleague, Mr. Lipinski--in terms of flight
patterns. I mean we not only have problems with airplanes, I
got problems with helicopters in my district. And I have been
fighting the flight patterns of these helicopters for over 2
years.
So, I was just wondering. Who do I turn to when I have all
these issues? And why does it take so long if you have such an
issue? Is it going to take longer now, if you privatize this?
Because, as it is now with the FAA, it takes a long time to get
things changed. So I was just wondering if anybody can answer
me.
Mr.----
Mr. Calio. Mr. Sires, as I said earlier, the avenue would
still be to go to the FAA first, and to the Environmental
Protection Agency, because the NEPA provisions stay in place.
Additionally, I would point out that, you know, there are
noise problems across the country, and we, the airlines, are
very sensitive to those. And we will try to work closely with
the FAA, and sometimes we actually take the lead in trying to
resolve these problems, because it is not in our interest to
have a lot of unhappy people.
Mr. Sires. But on this board that makes all these decisions
that you are going to have with this privatization, there are
no consumers on that board, right? Are there any consumers on
the board? Does anybody know?
Mr. Poole. It is not called out that way in the
legislation, but there are two public interest representatives
to be appointed by the Secretary of Transportation. So those, I
would presume, would be intended to represent----
Mr. Sires. How did we come up with four members of the
airlines, anybody know?
Mr. Poole. Have to ask the----
Mr. Sires. I mean it seems like an awful lot.
Mr. Calio. Well, to many people, two general aviation seems
like an awful lot, given the use of the airspace, and who pays
what for the airspace, and the number of people flying. We do
27,000 flights and 2 million people a day, and 50,000 tons of
cargo a day. And, you know, frankly, we thought we should have
more seats.
And I do not agree with Mr. Bolen's notion that there is
going to be some kind of conspiracy between the pilots, the air
traffic controllers, and the airlines. I mean if we want to
talk about that, maybe we should move this debate down to
Dealey Plaza and talk about that way in the future. You know,
it----
Mr. Sires. But, I mean----
Mr. Calio. Four seats is less than representational of the
use of the airspace and the contribution to the----
Mr. Sires. Would you say you move 2 million people a year?
Is that what you said to me?
Mr. Calio. No, a day.
Mr. Sires. A day?
Mr. Calio. Day.
Mr. Sires. And don't you think they should have a couple of
seats in there?
Mr. Calio. There are seats for the public interest. And I
would also say this is the beginning of a process, and it is a
time to talk about----
Mr. Sires. You are not going to give up seats in the
future. That is not--you know, whatever the progress takes us--
you know, whatever the process takes us, I don't think anybody
is going to give up seats.
Mr. Calio. I think we represent the most people who fly.
Mr. Sires. Mr. Rinaldi, are you comfortable that when you
are negotiating you are prepared to negotiate with a corporate
structure, rather than the current structure that you have now
to negotiate?
Mr. Rinaldi. One of the things--thank you, sir. One of the
things we wanted to make sure that was captured in law was a
fair negotiating process with mediation and binding
arbitration. And, as it stands now, that does carry over. That
is something we will watch closely. Because if that is not a
part of the bill, then we would have a big problem with it.
Mr. Sires. And are you comfortable? You said now you have a
27-year low in the number of----
Mr. Rinaldi. Air traffic controllers----
Mr. Sires. Air traffic controllers.
Mr. Rinaldi [continuing]. Fully certified----
Mr. Sires. Are you comfortable that, with this new
structure, you are going to be able to build that number?
Mr. Rinaldi. Well, listen. I am not comfortable with the--
--
Mr. Sires. Because----
Mr. Rinaldi [continuing]. FAA, that they could actually get
us our numbers back up to speed. And so, what we are trying to
do is make sure we have stable, predictable funding, to make
sure that we still continue to hire controllers. And we--quite
possibly in this process we can break down the lines of
business and the stovepipes within the FAA that really don't
want the end result, don't focus on the end result, they just
focus on their task.
So HR [human resources] in the FAA are concerned about
processing applications, they are not concerned about the other
road to make sure that we are getting fully certified air
traffic controllers down into our facilities.
Mr. Sires. And I would just--I don't have time to ask
questions, but I would like to make an observation. Everybody
keeps throwing Canada into our faces, whether it is health care
or whether it is this bill. I mean Canada--what, 40 million
people? It is a lot easier to set up a system for 40 million
people, especially a health system for 40 million people than
for 300 million people. So, you know, we have a lot more
flights and a lot more complicated systems here than Canada
does. And this is the safest.
And I must compliment the air controllers. I mean I have
been to the tower in Newark. I think I would have a headache
right after an hour working in that place, you know, these
little things going on the board there. And as far as the
airlines, you do a great job. But I wish you will think of
people being taller than 5 foot 2 inches. I mean I have no room
in my legs for any of--you know? That is not a knock on you.
Mr. Calio. Are you saying----
Mr. Sires. No, that is not a knock on you, I am just 6 foot
4 inches.
[Laughter]
Mr. Sires. Thank you very much.
Mr. Calio. I am a little sensitive.
Mr. Sires. Thank you for your time, sir.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Rokita?
Mr. Rokita. I thank the chairman. Nick, how tall are you?
Mr. Calio. Privileged information.
[Laughter]
Mr. Calio. Not as tall--I found out recently not as tall as
I used to be.
Mr. Rokita. I have heard stories about that. I want to
thank the chairmen for their leadership--and I use that term
specifically, because that is exactly what this exercise is, it
is one in leadership. And we are trying to solve a problem
here. And as a user of the airspace myself, I just really take
my hats off to the work done by committee, and the language put
out here so far. I will certainly have some amendments for
tomorrow. And in informing that debate, I have some questions
right now.
Mr. Poole, I am a subscriber to Reason Magazine, and
consider myself a ``small l'' libertarian, if nothing else. The
analogy you made to TVA, the Tennessee Valley Authority, has
piqued my interest. When these folks set the rates, is there a
board of customers that informs that decision?
Mr. Poole. That is a very good question----
Mr. Rokita. Right.
Mr. Poole. I don't know the answer to that.
Mr. Rokita. So let's assume that there is. Do you think it
is appropriate that that board consist of consumers of the
electricity, particularly business consumers of electricity
that would have competing interests against each other,
arranged in such a way that one segment of the competing--the
competitors in the industry could put their thumb on the scale
and adversely affect their competitors in the same industry?
Mr. Poole. No, I think the key factor in creating a
stakeholder board is to try to balance the stakeholders, so
that you don't have any one stakeholder group that can really
dominate the process.
My judgment is that the draft--what is in the bill now
looks like a good attempt. It is maybe not perfect. Maybe it
can be fine-tuned. But you have different categories of
customers who are getting services--you know, general and
business aviation and airlines. You have the people who are
making the system work----
Mr. Rokita. But certainly if you have a situation where
competitors sitting on the board or not, or just--or someone in
the industry who uses--like Mr. Calio mentions--most of it----
Mr. Poole. Right.
Mr. Rokita [continuing]. Can--could take a competitive
advantage, or otherwise ignore another segment of the industry,
that would be problematic, from a board governance perspective.
Mr. Poole. It would. But let me make a point, though, that
the people who are going to be on the board nominated by
airlines are not going to be airline employees, they are not
going to be A4A employees. They are going to be distinguished
citizens that they have confidence in----
Mr. Rokita. Yes, representing that industry. That is the
thing. And if I am representing an industry, whether I am
directly associated with it or not, you know, I have a
fiduciary duty to shareholders to maximize profit.
Mr. Poole. Well, no. But the legislation, as drafted, says
their fiduciary duty is to the air traffic--ATC Corporation,
which is the same principle that has worked for 20 years in
Canada. And that is legally enforceable, that is a--you know,
the fiduciary duty is to the air traffic Corporation, not to
the entities that they are nominated by.
Mr. Rokita. Well, I will have to look at that, because
that----
Mr. Poole. Yes----
Mr. Rokita. It wasn't clear to me----
Mr. Poole. That is a very important----
Mr. Rokita [continuing]. In a couple readings of the
legislation.
Mr. Poole. Yes.
Mr. Rokita. Maybe that needs to be strengthened. Regarding
airspace redesign, let me run a scenario by you so that I
understand this. And this will probably go to Ed and Nick.
If I am chartering a plane into Teterboro, and that is a
part 135 operation that is for commercial revenue. I don't own
the plane, so it is not part 91. In fact, as much as I love my
chairman, I would differentiate: just because you are
generating revenue doesn't necessarily mean you are making
profit. And that is certainly the part 135 industry in most
regards.
Mr. Calio. The airlines know that.
Mr. Rokita. Yes, right. So you know, I want to get us off
this commercial versus noncommercial, because that is not
distinctive, actually.
But let's say we are on the board, and we have the airlines
represented, we have some general aviation represented. And all
of a sudden we notice that these customers flying the part
135s, for example, into Teterboro with their sales team to make
a pitch in New York City could just as easily--or not just as
easily, but for that kind of money--buy a round of first-class
tickets on a given airline.
And me, representing the airlines, would prefer that. That
is what we are in the business to do, sell especially first-
class seats. So what prevents me, the way this language is
written, from making a motion on the board and having me and my
allies--because I agree with that, Mr. Bolen, and you are not
going to change me, because I used to be in board governance,
and I know that 30 percent is effective control--what prevents
me from making a motion, having it seconded, having it voted
favorably to say, ``You know what, we don't need that many
planes going into Teterboro, look at that line. Forget about
fees and charges, but that line going into Teterboro is too
long, that is hampering me from getting my passengers into JFK
or LaGuardia. Therefore, we are going to limit the number of
flights to Teterboro to X,'' and it passes.
And now I have effectively sold more airline seats to go to
JFK or LaGuardia, and----
Mr. Bolen. Well, I think you are hinting at exactly some of
the concerns that we have raised.
I would like to go back and address a couple of other
concerns----
Mr. Rokita. I am over time, and I got to be respectful, so
I am going to limit you to 15 seconds, and then I want Nick to
respond, if that is OK.
Mr. Bolen. I think you are raising a very serious, very
legitimate concern, and it gets to the heart of our concern
about setting up this board.
I also want to point out that there are other concerns
about some of the things that have been said related to taxes
and fees that I think need to be corrected.
Mr. Rokita. OK. I look forward to hearing more offline in
advance of tomorrow.
Nick?
Mr. Calio. The way it works today, there are a limited
number of slots for GA going into Teterboro. That is why they
get diverted elsewhere. I don't believe that would change.
And, you know, Mr. Rokita, I have to say this notion of
this board going outside of its authority--the legislation is
very clear. GA is exempt, except for those who are already part
135----
Mr. Bolen. That is not true.
Mr. Rokita. You know, that is the thing--let me stop. I
don't want to start a fight. But, Chairman, I would like to
know the page number and line that----
Mr. LoBiondo. Well, we will have round 2.
Mr. Rokita. Oh, OK.
Mr. LoBiondo. We have--trying to, you know--we are trying
to accommodate. Everybody has been patient----
Mr. Rokita. That is a very important point, and I don't see
it in----
Mr. LoBiondo. You will have round 2, Mr.--sorry, thank you.
Ms. Brown?
Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And you know, I am
going to be real brief, because I want to give--safety is the
number-one thing that I am concerned with. And the last time
the Government went to a private agency for their assistance
was in--with Amtrak. And then we nickel and dime Amtrak to
death. I know no one remembers that.
And in 1988 President Reagan partially privatized the air
traffic controllers, and we are still recovering.
I have been supportive of the air traffic controllers the
entire time I have been in Congress. But I am concerned with
what is being proposed here today, because we have a system--
yes, when we passed it in 1995, it was very slow getting
started. But they are moving forward. The idea that we would
compromise safety in any way--and someone up there made the
statement that they are concerned about the traveling public,
that is our responsibility, to make sure that we have the
safest system, the safest system. That is my responsibility.
I travel twice a week, and I can tell you I have seen
several specials on the near misses. And if it is a near miss,
then we need to make sure that we give the system the money or
the assistance they need to get it done. But to go completely--
turn it over to a nonprofit, I just can't fathom that.
And let me just tell you what people ask me about is that
when US Airways and American Airlines merged, we don't have
curbside service, or that you have to pay $1,000 for a one-way
ticket to Jacksonville. I mean that is the kind of issues that
the public concerns itself with. They don't have to worry about
safety.
And I want to start with Mr. Bolen. Can you tell us about
safety? Because that is our number-one responsibility.
Mr. Bolen. Well, I think I can tell you that today the U.S.
has the safest air transportation system in the world. And we
are currently experiencing the safest period in our aviation's
history.
What--one of the reasons that safety is improving--and it
is laid forth in a MITRE report--is that we have been adopting
additional safety standards. I think what the report found is,
regardless of governance structure, regardless of the type of
organization, safety has been improving. But nowhere in the
world is it safer than it is here, in the United States.
Ms. Brown. Do you think, in privatizing the system, we
would compromise that safety?
Mr. Bolen. I don't know whether safety will be compromised.
I don't see any empirical data on safety. My concerns are
primarily with access to airports and airspace. I think
consumers will get hurt, I think small towns and rural
communities will get hurt. I think general aviation operations
will get hurt.
Ms. Brown. Mr. Poole? Safety?
Mr. Poole. I think the empirical record shows that safety
has improved in most countries that have done this. The rate of
losses of separation, you know, the standards of how far apart
they have to be, in Canada has improved by half in the time--
you know, it is half what it was 20 years ago, when they
started. That is a pretty good track record on safety.
Ms. Brown. Yes, sir?
Mr. Rinaldi. We do run a safe system. We could always be
safer. I don't want to rest on our laurels.
The budget constraints with the FAA, and the fact that they
don't want to expand into new technology such as remote
towers--we have an airport in northern Virginia, Leesburg
Airport, runs about 125,000 operations a year on a one-runway
operation. It is close to Washington Dulles, and it is very
close to the Washington, DC, airspace. The Commonwealth of
Virginia and the town of Leesburg have been asking for a
control tower there, and the FAA doesn't want to expand their
services. This is where I think we should be focusing on
expanding services out there, to ensure that we have increased
the safety of the system.
Ms. Brown. You mentioned also training, diversity, and--you
know, I have met with several air traffic controllers over a
period of years, and they have talked about what the
additional--what they need. I mean to think that we could have
a system, and that you all could be operating and the rest of
the airport is closed is not going to happen.
Mr. Rinaldi. That is correct. But what we are looking at is
making sure that we are expanding the safety modules, and
implementing new technology so we can enhance the safety of the
system.
Ms. Brown. How do you think privatizing will enhance that?
Mr. Rinaldi. I think if we could streamline the
bureaucratic red tape of the FAA, and give us a stable,
predictable funding stream, we would be able to enhance the
safety of the system.
Ms. Brown. Why can't we do it with our present system? I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you. Mr. Hardy?
Mr. Hardy. Thank you. I would like to thank the chairman
for holding this meeting here today.
You know, I am from Nevada, and we have UAS [unmanned
aircraft system] test appropriations for our site for--out in
Nevada we have the McCarran International Airport within our
State. And what we are talking about here, I believe, is one of
the most vital, important things, not only for our State but
for our Nation. For the world, so to speak, because we are the
busiest place in the world.
However, at the end of the day, I don't think anybody can
argue that we are--and there is no debate on it--that we are
dealing with technology from World War II, back when we were
fighting Japan and Germany. Seventy-five years we have been
dealing with this type of technology. Paper slips really
concern me.
So with that being said, not only is it dated, but it is
also costly. It shows here, according to the FAA, airline
delays and cancellations are costing passengers and shippers in
the airline business nearly $33 billion annually. And the
trends are increasing. The FAA projects that passenger growth--
will continue to grow for years ahead. So, let's get straight
to what we are using, 75-year-old technology. And
inefficiencies in the system are still costing us $30 billion a
year, or annually.
With the safety and security being paramount, as Ms. Brown
has said, I believe that the chairman was absolutely right when
he uses the word ``transformative.'' Speaking of safety, I
would like to talk to Mr. Calio. In your testimony you state
that reform will make our exceptionally safe system even safer.
I want to examine that just a little bit further, and kind of
get a little down deeper, and have you share your thoughts with
us on how that works with this new ATC modernization.
Mr. Calio. We all keep repeating it, and it is true, we
have the safest system in the world. We believe we can have an
even better system with the reforms that are proposed in this
bill.
Right now we are hamstrung by a system that takes years and
years to have good products that could make us even safer get
to market. If you look at some of these reports--and the
easiest one for you to look at would be what came out in
January from the inspector general--and talk about the number
of acquisitions that are online, the number of projects that
are online, how far over time they are, how much over budget
they are, and it shouldn't really take that long.
And, you know, we are not trying to throw Canada in
anybody's face, but they are bringing products on the market
that they are selling all over the world to other air
navigation service providers in 0 to 30 months. We have some
things that have been online for 14 years. By the time a lot of
our products come in, they are already outdated.
The FAA, as currently structured outside of the safety
regulation, cannot in any fashion keep pace with the--with
technology. They are too far behind. Mr. Poole has laid out the
reasons why. With all that together, and with the FAA being
able to focus--and the Government being able to focus on
safety, which is where they should be focusing, it would
improve.
And again, I would point to the MITRE study, which took six
air navigation service providers around the world, at the
request of the FAA, and found that in each case safety was
maintained or got better, and that the focus on safety by both
the regulator and the operators increased.
Mr. Hardy. Thank you. Turning to Mr. Rinaldi, you know, as
a former business owner myself, I know what happens when there
is uncertainty in the market, and what is going on. Can you
give me just a little bit of an idea about your thoughts on
this uncertainty, and the impacts with the controllers?
Mr. Rinaldi. Well, I think that, you know, if you just look
at the uncertainty of the funding--and as we approach a
possible shutdown or a deadline that something has to pass, the
agency actually stops focusing on the modernization projects,
and they actually start to scale back, just in case they go
into shutdown mode. They dust off the manuals, and everybody
starts going--everyone is focused on the potential shutdown.
So, even though we may have only had 15 or 50 days--
whatever the quote was earlier about shutdowns--over the last
couple decades, it is the threat of the shutdown that leads us
up to as we start scaling everything back and preparing and
making sure that we would be able to run with--you know, on a
barebone basis with the shutdown.
So, the uncertainty loses much--so much more productivity
as the issues nongermane to the safety of the National Airspace
System are being thrown around back and forth in----
Mr. Hardy. I would like to just touch on the same thing
with Mr. Calio. You talked about uncertainty and funding
streams yourself. Do you share the impact of that uncertainty
with the airlines, that it has on airlines also?
Mr. Calio. Anything that affects the air traffic
controllers and operations affects the airlines, and being able
to get your constituents from one place to another.
I think it is interesting to note that, over time, Nav
Canada hired more air traffic controllers than they started
with. We believe that could happen here, and it should. Mr.
Rinaldi can talk to it much better than I can, about how long
it takes to get an air traffic controller online. And they are
understaffed.
Mr. Hardy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. LoBiondo. And thank you. We are going to ask for just a
quick, 5-minute recess. We have at this point two more first-
round questions from Mr. Carson and Ms. Titus, and then we will
be going to round 2 for questions.
I know Mr. DeFazio has some, I know that I have some. So we
will be looking to come back in 5 minutes. So we are in a 5-
minute recess.
[Recess]
Mr. LoBiondo. I would like to try to call the committee
back to order, please.
So we will now go to Ms. Titus.
Ms. Titus. Thank you very much. Just to kind of recap--
because I have been sitting here a long time--we were presented
with this major bill a week ago. It is a bill that transforms,
not reforms, despite whatever the new jargon is. We have had
one hearing today, which came at the request of the Democrats--
weren't even going to have that--and tomorrow we are going to
mark it up.
We have had 3 hours of hearing, and almost all the
questions have been answered with very little specificity. In
fact, every answer is basically a, ``Well, trust me, this is
just the beginning of the process, we are going to work it
out.'' Well, that is not very satisfying. And so I have some
concerns that I hope somebody can answer with something
specific.
My first concerns, like a lot of them, are about cost. I
represent Las Vegas. And, as you all know, that is the--one of
the busiest--world's top tourist and convention centers. And I
often hear from the hospitality industry if you increase the
cost of tickets, that is going to hurt the number of people--or
perhaps negatively affect the number of people who come for
recreation and for business. Also we have tour operators as a
big industry that provides transportation out to see the dams,
Colorado River, Grand Canyon. And those costs will be affected.
So I am just wondering if anybody can guarantee me that,
since the purpose of this privatizing--I have heard this over
and over, too--is to run more efficiently, have cost savings,
if those cost savings will be passed on to passengers, or if
they are going to go into the bottom-line profit of airlines.
So can I say to my industry, ``Yes, this is going to help to
bring down costs, it is not going to increase costs''?
Then the second major concern I have, which is also one
that is shared by many, is the representation on the board. My
colleague, Mr. Hardy, was talking about how big the drone
industry is in Nevada. That is true, it is growing everywhere.
And yet you have no representative on the board. The air tour
operators aren't on the board. Air ambulances aren't on the
board. Consumers aren't on the board. Department of Defense,
not on the board. Now, you got some little extra advisory
committee over here, but we all know that is just window
dressing. They don't really have any kind of authority. So how
are their views represented by this board?
And then the third question that is--maybe somebody can
address is there has been a lot of focus on union issues for
air traffic controllers. But what about the other unions, those
who do the safety inspections, the tower maintenance, the
construction? Is this board going to honor Davis-Bacon
provisions? Or, now that it is a private Corporation, can they
just throw all that out the window?
So whoever wants to answer those three questions, I would
appreciate it. And maybe we can start with you, Mr. Poole.
Mr. Poole. I can tell you that, as I said earlier, there is
a large potential for costs coming down because of the
economies of scale inherent in air traffic control, and the
ability to focus more on running the thing as a business.
Now, whether airlines will pass along cost savings that
accrue to them in terms of tickets, that I cannot answer. You
would have to ask airlines that question.
Ms. Titus. You know, so many times we have heard that you
need to run it more like a business, and then we let businesses
do it, and then Government has to come back and bail those
businesses out because, sure enough, they couldn't do it more
efficiently and effectively and cheaper than we could----
Mr. Poole. But the good news here is that this is not a
science experiment, because we have 50 or 60, depending on how
you want to count it--or 80 countries that have shifted this
outside of the transport agency, put the ATC system at arm's
length from the safety regulator, and it is working very well.
And we are seeing cost savings, we are seeing no negative
impact on savings. And, in many cases, improvements in safety.
So, I mean, it is--nobody can say you do X and you
absolutely get Y. But we have empirical----
Ms. Titus. That would be a science experiment.
Mr. Poole. We have empirical data, and lots of it. So, I
mean, I am pretty confident this is going to be a very big step
in the right direction.
Ms. Titus. But not in a country that is comparable to the
United States.
Yes, sir?
Mr. Bolen. Well, I think it is a leap of faith. I think we
are being told that the costs are going to come down. We have
not seen where there will be personnel savings, we have not
seen where there will be closures. So that part is not laid
out.
I will take a little bit of issue with what Bob Poole has
said. There has actually only been a couple of countries that
have moved air traffic out of Government entirely. So, you
know, you are looking at Canada and the United Kingdom. You are
not looking at 50 and 60 in all these other things. The rest of
them are in Government. And what we saw with the United
Kingdom, for example, is they did require a bailout when the
economy went down.
With regard to the diverse groups that are not represented
on the board, I think that is the challenge. We have the most
diverse air transportation system in the world. It is
constantly changing. It is constantly evolving. And the way
that that community makes sure that its access to airports and
airspace is protected is because of Congress, not because they
were put into a board.
We are talking about turning this over to a monopoly, and
letting the monopoly decide who can come in and who will stay
out. I think it is a major concern.
Ms. Titus. If I could just sum up real quick, it seems--
Mr.--just a second. There has been an uncertainty of the
shutdown, uncertainty of the market, uncertainty of this bill,
uncertainty of who is on the board. Seems like maybe mandatory
spending would be a better way to reform, rather than transform
the system. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Sanford?
Mr. Sanford. Thanks, Chairman. Two quick thoughts. One, I
guess this would be more directed to the chairman. I just want
to go on record as a concern, the, in essence, $20 billion from
a budgetary impact standpoint going forward.
As I understand it, the chairman is over, I guess now,
testifying before the Committee on Ways and Means, and maybe
gets that wrinkled out, or leadership will. But I just--you
know, the--what happens with the money, I think, is very, very
important, going forward. That is outside the jurisdiction of
this committee, but I think it is very, very important.
On to this bill, though, at this point in testimony
everything that could be said has been said. But if I might
turn to you, Mr. Calio, if you were just to wrap it up--because
you hear the different points. I saw the Reason article, and it
talked about how, at the end of the day, this bill would save
money, it makes the system more efficient.
You know, if we are going to live in Thomas Friedman's flat
world and we are competing with folks in India and China and a
whole lot of other places around the globe, fundamentally, as a
society, we need to look for ways that make us more
competitive, that bring down costs.
Any wrap-up from your end that you would pass on to me, as
I take this message back home and inevitably talk about it in
town hall meetings?
Mr. Calio. Yes. We can make our system a lot better. The
way the FAA currently operates, we have thrown--you have thrown
billions and billions of dollars at the FAA, and it has not
been well spent. And it could be better spent for good products
and good acquisitions, better facilities that would make air
travel much better, even safer than it is now, and would
provide the opportunity for more commerce than we have now.
In addition to that, you wouldn't be faced with an
uncertain funding source. The users of the system, except for
certain users of the system, would pay for that, and you would
have a much better way to provide people in and out of the
system.
Mr. Sanford. So, again, summing it up at this point in
testimony, what we would probably agree on is that change is
something that we naturally fear. There is uncertainty,
certainly, that comes with any change. But in the whole of
your, you know, professional estimation, you would say this
change would be for the good, from the standpoint of the
consumer, the taxpayer, and the safety of the system in the
aggregate?
Mr. Calio. I absolutely would. We could replace the current
FAA, outside of the safety regulator, with a construct, with an
entity that would be far more efficient.
The FAA, you can count--I don't want to misspeak--there are
multiple facilities across the country, multiple centers across
the country. They each have an HR department, they have their
own accounting department. You could keep going down the list.
And, you know, they build up these silos that make it very
difficult to get anything done.
So if you want to change that, you have to address it. You
know, you don't keep holding more and more hearings and try to
push the deck chairs around, which is what we have done. And
all of these different reports tell you that it just doesn't
work. You know? You all have tried, you know, through
oversight, through mandates in bills to get things done.
And the culture is resistant, as Mr. Poole pointed out, and
they just don't make the progress that we need to have made to
get products online, to have better procedures, better
processes, and get--you know, for instance--again, I hate to
keep going back to it--I don't hate to--you know, more
controllers online.
Mr. Sanford. Sure.
Mr. Calio. They run the system.
Mr. Sanford. One last question in the minute and a half I
have got left. I guess this is for you, Mr. Poole. Some
opponents have said, you know, there might be problems, though,
with regard to, for instance, shooting approaches on instrument
flight, that, you know, you shoot your approaches on good days
so that you are ready on a bad day. But if it is going to cost
you more in a user pay-type system, people might be--
particularly general aviation types--might be prone to shoot
fewer approaches.
That is a red herring? It is false? Or, no, it is partially
accurate, but----
Mr. Poole. Well, it is false in the terms of the way this
bill is written, because there are no user fees for general
aviation, period, full stop. So that problem cannot arise. And
I think airlines have their training programs--airlines that do
pay fees are going to continue to do all the training they need
to do, whether there are fees or not, because they know safety
is their bottom line, and they----
Mr. Sanford. How about the middle ground, though, with
contract pilots that--say you are a--run a jet type of
scenario--I don't know if they run their own training programs,
or you hire contract pilots that have X-number of hours, and
they have got to keep up with their own hours and their own
training. Could it negatively impact those guys, or----
Mr. Poole. No, because they will be doing it at GA
airports, mostly likely, and they would only--I mean if the
airport--if the GA airport has its own landing fee, that is
entirely separate from air traffic control. So there would be
no ATC charges for those individual pilots, when they are
shooting touch and gos, and that sort of thing.
Mr. Sanford. OK. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you.
Mr. Carson?
Mr. Carson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we all can
agree that we want to keep our skies the safest in the world,
period. And I am not convinced that the comparison really to
Canada or European models is necessarily accurate. We have
twice the airspace and the volume of air traffic in the U.S.
My question is for Mr. Bolen. What are your thoughts, sir--
what are your thoughts concerning what my colleagues cite
compared to the airspace we see in Canada?
Mr. Bolen. Well, I think it is an apples-to-oranges
comparison. Canada is very different from the United States in
the size, as you pointed out. They are also very different
because they have all privatized airports in Canada. So I don't
think it is an apples-to-apples comparison. And certainly the
business aviation people I know up there have made that point
over and over again.
I think it is, as I said before, a real leap of faith to
think that doing this is going to make better technology and
NextGen and all these other things necessarily happen.
Certainly in the United States the general aviation community
has been second to no one in pushing for the new technologies,
in promoting NextGen. We were the first to equip with GPS. We
were the first to fly those routes, and we continue to be
pushing that, including the mandates for ADS-B.
So, I think the idea that we are going to solve all our
problems by giving the system over to the airlines is, at best,
a leap of faith, and I think it is a flawed premise.
Mr. Carson. Thank you. And this question is for everyone. I
would like to hear your concerns and your views about the
addition of a physical barricade outside of the cockpit. We
have heard from proponents who point out that this measure
could be effective and not so expensive, but I have also heard
objections. And I am planning to offer an amendment to add a
secondary barrier to help with this effort. What are your
thoughts, in terms of it being an additional safety procedure?
Mr. Poole. Well, I have looked into this in my role on
dealing with aviation security, and I think it--the studies
that I have seen suggest that it would be a cost-effective
measure, be better than a lot of other things that the TSA is
currently doing or mandating. A one-time cost that would be
analogous to the one-time cost only of the reinforced main
doors, as opposed to the ongoing cost of something like sky
marshals, and so forth.
Mr. Carson. Sure, sure. Yes?
Mr. Calio. Mr. Carson, safety is our highest priority. We
support the section of the underlying bill that calls for a
full assessment of the safety of the cockpit. There are
multiple layers of security in place today. Some of our members
have installed secondary barriers. Others think that the
current security procedures in place and multiple levels of
security are sufficient. And, rather than just jump to a
mandate, as is often the case, I think we ought to let the
underlying bill work its will and see--and make the assessment.
Mr. Carson. Yes, sir. Good job. Thank you, gentlemen. I
yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shuster [presiding]. Thank you. With that, Mr. LoBiondo
is recognized.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For, I think, Mr.
Poole, the FAA, as we know, currently depends on appropriations
from Congress and, as we know well in Washington, future budget
allocations are never really certain.
The Government Accountability Office found in a December
2015 report budget instability and uncertainty has seriously
impacted NextGen implementation and air traffic controller
staffing, among other things. How would the cost-based
financing system and bonding authority provided in the new ATC
Corporation provide for stable and predictable funding to
finally achieve successful, long-term capital projects, in your
view?
Mr. Poole. Well, I think the biggest part of that, in
answer to the question, is the bonding authority, because when
you are doing large-scale capital modernization in just about
any field, the sensible thing to do is not do it out of
operating cashflow, but to bond--if you have a predictable
revenue stream that the markets will accept, it makes very good
sense to finance those large-scale capital--just like you would
not save up the cash to buy a house and deprive yourself of the
benefits for a long period of time, likewise we are depriving
ourselves of benefits from air traffic modernization by funding
it piecemeal, dribs and drabs, on an annual appropriations
basis, as opposed to large-scale revenue bond financing.
You know, you don't build a new Denver Airport out of
cashflow, you do it out of revenue bonds. So the same thing
with--that is really the key here, I think, is to be able to
have the revenue stream not only that is reliable for
operations, but that gives you the means to do long-term,
large-scale financing.
Mr. LoBiondo. Again, for you, Mr. Poole. In March 2015, in
testimony before our subcommittee, Mr. Matt Hampton with the
DOT Office of Inspector General stated that one of the lessons
learned from the other nations' experiences in separating and
commercializing their air traffic control function was planning
for the transition period.
In your opinion, is the transition process included in this
bill sufficient to ensure no significant disruption to NextGen
and overall safety levels?
Mr. Poole. I think it is a sufficient time. Most of these
transitions have taken 2 to 4 years to work things out, get the
fee system in place, and, you know, sort of redefine the
organizational lines of business, and this sort of thing. And
the transition period in the bill seems right in the mainstream
of the experience in other countries.
The fact that our system is larger, I think, is
completely--it is a red herring, because the system is already
in place. The system is at the scale it needs to be. You are
talking about a change in the management and organization of
the workforce, and in how procurement programs are operated.
But all the existing contracts would stay in place, you know,
there would not be any kind of sharp disruption in ongoing
operations or contracts.
So I think the several-year transition period in the bill
is realistic.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you. And I will yield to Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Earlier, Mr. Poole
said that we would strive--or could, perhaps, under this
proposal--have the lowest unit cost in the world. Does anyone
disagree with that objective?
[No response.]
Mr. DeFazio. OK, good. Now, let's move forward. The lowest
unit cost in the world is Iceland, followed very closely by
Mexico, followed very closely by India. Now--and this will be a
question to Mr. Rinaldi.
First, I got to congratulate you. You drive a tough
bargain, and I have never seen such good labor protections in
any piece of legislation that has any chance of passing a
Republican Congress. So congratulations.
Mr. Rinaldi. Thank you, sir.
Mr. DeFazio. Good work for your members.
Mr. Rinaldi. Appreciate it.
Mr. DeFazio. In fact, it is so good I hear the Freedom
Caucus is opposed to the bill, because they don't like the
labor protections. I will give you that.
But now comes the part that you won't like quite as much.
You know, you say in a note you sent out that we will be able
to negotiate a shorter workweek. So somehow we are going to
strive to have the lowest unit costs in the world--that is
competing with the air traffic controllers in India, where they
don't bother to train pilots sometimes, or Mexico--what do air
traffic controllers earn in Mexico?
Mr. Rinaldi. I don't know, and I did not send out a memo
that said to my membership that we were going to have a shorter
workweek.
Mr. DeFazio. Well, it is a ATC Corporation questions and
answers----
Mr. Rinaldi. From when?
Mr. DeFazio. When was this? This week. And it says in--
under A16, talking about NATCA members not being contractors,
and then it goes on to say that.
Mr. Rinaldi. No.
Mr. DeFazio. So----
Mr. Rinaldi. We did two telcons this week with our
membership, where they were--had many questions. What--maybe it
wasn't captured correctly.
Mr. DeFazio. OK.
Mr. Rinaldi. What I did say is around the world they work a
shorter workweek than we do.
Mr. DeFazio. OK.
Mr. Rinaldi. We work the most amount of hours, the most
amount of airplanes----
Mr. DeFazio. Right. But the point I am making is we have
all agreed you want the lowest unit costs in the world.
Second--let's be second lowest. That means we are going to beat
Mexico. One of the largest components of this system is labor.
It is not a--that capital-intensive. Labor-intensive system.
And Mr. Poole is shaking his head--so how--we would have to
be how much more productive than Mexico or India----
Mr. Poole. Let me----
Mr. DeFazio. No, Mr. Poole, I haven't recognized you.
Mr. Poole. All right.
Mr. DeFazio. So this is a question for Mr. Rinaldi, because
I think this goes to the heart of this issue. I like the labor
protections. I am very concerned about where this whole thing
could head, as a private Corporation, in terms of, you know,
getting the lowest unit cost in the world, what that means for
safety, and what it means for the workers after we renegotiate
contracts.
Mr. Rinaldi. So here is the thing. You asked the question
do we want the lowest cost of unit. What we want to make sure
is we run the safest, most efficient system in the world. That
is what the air traffic controllers want. I am not worried
about the lowest cost of unit.
But what I am worried about is our current environment. And
I applaud you for working with us, knowing that status quo is
unacceptable, and knowing that we would never support a for-
profit model. So anything that falls in between that, we are
willing to work with you and the chairman and the committee on
anything that works there.
My goal is to make sure we continue to run a safe and
efficient system, we staff our facilities, we build new, modern
facilities, and we have modern equipment to run the aviation
system into the future. Currently, right now, we are hanging
on. But if this continues down the same path that we have done
for the last 10 years, we are going to struggle, and we are
going to have to reduce capacity, because we just want to have
controllers to open up positions.
Mr. DeFazio. I--OK. I would agree with that statement.
Now, here is a point. Of course we are leaving the people
who have to certify the new approaches, certify the operations,
certify the new equipment, they are all subject to general fund
appropriations, and they are over here. They are also the
people who have to certify aircraft. The manufacturers aren't
thrilled with this idea. They are subject to appropriation,
they are over here.
Mr. Rinaldi. And a lot of----
Mr. DeFazio. They aren't protected by being under the--
whatever fee structure this board creates.
Mr. Rinaldi. Well, it would be kind of schizophrenic,
because I am going to be working--I am going to be representing
a lot of the members that stay behind in the FAA.
Mr. DeFazio. Right.
Mr. Rinaldi. Because I am--they are still members of our
union. We will be working those issues. I will still be coming
to you and asking you for appropriations to make sure we----
Mr. DeFazio. Right. But wouldn't----
Mr. Rinaldi [continuing]. Do this thing----
Mr. DeFazio. Wouldn't it be better to bring them along?
Mr. Rinaldi. Into a whole--like I said, we applaud your
efforts, and----
Mr. DeFazio. OK, all right. Thanks, OK.
Mr. Rinaldi [continuing]. We are willing to work on
anything that is not status quo----
Mr. DeFazio. OK.
Mr. Rinaldi [continuing]. And anything that is not for
profit.
Mr. DeFazio. Thanks, Paul. I want to make two quick other
points.
I heard repeatedly that the Secretary will appoint people
who support the public interest. As I said, President Sanders,
yes, I bet so. President Trump? Maybe not so much. Consumers
might not be at the top of the list. And all it says is
directors appointed by the Secretary. It doesn't say that they
have to represent consumer or public or any other interest. It
could be--they could be two more airlines.
And then one other point. You know, 61 percent of the
operations every day are regional airlines, and that is 45
percent of the passengers, which presents a problem in the
system in--when we talk about LaGuardia, and things like that.
But the point is, they don't get a seat on the board. So the
airlines that are carrying nearly half the passengers in the
country and do 61 percent of the operations do not get a seat
on the board.
You know, Mr. Calio was asked about why four major
airlines, and he said, ``Well, it is kind of proportional,''
but it is not exactly proportional when you look at commercial
service.
So, you know, there are many, many issues that I think need
to be ironed out. I have so many concerns about this construct.
I appreciate the opportunity for the hearing, Mr. Chairman, but
I really believe that, you know, we are not ready to go forward
with this proposal. You are, and we will take it up tomorrow,
and we will see where it ends up.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you very much.
Mr. Poole, if you would, answer that question on unit
costs.
Mr. Poole. Yes. What I was trying to say was that I think
we were just a little bit bamboozled, because the proper
standard is for developed Western countries, the lowest unit
cost, not for all countries in the world, because the labor
costs are tiny in comparison to ours in developing countries.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you.
Mr. Rokita?
Mr. Rokita. I thank the chairman. As I said before, I thank
you for your leadership, sir, in getting us to this point.
When I ran out of time we were discussing an example. And
if I was a member of this board, perhaps representing the
airlines, what would prohibit me in this language from making a
motion to choke of a--access to a general aviation airport that
we knew I had potential customers flying into, so as to give a
competitive advantage to selling more airline seats.
And then, during the break, for the record, I will mention
that group's--stakeholders of all sides came and offered
language I didn't find on point to my example. That is, from
everything I am reading here, I can, in fact, make such a
motion. And if it is voted unfavorably, it then moves to a
different section of the bill, section 90501, called ``Safety,
Oversight, and Regulation of the Corporation,'' and that is by
the FAA.
So this does move to the FAA for final approval, my motion,
my successful motion. And--but the problem is it is only looked
at by the FAA under this proposal for safety. So that is to say
that if--as long as that choking off of the GA airport doesn't
adversely affect safety, the language says in section 3 on page
74, ``The Secretary shall approve the proposal.''
Then it further goes on to say in this language, on page
76, that if I am an aggrieved party on the board--not on the
board of the general public--and I want to fight that approval
and take it to court--starting on page 76, line 11--the court
may overturn my motion, the approval of the Secretary, only
upon the finding of clear error or abuse of discretion. A very
high standard.
On the other hand, if my motion failed on this board, and
the airlines, for example, wanted to go--and this--it is not an
antagonistic example, I am trying to get us, Mr. Chairman, a
path forward here--but if I lost the motion, and I was
interested in having that motion approved to choke off, for
example, that GA airport, and I took it to court, I get to have
a trial de novo. That means the court is not bound by any
deference to the Secretary or anybody else, the exact almost
opposite standard that abuse of discretion is.
So the scales aren't even here. And I guess what my example
illustrates is that when you have natural competitors in the
same place on the same board, this is very hard to adjudicate
for board governance purposes. And when we are talking about
national assets, treasures, really, whether it is our airspace
or parks or whatever else that have different users for
different reasons, it makes this kind of leadership that is
exemplified in this bill--again, leadership that I applaud--
very hard to get done. But I am committed to try to do that.
Another thing that was--another issue that was brought up,
and I was--testimony that was made I completely disagree with--
is that there are no user fees for GA. There are user fees for
general aviation. And, Mr. Poole, for the record, he is
furrowing his brow right now, and that is because Mr. Poole
equates general aviation with nonprofit, non-revenue-generating
activities. And that, in fact, is not the case. This language
specifically blesses fees for a segment of general aviation
that generates revenue, and I would certainly argue not always
makes profit, just as Nick says about the airlines. I mean I--
so this is a user fee system that we are proposing here for
general aviation.
Finally, in my first round of questioning I asked about
fiduciary duty and so on and so forth, and it goes to my
earlier comment about how can you operate this board
effectively with such--with these different stakeholders and
users who have directly conflicting interests sometimes--
perhaps day to day, perhaps longer. And it was said that, well,
no, the fiduciary duty is to, in fact, the Corporation, not the
people you are supposed to be representing on this board,
which, if that was really the case, Nick or GA or anyone else
wouldn't have any problem with how many people were on the
board, I would guess. But the fact is they are representing
their interests, that is why they are there.
And, in fact, on page 47 there is an exemption that says an
entity that has a material interest as a supplier, client, or
user of the Corporation's services can be on the board if the
board unanimously determines with the concurrence in writing of
a majority of the nominating members that such material
interests would not likely or adversely affect in a material
way the individual's ability to discharge the individual's
obligations as a director.
So, you know, this kind of language says that that--those
conflicts do exist, and they are real, and we ought to treat
them this way and figure out a way, using this language as a
base to get us where we want to go, to maintain the safety of a
system, to make it more efficient, to leverage the technologies
that we have that we know are available, so that we can remain
competitive and win in a 21st-century world. I yield back.
Mr. Shuster. Yes, Mr. Rokita, just--you brought up a couple
of interesting points. I think we may have some solutions
there.
The first you pointed out was--I believe you said it was
for safety, but then it goes on to say, ``and otherwise
consistent with the public interest.'' That is something we can
certainly sit down and look at and try to strengthen that, take
that off the--maybe have a--more peace of mind on that
particular part of it.
The other thing was the board member--that had to do, when
we looked at that, of--as--if somebody had some kind of
technical expertise that we might want to make an exemption
for. But again, if that is something that we can talk about, we
may be able to strengthen that to take away some of those
objections or concerns that you have.
Mr. Rokita. The chairman missed my mention that I will have
a few amendments.
Mr. Shuster. What is that?
Mr. Rokita. The chairman missed my earlier comment that I
am going to have a few amendments.
Mr. Shuster. Well, the chairman knows his Members. I knew
you would have a couple of amendments.
[Laughter]
Mr. Shuster. But anyways, those couple things you
mentioned, I think we might be able to work through those, I
think, and we will be looking at your amendments, also.
So, with that, Mr. Sanford? You are done? I guess it looks
like we are done for the day.
I want to thank everybody for being here. Mr. Bolen, Mr.
Poole, Mr. Rinaldi, Mr. Calio, thanks for being here. Again, I
look at all the folks at that desk there, they have--everybody
there has been there for 20 years or so, some more than others.
And you know we have been talking about this and talking
about this, and we have got a system that just hasn't been able
to modernize the way we think it should, it hasn't been able to
modernize the way other countries--I still come back to that--
when I learned this--a couple weeks ago that Canada, by the end
of 2017, is going to be fully deployed, a worldwide GPS system,
it is not America, it is the Canadians doing it, and I think
that is--you know, one of the things that I think the Canadians
look at, in talking to them, is they need more planes in their
system to continue to drive down the cost. And that is exactly
what they are going to do.
And it is--again, it would be wrong for us, especially on
our watch, to let another country become the gold standard, the
leader in worldwide air traffic control. So, again, I am
committed to try to find a way forward on this, to do what is
right, what I believe is right for the country, what is right
for Americans, and keeping the safest system in the world.
So again, thank everybody for being here. This is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:42 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]