General Aviation Airports: Oversight and Funding (Testimony, 06/09/99,
GAO/T-RCED-99-214).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO discussed the Federal Aviation
Administration's (FAA) oversight of and the funding for capital
development at general aviation airports, focusing on: (1) the adequacy
of FAA's oversight and enforcement of general aviation airports'
compliance with federal requirements related to the use of their land;
and (2) how general aviation airports' planned capital development costs
compare with funding levels.
GAO noted that: (1) all FAA field offices rely primarily on third-party
complaints to identify airports' noncompliance with allowable uses; (2)
only 4 of FAA's 23 field offices monitor general aviation airports to
ensure that they comply with federal requirements to use airport land
only for airport purposes; (3) to do this, these four field offices rely
on the airports' self-certifications that they are in compliance; (4)
relying on airports' self-certifications and third-party complaints is
not sufficient; (5) without monitoring, airports' unauthorized use of
land has gone uncorrected--in some cases for over a decade; (6) for
example, airport land has been inappropriately used for mobile home
parks, little league baseball fields, dog pounds, duck-hunting blinds,
and city police, fire, and vehicle maintenance facilities; (7)
unauthorized land use has resulted in the loss or diversion of millions
of dollars in airport revenues from general aviation airports, which are
typically owned by local governments; (8) in some cases, increased risks
to aviation safety also resulted; (9) for example, FAA determined that
birds attracted by an unauthorized landfill on an airport posed a
possible danger to aircraft; (10) if and when FAA becomes aware that an
airport is not complying, it has a variety of statutory and
administrative alternatives; (11) however, FAA has generally chosen not
to use them, preferring to address noncompliance through negotiation and
settlement, an approach that has not always been effective in resolving
airports' noncompliance; (12) GAO reported that the $10 billion in
annual planned capital development for all the nation's airports that
are eligible for federal funding exceeded their 1996 funding by $3
billion; (13) for general aviation airports, which depend more heavily
on federal grants for their capital development than commercial
airports, the proportional shortfall is even greater; (14) GAO reported
that general aviation airports' annual planned development of nearly
$1.5 billion was more than twice as much as their 1996 funding; and (15)
while federal grants for airports, including general aviation, increased
in 1998, federal funding for general aviation capital development still
represents only about 35 percent of these airports' planned capital
development that is eligible for federal funding.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: T-RCED-99-214
TITLE: General Aviation Airports: Oversight and Funding
DATE: 06/09/99
SUBJECT: Airports
Funds management
Federal aid for transportation
Noncompliance
Land use agreements
Federal grants
Future budget projections
Federal property management
Internal controls
IDENTIFIER: FAA Airport Improvement Program
Airport and Airway Trust Fund
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved. Major **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters, **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and **
** single lines. The numbers on the right end of these lines **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the **
** document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the **
** page numbers of the printed product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Before the Subcommittee on Aviation, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, House of Representatives
For Release
on Delivery
Expected at
10:00 a.m. EDT
Wednesday
June 9, 1999
GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORTS -
OVERSIGHT AND FUNDING
Statement of John H. Anderson, Jr., Director,
Transportation Issues,
Resources, Community, and Economic
Development Division
GAO/T-RCED-99-214
GAO/RCED-99-214T
(348178)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
AIP -
FAA -
============================================================ Chapter 0
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
We are here today to discuss the Federal Aviation Administration's
(FAA) oversight of and the funding for capital development at general
aviation airports. The federal government has made financial grants
or transferred federal land to about 2,000 general aviation
airports.\1 For many communities, a general aviation airport is their
primary access to air transportation, and general aviation airports
can provide economic benefits to communities by attracting new
employers to the area. Like commercial service airports, general
aviation airports are subject to FAA's oversight and must compete
with commercial airports for federal funding from FAA's Airport
Improvement Program. Over the last few years, we have issued several
reports and testimonies on commercial and general aviation airports'
planned capital development and funding sources.\2 Just last month,
we reported on FAA's oversight and enforcement of land use at general
aviation airports.\3
To receive federal assistance, airports must agree to abide by
certain requirements designed to ensure that the public interest is
served. Among other things, airports must obtain approval from FAA
before altering the use or ownership of airport land and must use
airport revenues only for their operation, maintenance, or
development. FAA is responsible for monitoring and enforcing
compliance with these requirements. My testimony today focuses on
two questions important to general aviation airports: (1) How
adequate is FAA's oversight and enforcement of general aviation
airports' compliance with federal requirements related to the use of
their land? and (2) How do general aviation airports' planned
capital development costs compare with current funding levels?
In summary:
-- All FAA field offices rely primarily on third-party complaints
to identify airports' noncompliance with allowable uses. Only 4
of FAA's 23 field offices monitor general aviation airports to
ensure that they comply with federal requirements to use airport
land only for airport purposes. To do this, these four field
offices rely on the airports' self-certifications that they are
in compliance. Relying on airports' self-certifications and
third-party complaints is not sufficient. Without monitoring,
airports' unauthorized use of land has gone uncorrected--in some
cases for over a decade. For example, airport land has been
inappropriately used for mobile home parks; little league
baseball fields; dog pounds; duck-hunting blinds; and city
police, fire, and vehicle maintenance facilities. Unauthorized
land use has resulted in the loss or diversion of millions of
dollars in airport revenues from general aviation airports,
which are typically owned by local governments. In some cases,
increased risks to aviation safety also resulted. For example,
FAA determined that birds attracted by an unauthorized landfill
on an airport posed a possible danger to aircraft. If and when
FAA becomes aware that an airport is not complying, it has a
variety of statutory and administrative alternatives. However,
FAA has generally chosen not to use them, preferring to address
noncompliance through negotiation and settlement, an approach
that has not always been effective in resolving airports'
noncompliance. Our report included recommendations designed to
address these problems.
-- We reported that the $10 billion in annual planned capital
development for all the nation's airports that are eligible for
federal funding exceeded their 1996 funding by $3 billion. For
general aviation airports, which depend more heavily on federal
grants for their capital development than commercial airports,
the proportional shortfall is even greater. We reported that
general aviation airports' annual planned development of nearly
$1.5 billion was more than twice as much as their 1996 funding.
While federal grants for airports, including general aviation,
increased in 1998, federal funding for general aviation capital
development still represents only about 35 percent of these
airports' planned capital development that is eligible for
federal funding.
--------------------
\1 While commercial service airports handle regularly scheduled
commercial airline traffic, general aviation airports support
noncommercial aviation traffic.
\2 Airport Development Needs: Estimating Future Costs
(GAO/RCED-97-99, Apr. 7, 1997); Airport Financing: Funding Sources
for Airport Development (GAO/RCED-98-71, Mar. 12, 1998); Airfield
Pavement: Keeping Nation's Runways in Good Condition Could Require
Substantially Higher Spending (GAO/RCED-98-226, July 31, 1998);
Airport Financing: Annual Funding As Much As $3 Billion Less Than
Planned Development (GAO/T-RCED-99-84, Feb. 10, 1999); and Airport
Financing: Smaller Airports Face Future Funding Shortfalls
(GAO/T-RCED-99-96, Feb. 22, 1999).
\3 General Aviation Airports: Unauthorized Land Use Highlights Need
for Improved Oversight and Enforcement (GAO/RCED-99-109, May 7,
1999).
BACKGROUND
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1
Of the more than 18,000 general aviation airports in the United
States, only 2,806 qualify for federal Airport Improvement Program
(AIP) grants. These grants are awarded by FAA and funded through the
Airport and Airway Trust Fund, which is financed by taxes on domestic
airline tickets, international air travel from the United States,
domestic cargo transported by air, and noncommercial aviation fuel.
General aviation airports range from small rural facilities that have
only a few resident aircraft to large general aviation airports that
accommodate hundreds of corporate aircraft and thousands of tons of
cargo. These airports rely on grants from federal and state
governments as well as tax-exempt bonds and revenue from operations
to fund their capital development projects.
Since 1982, FAA has provided $4.7 billion in AIP grants to general
aviation airports and has historically provided federal land to some
general aviation airports to develop and expand the nation's aviation
infrastructure. In exchange for this federal assistance, airports
must agree to abide by a number of requirements, such as obtaining
approval from FAA before altering the use or ownership of airport
land and using airport revenues only for the airports' operating
expenses and other nonoperating expenditures, such as capital
development.\4
The purpose of the restriction on revenue uses is to make airports as
self-sustaining as possible and to minimize the need for federal
assistance.
FAA's Office of Airports, through its network of 23 field offices,
administers AIP and is responsible for overseeing airports'
compliance with federal grant and land transfer requirements. These
offices are also responsible for taking enforcement actions, when
necessary.
--------------------
\4 With the consent of FAA, airport land not needed for aviation
purposes may be sold or leased so that the airport can use the
resulting revenues to support airport development, improvement,
maintenance, and operations. Generally, if an airport sells or
leases land for less than its fair market value, the revenues are
considered to be lost, or forgone. In addition, if an airport owner
uses airport land for nonairport purposes, such as for city police or
fire departments, and does not pay rent to the airport, the revenues
are considered to be diverted from the airport.
FAA'S GENERAL AVIATION
OVERSIGHT IS INADEQUATE TO
ENSURE LAND-USE COMPLIANCE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2
FAA's oversight of general aviation airports is inadequate to ensure
compliance with land use requirements. When airports have not
complied with federal requirements for the use of airport land, FAA's
preference for negotiation over enforcement has not always been
effective in resolving the noncompliance.
INTERNAL CONTROLS ARE
INADEQUATE TO ENSURE
COMPLIANCE
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2.1
Although FAA policy clearly calls for compliance monitoring, only 4
of the 23 FAA field offices regularly monitor general aviation
airports' compliance with land-use requirements. Combined, these
four offices are responsible for only about 20 percent of the general
aviation airports that have received grant funds or land from the
federal government. These four offices meet FAA's monitoring
requirement by periodically obtaining airport's self-certifications.
All FAA field offices rely primarily on third-party complaints to
identify airports' noncompliance.
Relying on airports' self-certifications and third-party complaints
is not sufficient for ensuring compliance with federal requirements.
For example, the Department of Transportation's Inspector General
reported that 14 of the 15 general aviation airports it had
identified as not complying with revenue use requirements had
previously certified they were in compliance, and third-party
complaints had been filed against only 2 of the 15 airports.\5
Because FAA does not monitor general aviation airports' compliance,
neither FAA nor we know the extent of noncompliance. However, using
the limited information we obtained from some FAA field offices, we
identified 24 airports where unauthorized land use has occurred since
1990. Transportation's Inspector General found that for five of
these airports, almost $6.8 million in revenues had been lost or
diverted. The 24 cases involved airports in 15 states under the
oversight of 12 different FAA field offices. The seriousness of the
land use violations ranged from minor, isolated infractions to
periods of repeated unauthorized use spanning more than two decades
without correction. For example, airport land has been
inappropriately used for mobile home parks; little league baseball
fields; dog pounds; duck-hunting blinds; and city police, fire, and
vehicle maintenance facilities. Safety problems can also result from
the unauthorized use of airport land, and 4 of the 24 cases we
identified involved safety issues. For example, at one airport, an
unauthorized landfill attracted birds, creating a risk to landing and
departing aircraft. At another airport, the unauthorized use of
airport land to promote hunting activities attracted birds, and one
aircraft suffered $20,000 in damage because of a "birdstrike.�
Unauthorized construction at another airport led to an aircraft
accident�while taxiing at the airport at night, a plane hit an
unmarked and unlighted excavation hole for a sports facility. No
injuries occurred.
--------------------
\5 Interim Summary Report on the Audit of Monitoring Airport Revenue;
Federal Aviation Administration, R9-FA-4-004 (Mar. 7, 1994).
FAA EMPHASIZES NEGOTIATION
OVER ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2.2
FAA has a variety of administrative and statutory enforcement tools
for resolving noncompliance but has generally chosen not to use them.
If an airport does not voluntarily make corrections, FAA's policy is
to formally notify the airport of its noncompliance as the first step
toward appropriate sanctions or penalties. We found, however, that
FAA field offices very rarely take this first step. For example, out
of the 24 cases of unauthorized land use we reviewed, FAA had only
formally notified 2 airports about their noncompliance. However, in
both cases, FAA reached an agreement with the airport to resolve the
noncompliance without using enforcement tools.
When agreements cannot be negotiated, FAA field offices may take
administrative actions such as denying requests to use airport
property for nonairport purposes. In cases of egregious or
persistent noncompliance, FAA may assess civil penalties, pursue
legal action through the courts, and ultimately, reclaim title to
donated land. In addition, the Congress has strengthened FAA's
enforcement powers to resolve revenue diversion cases by including
restrictive language in appropriations and transportation laws. For
example, the Airport Revenue Protection Act of 1996 gives the
Secretary of Transportation the authority to withhold federal
aviation, transit, and rail funds from local governments that fail to
reimburse airports for illegally diverted funds.\6 FAA has never used
these more aggressive enforcement tools.
FAA prefers to address noncompliance through negotiation and
settlement, exhausting all avenues of voluntary corrective action
before undertaking enforcement actions. FAA officials told us that
airports are generally willing to take corrective action and that a
confrontational approach using its enforcement authority would be
justified only if it resulted in a higher level of compliance than
maintaining a cooperative relationship with airports.
FAA's emphasis on negotiations is not always effective. In our May
1999 report, we identified two cases of long-standing noncompliance
at general aviation airports in which the airports' lack of
willingness to comply with federal requirements justified greater
efforts to enforce compliance. In fact, in both cases, unauthorized
land use and revenue diversion had been going on for decades without
correction. When enforcement actions are not taken, even in
instances of long-standing noncompliance such as these two cases, the
lack of action becomes a de facto policy of permissiveness.
Unauthorized uses of land at the airports included city police, fire,
street maintenance and sports facilities constructed on airport land
without FAA's approval. At one airport, Transportation's Inspector
General estimated the revenue diversion caused by the city's
rent-free use of airport property from 1984 through 1995 at about
$2.8 million.
At the time of our review, FAA had not initiated the enforcement
process by formally notifying either airport of its noncompliance,
despite a 1997 report by the Inspector General in one case and the
city's disregard of its promise to stop diverting airport revenues in
the other. In fact, one of these airports was scheduled to receive
an AIP grant earlier this year, before we raised questions about the
appropriateness of providing additional AIP funds to a noncompliant
airport. At the time we completed our review, FAA officials said
they had taken steps to delay the award of the grant.
--------------------
\6 P.L. 104-264, section 805.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
IMPROVING FAA'S OVERSIGHT OF
GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2.3
Our report contained a number of recommendations for improving FAA's
compliance monitoring and enforcement efforts. FAA has not yet
reported to us what actions it plans to take on these
recommendations. We recommended that FAA revise its current
compliance policy guidance to require regularly scheduled monitoring
methods that provide for periodic on-site visits. There is no
substitute for on-site monitoring. Periodic face-to-face contact
with airport owners provides FAA with the opportunity to directly
observe airport operations and provide continuing education on
federal requirements. Such direct contact could also improve the
quality of negotiations if a conflict arises.
We recognize that FAA's Airports field office staff have a number of
duties other than monitoring and enforcing compliance with federal
requirements related to general aviation airports' land use and that
these other duties place limitations on the time available to conduct
on-site visits. FAA could take a number of steps to improve its
oversight while minimizing any strain on its resources. For example,
through a combination of on-site visits and self-certifications, FAA
could collect information that would allow it to target its resources
on airports that are more likely to have problems with land use
compliance. FAA could also involve interested parties to help FAA
keep abreast of current activities at general aviation airports. The
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association recently instituted a program
to establish general aviation points of contact across the nation at
airports to monitor public-use airports. Coordination with this
nationwide network could provide FAA with another set of �eyes.�
Finally, FAA already has the necessary enforcement tools. FAA could
improve enforcement by establishing specific criteria for initiating
enforcement actions, applying the variety of enforcement tools
already available, and setting reasonable time frames for taking
progressively stronger enforcement actions.
GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORTS FACE
FUTURE FUNDING SHORTFALLS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3
General aviation airports depend heavily on federal grants for their
capital development, however, their annual planned capital
development that is eligible for federal funding is at least $775
million more than the federal funding they received in 1998. While
federal grants to general aviation airports have been limited so far
this year, current proposals would increase funding for federal
airport grants.
AIP FUNDING IS INSUFFICIENT
TO COVER ELIGIBLE PROJECTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3.1
Over the last few years, we have reported and testified several times
on future funding shortfalls for the nation's airports. Overall, we
reported that, for all airports that are eligible for federal
funding, planned capital development for 1997 through 2001 may cost
as much as $10 billion per year, or $3 billion more than their 1996
funding. Of that amount, general aviation airports' planned capital
development was estimated to be nearly $1.5 billion per year, or over
$750 million per year more than these airports raised in 1996.
Figure 1 compares general aviation airports' total funding for
capital development in 1996 with the annual cost of their planned
development.
Figure 1: 1996 Funding
Compared With Annual Planned
Development Costs for General
Aviation Airports, 1997�2001
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Funding for 1996, the bar on the left, is shown by source of funding
(AIP, state grants, and bonds). General aviation airports received
45 percent of their capital development funding from AIP in 1996.
State grants accounted for another 18 percent, while airport bonds
accounted for only 2 percent of general aviation airport capital
development funding. In addition, one airport's issuance of $250
million in special facility bonds accounted for 35 percent of all
general aviation airports' funding sources for 1996.
Planned development for general aviation airports, the bar on the
right, shows FAA's highest priority projects, other projects that are
eligible for AIP, and general aviation airports' planned development
that is not eligible for AIP.\7 Reconstruction and mandated projects,
FAA's highest priorities, are for projects to maintain existing
infrastructure (reconstruction) or to mitigate noise, or to meet
federal mandates, including safety, security, and environmental
requirements. Other projects that are eligible for AIP include FAA's
higher-priority projects, such as adding capacity, as well as FAA's
lower-priority projects, such as bringing airports up to FAA's design
standards. Finally, general aviation airports plan for projects that
are not eligible for AIP funding, such as general aviation terminals
and fuel depots.
For this hearing, we updated the amount of AIP funding for fiscal
year 1998 as well as the planned development that is eligible for AIP
funding for the period 1998 through 2002.\8 Increases in AIP
appropriations in fiscal year 1998 led to increased funding for
general aviation airports. In fiscal year 1998, general aviation
airports received about $418 million in AIP grants. Planned
development that is eligible for federal funding at general aviation
airports from 1998 through 2002 decreased slightly from earlier
estimates to almost $1.2 billion annually. Thus, 1998 AIP grants
represent about 35 percent of the planned projects that are eligible
for AIP�leaving the remaining 65 percent of planned projects that
will have to be funded by some other means, abandoned, or postponed.
--------------------
\7 Estimates of planned development costs are contained in our report
entitled Airport Development Needs: Estimating Future Costs
(GAO/RCED-97-99, Apr. 7, 1997).
\8 Other sources of funding during 1998 are not known. Estimates of
planned development that are eligible for AIP were drawn from Report
of the Secretary of Transportation to the United States Congress
Pursuant to Section 47103 of Title 49, United States Code, National
Plan of Integrated Airport Systems, 1998-2002. Planned development
that is not eligible for AIP is not known.
ESTIMATES DO NOT FULLY
REPRESENT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
COSTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3.2
While estimates of future capital development are useful indicators
of future development activity, the actual level and types of
development that ultimately occur are likely to be different for a
number of reasons. FAA and other estimates of development are based
on airports' master plans, whose accuracy diminishes beyond 3 to 5
years into the future, and these projections tend to underestimate
actual construction costs. In addition, development anticipated by
airports' master plans might not reflect the concurrence of local
communities. The availability of and cost to acquire funds also
affect actual capital spending. For example, general aviation
airports are sensitive to changes in the availability of AIP grants,
upon which they especially rely. Finally, airports' master plans may
not anticipate all future costs, such as meeting new regulatory
requirements or responding to unanticipated changes in demand for air
travel.
Maintaining airport runway pavement in good condition is an example
of how future development costs may exceed estimates of planned
development. We recently reported that while the nation's airport
runways are in generally good condition, the costs of maintaining
them over the next 10 years will be considerable, especially for
general aviation airports.\9 Delaying maintenance and rehabilitation
will only increase the cost of eventual improvements. In examining
over 1,000 of the nation's general aviation airports' runways, for
which detailed data on pavement condition are available, we found
that the cost to rehabilitate and maintain these runways in good
condition will approach $1 billion over the next 10 years. However,
a majority of this spending will be required in the first year to
immediately bring runways up to good condition. Conversely, if
runway rehabilitation and maintenance are funded at historical
levels, necessary rehabilitation and maintenance would have to be
deferred. While the 10-year cost is comparable to immediately
bringing runways up to good condition, approximately $1.9 billion in
unmet runway rehabilitation and maintenance needs will remain.
--------------------
\9 Airfield Pavement: Keeping Nation's Runways in Good Condition
Could Require Substantially Higher Spending (GAO/RCED-98-226, July
31, 1998).
INCREASING TOTAL AIP FUNDING
PROVIDES GREATER BENEFIT TO
GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3.3
General aviation airports depend heavily on federal grants for
financing their capital development. In 1996, general aviation
airports obtained 45 percent of their total funding from AIP. In
contrast, AIP represented only 10 percent of the 71 largest airports'
funding. The amount of AIP funds provided to general aviation
airports is especially sensitive to changes in total AIP funding.
Our prior work has shown that as AIP funding increases, an increasing
percentage of total funds are directed to smaller airports.
While the Congress increased fiscal year 1999 AIP appropriations by
$250 million to $1.95 billion, appropriations limitations have thus
far constrained funding, especially for general aviation airports.\10
As a result, only $80 million in grants have been provided to general
aviation airports out of the $737 million in total AIP grants made
through May of this year. The Congress has twice extended, but not
fully funded, AIP for this fiscal year, leading to great uncertainty
for general aviation airports. The Congress is currently considering
increasing funding for AIP for fiscal year 2000 and beyond. Current
proposals would increase funding for AIP above current
levels--helping general aviation airports better fund their future
development plans.\11
--------------------
\10 AIP appropriations for fiscal year 1999 are $1.95 billion,
although AIP was initially authorized only through Mar. 31, 1999,
and therefore, not more than $975 million could be obligated. Since
then, this limitation has twice been increased and extended, now to
$1.66 billion and until Aug. 6 (Sec. 6002 of 1999 Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations (P.L. 106-31, May 21, 1999)).
\11 The administration has requested $1.6 billion in funding for AIP
for fiscal year 2000 and the House and Senate Appropriations
committees proposed funding for AIP in fiscal year 2000 of $2.25 and
$2 billion, respectfully. Meanwhile, the House Transportation
Committee is considering legislation that would substantially
increase funding for AIP, especially beginning in fiscal year 2001
when spending from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund would be linked
to trust fund receipts.
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3.4
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be
happy to respond to any questions that you or Members of the
Subcommittee may have.
CONTACT AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4
For future contacts regarding this testimony, please contact John H.
Anderson at (202) 512-2834. Individuals making key contributions to
this testimony included Janet Barbee, Chris Keisling, Mark Lambert,
and Paul Aussendorf.
*** End of document. ***