Hearing of the Subcommittee on Aviation of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee - the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 2009

HEARING OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION OF THE HOUSE TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
SUBJECT: THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2009
CHAIRED BY: REP. JERRY F. COSTELLO (D-IL)
WITNESSES PANEL I: MIKE THOMPSON M.C. (D-CA) 1ST DISTRICT; PANEL II: NANCY LOBUE, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, AVIATION POLICY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT WITH THE FAA; GERALD DILLINGHAM, DIRECTOR OF PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; CALVIN L. SCOVEL III, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; PANEL III: GREGORY PRINCIPATO, PRESIDENT, AIRPORTS COUNCIL INTERNATIONAL - NORTH AMERICA; JAMES P. ELWOOD A.A.E., AIRPORT DIRECTOR ASPEN-PITKIN COUNTY AIRPORT; JAMES C. MAY, PRESIDENT AND CEO AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION; ED BOLEN, PRESIDENT AND CEO NATIONAL BUSINESS AVIATION ASSOCIATION; ROGER COHEN, PRESIDENT, REGIONAL AIRLINE ASSOCIATION; CRAIG FULLER, PRESIDENT, AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION; CLAYTON M. JONES, CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENT, AND CEO ROCKWELL COLLINS; PANEL IV: PATRICK FORREY, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATION; TOM BRANTLEY, PRESIDENT, PROFESSIONAL AVIATION SAFETY SPECIALISTS (AFL-CIO); JOHN PRATER, PRESIDENT, AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL; PATRICIA FRIEND, INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF FLIGHT ATTENDANTS - CWA; ROBERT ROACH, JR., GENERAL VICE PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS; ROBERT GLESS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, AIR TRANSPORT DIVISION TRANSPORT WORKERS' UNION OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO; KATE HANNI, PRESIDENT, FLYERSRIGHTS.ORG (CAPBOR)

Copyright ©2009 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 500, 1000 Vermont Ave, Washington, DC 20005 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service at www.fednews.com, please email Carina Nyberg at cnyberg@fednews.com or call 1-202-216-2706.

REP. COSTELLO: The subcommittee will come to order. The chair will ask all members, staff, and everyone in the room to turn electronic devices either off or on vibrate. The subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009. The chair intends to give an opening statement, to call on Mr. Petri to give an opening statement or brief remarks, and then we will immediately go to our panel of first witnesses.

Mr. Mica has asked if he can make a few comments, so I will revise my remarks and say that we will recognize him for comments as well. Let me advise everyone, we have a total of 18 witnesses that we will hear from today, so I would inform our witnesses that their statements will be entered into the record and we would ask them to summarize their statements as they are called upon.

I want to welcome everyone to the subcommittee hearing today on the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009. Earlier this week, Chairman Oberstar and I introduced H.R. 915, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009.

H.R. 915 is almost identical to H.R. 2881 legislation that was produced after many hearings, in-depth analysis, and a continued dialog with the FAA, our colleagues and other stakeholders and then passed, of course, the full committee and the full House of Representatives in September of 2007.

We have made a few modifications in the newly introduced bill. One, we've deleted provisions in our original bill that were already enacted through the legislative or regulatory process.

We included H.R. 5788, the HANG UP Act legislation introduced by Mr. DeFazio to prohibit the use of cell phones on commercial flight. H.R. 5788 was reported favorably from this committee last September. And we included the Aviation Safety Enhancement Act, which was passed by the House on July 22, 2008.

It's our intention to move forward on reauthorizing the FAA as quickly as possible, given that we are already two years behind schedule because of the inaction by the United States Senate. As witnesses will testify this afternoon, short-term funding extensions and continuing resolutions are delaying key NextGen and airport development capital projects. We need to get the FAA authorized as soon as possible in this session of Congress.

The total number of passengers carried in the U.S. airspace is approaching 800 million a year, and the FAA forecasts that airlines are expected to carry more than one billion passengers in the next 7 to 12 years. To deal with this growth, strengthening our economy and create jobs, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009 provides historic funding levels for the FAA's capital programs.

This includes ($)16.2 billion for the airport improvement program, nearly ($)13.4 billion for the FAA facility and equipment accounts, and ($)1.35 billion for research and engineering and development. The bill also provides $38.9 billion for the FAA operations over the next four years.

The historic funding levels authorized for the FAA's F&E account will accelerate the implementation of NextGen; enable the FAA to replace and repair existing facilities and equipment, and provide for the implementation of high-priority safety-related systems.

To increase the authority and visibility of the FAA's Joint Planning and Development Office, H.R. 915 elevates the director of the JPDO to the status of associate administrator for NextGen within the FAA to be appointed by and reporting directly to the FAA administrator.

To increase accountability and coordination of NextGen planning and implementation, H.R. 915 requires the JPDO to develop a work plan that details on a year-to-year basis specific NextGen-related deliverabilities and milestones required by the FAA and its partner agencies.

To help airports meet increasing capital needs, we have included an increase of the cap from $4.50 to $7 on the PFC charges. That is exactly identical to what we did in 2881. So the increase for the PFCs would be from $4.50 to $7. According to the FAA, if every airport currently collecting a $4 or $4.50 PFC, it would -- and if we raise that to $7, it would generate approximately $1.1 billion in additional revenue for airport development each year.

H.R. 915 also provides significant increases for AIP funding for smaller airports that rely on AIP for capital financing. Further, the bill increases funding for improvements in the essential air service program and authorizes a small community air service development program through 2012 at the current authorized funding level of $35 million per year.

The traveling public saw firsthand the serious problems that our current system has with congestions and delays, which at times led to a breakdown in customer service. We have enacted in this legislation a similar Passenger Bill of Rights or consumer protection provisions in H.R. 915. In addition to a number of things that we provide under that section of the legislation, it also provides for civil penalties for violations by the airlines.

We have included in H.R. 915 the CLEEN Engine and Airframe Technology Partnership and Green Towers Program which was modeled after what's currently being done at O'Hare International Airport. We have the safest air transportation system in the world but we must not become complacent.

We -- in order to keep proper oversight over the FAA and safety program, H.R. 915 directs the FAA to increase the number of aviation safety inspectors, initiate studies on fatigue and requires the FAA to inspect part 145 certificated foreign repair stations at least twice a year.

We -- there are a number of other issues that we have addressed in the bill that were the same as H.R. 2881, including labor provisions that affect labor negotiations with the -- with NATCA and the FAA. The language is identical on this bill as the last bill as well as the FedEx provision that was debated and included in H.R. 2881.

Before I conclude my remarks, there is -- my statement is more detailed. I will submit it for the record in the interest of time. Let me congratulate the men and women of JetBlue Airways. Today is their ninth anniversary of flight and I want to make note of that and congratulate them.

With that, again I welcome all of our witnesses here today. I look forward to hearing your testimony. Before I recognize Mr. Petri for his opening statement, I ask the unanimous consent to allow for two weeks for members to revise and extend their remarks and to permit the submission of additional statements and materials by members and witnesses. Without objection so ordered.

The chair now recognizes Mr. Petri.

REP. THOMAS E. PETRI (R-WI): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will put my full statement in to record. I know we have a full agenda and I would like to get right to the witnesses. But let me just say that I regret that we're moving quite this quickly here.

It's important we get a new reauthorization in place, but it's also important that we do it in an orderly fashion. And acting before the administration has a chance to submit its bill or its ideas or comments may actually prolong the process toward a final passage rather than speed it up.

Our new administration does take a little while to get in order, but I think they owe certain deference in respect from this Congress and I regret that we're in effect acting before we get their inputs.

And with that I yield to the ranking minority member of the full committee Mr. Mica.

REP. JOHN L. MICA (R-FL): Thank you, and just for the record, I'll submit the statement, and make some brief comments and sit. How many votes are there?

REP. : Three.

REP. MICA: Three votes. So you probably won't get to witnesses now anyways. Well, first of all, I want to thank Mr. Castello and Mr. Petri for moving forward. Chairman Oberstar is hoping he'd be here. We just left trying to get some money for the committee through House Administration. Together, I don't know what we're going to get. We may have to eliminate staff and members, but we should do okay other than that.

Ray LaHood, I know we've all met with the new secretary, asked me what some of the priorities are, and I said, Ray we've got to get a FAA bill, and we've got to also get an FAA administrator. It's absolutely incomprehensible that we haven't had an FAA reauthorization since, say about September of 2007, and now I hear the Senate is looking in an extension that might go into the fall; that's totally unacceptable.

So I pledge with Mr. Oberstar to work -- to pass comprehensive FAA reauthorization, which should have been done in the last two years. Trying to deal with an agency -- and I chaired aviation for six years, and we did some very good things.

It's difficult enough when you have an administrator or chief executive of an agency in place; it's difficult if not impossible when you don't have one or you have one acting, who is being held hostage for political reasons, which is totally unacceptable.

This bill could and should be conferenced and we could do it in two hours. There's no reason it shouldn't have been done. First; and we know what the big -- one of the big elephants in the room is the NATCA provisions and I think we have to be fair to the men and women who serve us as air traffic controllers.

I'm glad this is tossed to the new administration and to the new greater majority. I just would counsel them if you unleash a dam, and again, I think that they're entitled to some compensation, and I -- additional compensation, particularly new entrants, and I did everything I could to bring parties together for the last two years to resolve that issue, but that has to be resolved. That is the two-ton elephant in the room.

I've no problem with the provisions for compulsory arbitration, and I'd hope to the good Lord that we never again bring to Congress the personnel and salary issues of any of our agencies at that level, and then put every member of Congress in the middle of a ping-pong contest to resolve it. It's horrible, and I think we have a solution, we need to adopt that.

And that is a big serious issue that you all have got to resolve and I'll be glad to sit down at any time and get that beyond this -- behind us. The financing issue is another big elephant and that does need to be resolved. I think Mr. Oberstar and I came to some conclusions and I hope we don't have to revisit that too much.

Finally, there are and I've been quoted in the press saying there is some half-baked proposals in here that need to come out. Everybody knows what they are. I don't want to go over all of them. They'll hurt our airliners -- the airline industry, which is already on its third -- I was going to say, its second time on its knees. It's the third that we don't want them down and out for the count, and we've got to have some reasonable provisions, whether it's the foreign repair stations, the insect notification, I see, thankful Mr. DeFazio has gone, the OSHA standards, and some of the other issues, you know what I'm talking about.

Finally, we have got to do something, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking member, and Mr. Oberstar, about getting -- as soon as we get an FAA administrator in place, getting airspace redesigned in the New York City area. They tell me now that we're -- 83 percent of our chronically delayed flights emanate from the Northeast quarter and the New York City area and I've done hearings and meetings from Philadelphia to Connecticut. That has to be resolved.

It has to be resolved, so whether it's an FAA reauthorization along with NextGen, which is also important that it must be resolved, so those are my comments and I yield back the balance of my time.

REP. COSTELLO: You have no time left Mr. Mica, but --

REP. MICA: I know, that's fine.

REP. COSTELLO: Let me say -- just comment quickly, because we're down to 5 minutes to get to the floor -- and we do have three votes. We will come back immediately. Let me comment on a few of Mr. Mica's comments. I think we're in agreement on several things.

One is the reauthorization bill that passed the House in September 2007. Unfortunately, we had no control over its destiny, because the Senate didn't act as they didn't act on a lot of bills. On getting a new administrator in place, we had a meeting yesterday with Secretary LaHood.

I've met with him three times in the last three weeks and stressing the importance of several things, and the administration has only been in office 21 days and they've already made an offer, and they are negotiating with the person they want to see become the administrator. So I think they're moving with due speed and due diligence.

And last but not least, there is some -- my friend Mr. Mica says, there are some half-baked ideas in here that may or may not be true. It depends on who the cook is and who is doing the baking. But those are things that we will have an opportunity to discuss and talk about during the markup when we bring this legislation to the committee for a markup. With that I thank members and there are three votes on the floor.

We will come back immediately. Right after the third vote, I would ask Mr. Miller and others to get our first panel of witnesses up to the witness table and we will begin immediately upon return and the subcommittee will stand in recess.

(Recess)

REP. COSTELLO: The subcommittee will come to order. We will hear from our first witness, Congressman Mike Thompson, the congressman representing the First District of California who has been a very strong advocate for a Passenger Bill of Rights.

Congressman Thompson?

REP. THOMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Petri, and other members of the committee. Thanks for the opportunity to provide testimony at your hearing today on the FAA Reauthorization Act.

I'm here again today regarding the airline passenger rights; almost two years after my first appearance at this subcommittee on this very same topic, and more than 10 years since Congress first examined the problem of extended delays after hundreds of passengers were stuck in planes on snow-congested Detroit tarmacs in January of 1999.

And I believe it's time for Congress to act to protect the flying public. Americans should not be held without food, water, and other necessities when they set foot on an airplane. Since 1999 and despite countless industry promises, little or no progress has been made for ensuring that airline passengers have some basic rights during the excessive ground delays.

It took nearly a year for then Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters' tarmac delay taskforce to issue a report this past November on how airlines, if so inclined, and only when practical, might improve onboard conditions for stranded passengers.

None of the improvements recommended in that report were mandated, and yet again relied entirely upon voluntary action by the airlines. Secretary Peters' report did nothing to help solve the problems of excessive delays. As the New York Times editorial staff opined after its release, this report was tantamount to telling passengers, and I quote "Suck it up and sit there on America's unfriendly tarmacs for as long as it might take."

The lack of voluntary action by airlines in the past 10 years only underscores the absolute necessity of including the same passenger rights provisions passed as part of the FAA reauthorization bill during the 110th Congress in this version that you're considering today.

These provisions would finally require air carriers and airports to submit an emergency contingency plan in the event of excessive delays to the secretary of Transportation for approval. These plans must detail how the air carrier will provide food, drinkable water, working restroom facilities, adequate cabin ventilation, and access to medical treatment.

I recently introduced legislation, it's H.R. 624, the Passenger Bill of Rights for 2009, which includes the same passenger rights provisions that you're considering here today as part of this reauthorization measure, but with one important difference.

Instead of requiring deplanement after "excessive delays," my bill calls for deplanement after three hours. By not defining what excessive delays actually means in the current legislation, Congress is yet again leaving it to the airlines to self-regulate, an approach that has failed miserably over the past 10 years.

I urge the committee, during the markup of this legislation, to adopt the language included in my bill, which sets forth the three- hour standard along with important exceptions to be used at the discretion of the pilots.

Mr. Chairman, after 10 years, it's finally come time to pass these basic passenger protections. Thank you for your past assistance. You've been great on this and on this issue, and continued support, by including these provisions in the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009.

Furthermore, if history repeats itself, and this bill is passed by the House, but becomes excessively delayed on the Senate tarmac, I respectfully request that you support my efforts to take these passenger rights provisions as a standalone bill to the House floor for immediate consideration.

Again, I appreciate the work of the subcommittee and your support on this issue over the course of the last couple of years, and I hope that this year we can finally bring this issue to resolve. And thank you for allowing me to testify today.

REP. COSTELLO: We thank you for testifying here today, taking time out of your schedule. We know how strongly you feel about the issue, and I think we are all in agreement that if we leave it up to the airlines as we have in the past to self-regulate, it won't happen.

So we look forward to working with you between now and the markup and continuing to working with you on this and other important issues. Thank you.

REP. THOMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. COSTELLO: Chair will ask the second panel of witnesses to come forward please.

Actually it's the first public panel. It's the Honorable Nancy LoBue, acting assistant administrator, aviation policy, planning, and environment with the FAA; Dr. Gerald Dillingham, director of physical infrastructure issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office; the Honorable Calvin Scovel III, the inspector general of the U.S. Department of Transportation.

I would remind all of our witnesses that we -- your entire statement will appear in the record. We would ask you to summarize your statement in 5 minutes or less. And with that Ms. LoBue, you're recognized.

MS. LOBUE: Thank you, Chairman Costello, Congressman Petri, and members of the subcommittee. As the Chair said, my name is Nancy LoBue, and I'm the FAA's acting assistant administrator for aviation policy, planning, and environment.

Unfortunately, our acting administrator was ill today and unable to appear with you. So I'm appearing in her place. I'd like to thank you for inviting us here today to be part of your discussion about the reauthorization of the FAA.

We look forward to working with this committee and the new Congress on achieving a robust, multiyear bill that will help ensure the safety of the flying public and the efficiency of the National Airspace System.

There is a consensus in the aviation community, including the FAA, that multiple, short-term extensions as we've had in the last 18 months are burdensome and is disruptive, and do not permit the careful planning and efficient execution that's necessary for a successful infrastructure and technology program.

We appreciate the hard work and efforts that this committee has put in to H.R. 915. As the new administration settles in and continues to get its policy team in place, the bill will be an immediate focus as we work to develop an administrative position.

In the mean time, please accept my gratitude on behalf of the administration for your efforts in moving FAA's reauthorization forward. Secretary LaHood has made his safety goals for all of DOT and especially FAA quite clear.

At the FAA, our highest priority is always safety. We are currently in the safest period in commercial aviation history, and every day, every hour, we are doing everything we can to make sure that that continues.

For example, the FAA is making it a priority to reduce the number of runway incursions. And we are seeing results. There were no serious runway incursions in the first quarter of fiscal 2009, not a single category A or B event during 12.8 million aircraft operations.

We've also accelerated our runway status lights program and the systems are scheduled to be installed at 22 of the nation's busiest airports by 2011. The secretary has indicated several times that one of his immediate goals is to fill the position of the FAA administrator.

He has expressed that the new administrator will be one who can advance NextGen and be someone with the people skills to resolve outstanding labor issues, something which I know many of the members of this committee are also committed to.

We are also pleased that just two weeks ago, the GAO removed the FAA's air traffic control modernization program from the high-risk list for the first time in 14 years. GAO noted that management focus and willingness to attack and rectify our shortcomings that are planned for continued improvement were the reasons that it felt comfortable removing FAA modernization from the high-risk list.

Finally, no organization is successful without its most valuable asset, its workforce. Controller hiring is up, we've exceeded our hiring goals for Fiscal Year 2008, and we are on track to meet our end-of-year hiring goal in fiscal 2009.

New controllers are completing their training faster. In fact, we anticipate 1,000 new hires will complete training to reach full certification this year, compared to 762 last year. Controller retirements have also leveled out, and are trending below what we had projected for this year.

As you can see, we are still actively moving forward on all key areas. The FAA is a growing, learning organization, dedicated to the safety of the traveling public, and the efficient operation of the National Airspace Systems.

We look forward to supporting President Obama and Secretary LaHood's agenda for aviation and the new FAA administrator, and to working with this committee and the rest of the Congress on FAA reauthorizations. In the meantime, we remain focused on our duties to ensure aviation safety and efficiency.

Mr. Chairman, Congressman Petri, and members of the subcommittee, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you.

REP. COSTELLO: Thank you for your testimony. And the chair now recognizes Dr. Dillingham who has testified before the subcommittee many times.

MR. DILLINGHAM: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Petri. Thank you for the opportunity to again appear before the subcommittee. My testimony this afternoon identifies some key reauthorization issues that will need to be addressed to maintain the safety and efficiency of the current National Airspace System, and to move expeditiously towards NextGen.

I will also offer some general observations on the reauthorization. First, with regard to the current system, the first issue is safety. FAA must enhance its ability to monitor and manage risks by collecting complete and accurate safety data from all segments of the industry.

Such data includes information that is currently provided through FAA's voluntary reporting program as well as operational data from industry sectors such as air ambulances, cargo aviation, and general aviation.

This information is not generally collected or tracked on a system-wide level. The ability to collect and analyze these types of data is particularly important as the agency transitions to a data- driven, risk-based safety management system approach for aviation.

Another reauthorization issue is related to the existing ATC facilities in systems. Some of these facilities and systems will continue to form the core of the National Airspace System for a number of years, and in some cases will become a part of NextGen.

Continued reliance on these facilities and systems will require the agency to identify the necessary resources, skill personnel to implement both a robust facility renovation plan and a system maintenance strategy.

As you know, H.R. 915 contains a provision for FAA to develop a facility reconfiguration plan. Until FAA develops such a plan, which considers both safety and cost-effectiveness, the facility configurations needed for NextGen cannot be implemented.

In addition, potential savings that could help offset NextGen costs cannot be identified. Another reauthorization issue is critical workforce concerns. Specifically, FAA will have to continue to hire and train thousands of air traffic controllers and other technical professionals.

It will also need to work to improve relations with its labor unions. Turning to NextGen, to its credit, FAA has taken important steps such as forming partnerships with industry and planning for a mid-term implementation to accelerate the availability of NextGen capabilities by 2018.

FAA will also need to work with stakeholders to explore a range of potential incentives for aircraft operators to purchase NextGen avionics and for suppliers to develop those avionics. Additionally, FAA will need to acquire staff with technical skills such as systems engineers and contract management expertise to manage the implementation of NextGen.

FAA estimates it will need to hire about 350 additional staff over the next two years to obtain these needed skills. Mr. Chairman, it's worth noting that our work has shown that even with the full implementation of NextGen, there will still be a need to build infrastructure projects, such as runways and taxiways to accommodate anticipated future travel demands.

Building runways is often a long-term effort that involves a revolution of some difficult environmental concerns. Adequate funding is critical for aviation research and development initiatives, aimed at adjusting environmental concerns.

The clean initiative and other environmental provisions that are contained in H.R. 915 would begin to provide such funding. Mr. Chairman, the last issue I would like to highlight is the importance of enacting a multiyear reauthorization.

Additional short-term funding extensions and continuing revolutions could hamper the planning and development of airport infrastructure projects, particularly those that are funded through AIP programs, and in fact increase the cost of those projects.

It could also delay critical NextGen decision points and maybe most importantly, it could postpone the achievement of the midterm NextGen goals for operational capabilities and improvements for the National Airspace System.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. COSTELLO: Thank you, Dr. Dillingham. General Scovel?

MR. SCOVEL: Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Petri, members of the subcommittee, we appreciate the opportunity to discuss the key issues for reauthorizing FAA. We understand that the committee's reauthorization bill H.R. 915 was introduced in the House on Monday.

The aviation landscape has changed significantly since Congress' last debated proposals for reauthorizing and financing FAA. U.S. airlines have been buffeted by the softening economy and volatile fuel costs.

As a result, they have reduced capacity and grounded hundreds of aircraft, although load factors do remain high. The decline in traffic has also impacted the aviation trust fund, the largest source of revenue for FAA's $15 billion annual budget.

Trust fund revenues declined by more than 11 percent during the first quarter of 2009. Given the drop in traffic and the resulting decline in passenger taxes, trust fund tax revenues will likely decrease significantly during the balance of fiscal 2009 and perhaps in fiscal 2010 as well.

Notwithstanding the uncertainties facing the industry and FAA, this situation provides FAA with opportunities to strategically position itself for an industry rebound. We see four overarching areas for FAA's efforts. First, maintain public confidence in FAA's ability to provide oversight of a dynamic industry.

The Southwest Airlines incident last spring disclosed multiple weaknesses in FAA's oversight of that carrier's maintenance program. One of the most troubling findings was that FAA missed numerous inspections of the carrier's maintenance program allowing safety directive compliance issues to go undetected for years.

Our ongoing review has found similar missed inspections at seven other major carriers. FAA must bolster the integrity of its oversight by establishing mechanisms at the national level to provide effective oversight of field efforts.

FAA must also follow through on longstanding commitments to improve oversight of external repair faculties. FAA's risk-based oversight system does not yet include critical repairs performed by non-certificated repair facilities. It also doesn't require mandatory air carrier reporting of all repair stations performing repairs to critical components.

FAA must advance risk-based oversight of outsourced maintenance providers by implementing a system for determining how much and where aircraft maintenance is performed. Runway incidents also continue to be a substantial threat to safety.

Many see new technology as the solution, but our work on three major technologies for improving runway safety has raised concern about what can be effectively deployed within the next several years. FAA and the industry must implement airport-specific infrastructure and procedural changes, and reinvigorate national FAA programs to improve runway safety in the near term.

Second, set expectations in budget priorities for NextGen, a high-risk effort involving billion dollar investments. After more than four years of planning, FAA must now shift NextGen to implementation. FAA has focused its attention on mid-term objectives, but fundamental issues must be addressed.

These include, first, completing a gap analysis of today's system and NextGen and refining the NextGen mid-term architecture. Second, establishing priorities with stakeholders and reflecting them in budget requests and plans, so decision makers can determine what to invest in first.

Third, managing NextGen initiatives as portfolios, and establishing clear lines of responsibility, authority, and accountability. This is needed because new systems must be combined with procedure and airspace changes to deliver benefits. ` Finally, identifying the number and types of facilities that will be needed to support NextGen. FAA must address the technological and security prerequisites and cost drivers associated with facility consolidation for decision makers to know what can be reasonably accomplished.

Third, bolster the key safety workforces. FAA continues to face significant attrition in two critical safety workforces, air traffic controllers, and aviation safety inspectors. Through 2017, FAA will hire and train nearly 17,000 new controllers to replace those who were hired after the 1981 strike and are now retiring.

Our major challenge will be training and certifying the huge surge of new controllers at their assigned locations, a process that currently takes up to three years. Controllers in training now represent nearly 26 percent of the workforce up from 15 percent in 2004.

However, many key facilities, such as the Southern California TRACON, which expects to have nearly 100 controllers in training this year or over 40 percent of its workforce, already exceed the national level. FAA must also ensure that it has a sufficient number of properly placed safety inspectors.

FAA will never directly have an inspector workforce large enough to oversee all aspects of the dynamic aviation industry. Therefore, it's critical that FAA ensure its inspectors are placed where they are most needed. Delivering a new staffing model this year remains an important watch item.

Finally, financing and establishing controls over future airport development. Airline service reductions and capacity cuts have significantly impacted airports, especially in small communities, some of which have lost commercial service entirely.

At large airports, declining revenues have led to concern that some infrastructure projects will be delayed. The economic stimulus pack just proposed in the House and Senate contains significant funding amounts for the AIP that will help to revitalize airport development this year and next.

However, such a large rapid infusion of new funds could create significant oversight challenges for FAA including pressure to begin projects quickly. FAA must prepare for the potential risks and take steps to mitigate them. My staff is working with FAA and the department to identify risks, oversight challenges, and best practices associated with the stimulus funding for AIP.

That concludes my statement. Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to answer any questions you or members of the subcommittee may have.

REP. COSTELLO: Thank you, General Scovel, and let me just make a few comments. Ms. LoBue, we -- as I said earlier in the opening statements, we had a good meeting with the Secretary LaHood yesterday. We understand that the process is moving forward on a fast track as far as a new administrator is concerned, and we of course, hope that that happens sooner rather than later so that we can begin the process of doing things that need to be done over at the FAA.

Secondly, Dr. Dillingham, I couldn't agree with you more. The labor issue needs to get behind us; we expressed that to the secretary and have expressed that to others as well. It is having an effect on morale throughout the agency and is having an effect on the implementation of NextGen. So we appreciate you making note of that in your testimony.

At this time, the chair recognizes the ranking member, Mr. Petri.

REP. PETRI: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I've a number of questions which I will submit for written response in light of the lengthy panel agenda we have today and need to get the testimony of all of the witnesses, and would yield my time to the two members who've requested the option to ask questions on this side. I understand that Mr. LoBiondo and Mr. Coble. Starting with Mr. Coble?

REP. HOWARD COBLE (R-NC): Thank you, gentlemen. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, I will be very brief in view of the timeframe.

Ms. LoBue, what impact you -- are you seeing here? What impact has the short-term extensions had on the FAA's ability to issue grants to airports?

MS. LOBUE: We've had some problems with having short-term extensions meaning that those kinds of grants and those with letters of intent that might be over a long period, get disrupted with kind of the "on and off nature" of having extensions. You have to treat these extensions as if it is the time period that you are allowed to do the work. So that can be disruptive in the AIP program very much though.

REP. COBLE: Well, how will be -- will the proposed stimulus package complicate or improve the situation, or will it have any effect on it?

MS. LOBUE: My understanding of the stimulus package is that FAA stands ready to implement the numbers, the type of numbers that have been talked about in both the House and the Senate over a two-year period of time. Such an -- you know, an extended -- more extended period of time gives us a better chance than when we've had six-month extensions or three-month extensions.

So I think we actually see the stimulus the way it's set up. Although there are some issues with workforce implementation, we do believe we'll be able to follow what Congress has talked about putting in place.

REP. COBLE: Thank you, ma'am.

Dr. Dillingham, let me put the same question to you. What impact in your opinion has the short-term extensions had on the FAA's ability to issue grants to airports?

MR. DILLINGHAM: Mr. Coble, in the same vein as Ms. LoBue talked about, the -- when grants are issued in sort of spurts, they can -- the airports can only commit a certain amount to construction.

And one of the things that happens is that the construction crews will pack up and go to another job; when the money becomes available again, they come back and what that does is it extends the time as well as extends the cost of a project when they come back to -- come back in place again.

So when you don't have -- when you don't have a situation where you know that the money is coming and the amount is coming, it makes it very difficult especially for medium-sized airports.

Big airports and little airports less of a problem, but the medium airports that -- that affects them more.

REP. COBLE: Thank you, sir.

And finally Mr. Scovel, with the recent disclosure of a security breach of one of FAA's servers, do you have concern about the FAA's ability to protect critical systems from cyber attacks?

MR. SCOVEL: Thank you, Mr. Coble. Yes, we do, but I'd like to note first that FAA has taken steps to improve its cyber protection program in recent years and my office has been working with FAA and the department along those lines.

The concerns that I have with FAA, some are unique to FAA; some extend to all agencies across government, if I could cite three specifically. The first has to do with technology changes. FAA has moved increasingly as have many agencies to an Internet protocol based technology in modernizing its systems.

This is in marked contrast to previous practice sometime ago now, when agencies who develop proprietary software and operate them in a closed network environment, which greatly limited the opportunity, of course, for hackers to gain access.

With an Internet-based system, hackers' access is of much greater risk. Second point, I'd raise is system interconnectivity. Unlike most government systems, FAA's systems are highly connected to each other -- they must be, in order to operate the NASC. But security as we all know is only as strong as the weakest link. So if the hacker is able to gain access to even one system, then potentially other systems are at risk as well.

Finally, outsourcing; FAA like other agencies has turned increasingly to outsourcing. It has forfeited some aspect of direct control over information security and that remains a concern for us.

We have two ongoing audits within the FAA on this, both performed in response to requests from this committee. One has to do with web application security in air traffic control systems and the second involves information security and private -- privacy protection of medical records of hundreds of thousands of airmen. Both of those topics have been of concern to the committee and we're responding to the committee's requests.

REP. COBLE: Thank you all. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, I'll let him reclaim.

REP. PETRI: Thank you. I yield to Mr. LoBiondo. I know you have -- you are trying to gather a couple of -- (inaudible).

REP. FRANK A. LOBIONDO (R-NJ): Thank you very much Mr. Petri.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. To our panel, thank you for being here.

Ms. LoBue, just a matter of point of reference, I represent the FAA technical facility in Egg Harbor Township. And of course I along with many others are very concerned with the news that we got yesterday about the personnel records of some 45,000 FAA employees including probably more than 1500 that are in my district.

We understand that the hackers were able to access employee names, addresses, and social security numbers along with some other information. Of course, I think I probably share everyone's disappointment that in the wake of the breaches of information that occurred with the VA, where we thought, members of Congress believe that agencies were going to take steps to do something that this actually occurred.

For whatever reason it did, and I'm sure you'll have more information on that in the future. What I would like to know is that does the FAA intend to help protect the employees from identity fraud? Do you have any measures that you're planning on doing?

MS. LOBUE: The answer to that is, yes. Frankly, as one of the employees whose personal information is at risk, I'm one of those 45,000 people. I am very concerned about this event.

FAA has taken both, some short-term and some long-term measures for the immediate to make sure this doesn't happen again while we buttress and obviously we'll working with the OIG on how we can buttress our systems.

There is some discussion as to how much we can do to protect the employees and we'll be coming out with information on that pretty quickly, but we are committed to do something, yes.

REP. LOBIONDO: Do you -- have you had any discussions, if you're prepared to offer employees free credit monitoring like the VA did?

MS. LOBUE: That's my understanding, yes.

REP. LOBIONDO: That you will be doing that?

MS. LOBUE: Yes.

REP. LOBIONDO: And you will be briefing us or at least the chairman on what steps actually will be involved to help protect those employees and what you will do to keep this from happening in the future.

MS. LOBUE: Yes, sir. We'll come up, and like I said, we're doing some short term and some long term, and I think we're still getting all of our plans together; we would be more than willing to come up and brief the committee in detail.

REP. LOBIONDO: And would you expect that you would be prepared to share with us what your plans would be for the employees and for future protections in what time period?

MS. LOBUE: That would be part of the briefing, yes, sir.

REP. LOBIONDO: I mean are we talking about six months, a month.

MS. LOBUE: Oh, until we'll be ready? No, I think we could come up within the next week or two.

REP. LOBIONDO: The next week or two.

MS. LOBUE: Yes.

REP. LOBIONDO: Mr. Chairman, hopefully you'll follow-up with them and let us know.

REP. COSTELLO: We will indeed, and we would ask you to contact the staff when you're -- when you're ready to come up and to brief us.

REP. LOBIONDO: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ms. LoBue.

REP. COSTELLO: I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. I now recognize the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. DeFazio.

REP. PETER A. DEFAZIO (D-OR): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I just have one question and it would be directed to Ms. LoBue.

And as you may know, Dr. Dillingham and I think who was just questioned said that FAA management and the union's poor relationship could slow the implementation of NextGen. So the core of that poor relationship has to do with the imposition of a, you know, what I consider to be an unfair contract. Can you tell me what's going on at the FAA in terms of reopening negotiations for the contract?

MS. LOBUE: The secretary has indicated that his highest priority is getting onboard an administrator who will be willing to work through the workplace issues and the union issues and get that behind us.

As I understand it, he's had conversations with the committee to indicate that that's going to be in the pretty immediate future. And that's one of his highest priorities.

REP. DEFAZIO: Okay, so we would revisit the imposed contract and work conditions, is the position as you understand it.

MS. LOBUE: My understanding is this is one of the highest priorities of the secretary.

REP. DEFAZIO: Okay, okay, all right. Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. COSTELLO: I thank the gentleman from Oregon. I now recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Boswell.

REP. LEONARD L. BOSWELL (D-IA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. LoBue, Dr. Dillingham has made in his statement, his written statement that the strange relationship between the FAA management unions could slow the implementation of NextGen, what's your response to that?

MS. LOBUE: I think we believe that the new administration has made it very clear that they intend to work through the workforce issues, while we have had some input from controllers involved in the past. I think we all recognize that the workforce is a critical piece of getting NextGen onboard, and the new administration has that as one of its highest priorities.

REP. BOSWELL: Dr. Dillingham, do you have any comment on that?

MR. DILLINGHAM: Yes, Mr. Boswell. I think there are many elements to, sort of, working out the relationship -- the labor management relationships, and one of the things that that we sort of want to highlight is the fact that not only NATCA, but the other union members need to be active participants in the development, the design of NextGen.

I mean, there are other labor management issues, but what we've seen in the past is unless the stakeholders are intimately involved, it tends to make things cost more and take longer to get them done. So hopefully that will be a part of bringing things together, is bringing the stakeholders onboard.

REP. BOSWELL: Thank you, that's historical.

Ms. LoBue, just to continue a little bit. What steps are you taking to ensure that you got the staff you need to meet the needs of the NextGen?

MS. LOBUE: This committee has been very generous in helping us hire inspectors, so as I said, safety is always first and foremost. I think, from the point of getting NextGen in place, we have just issued at the end of January, our NextGen Implementation Plan, which focuses more on the mid-term. I think we've come forward previously with a fairly concerted effort on what the next five years looks like.

REP. BOSWELL: Do you think you've got the contract management expertise, you think you have the systems engineering you need, and staff with technical skills?

MS. LOBUE: I think we're concerned about staff with technical skills. We see a shortage coming just as do all technical-oriented businesses. That said, I think GAO recognizing and taking us off the high-risk list shows that we really put a premium on putting in place systems that will manage contracts in a better and more effective, cost effective manner. So yes, sir.

REP. BOSWELL: Dr. Dillingham, your comments.

MR. DILLINGHAM: Mr. Boswell, FAA does recognize that it has a need. Some of the things that it needs for NextGen are different than what it needed for the previous ATC modernization program. What we are concerned about is the need for those highly skilled technical people that are going to be desired across the whole spectrum of the economy.

On the plus side, because of the nature of the economy it might be easier for FAA to attract those kinds of people, but what we're talking about is the timing. These people will have to be brought in to FAA, integrated into FAA, familiarized with NextGen, and so we're talking about something that could throw the schedule off, if we don't move immediately to address this issue.

REP. BOSWELL: General Scovel, would you comment please. I may be -- do you think we're doing enough? Is FAA doing enough to address this attrition of air traffic controllers, to start?

MR. SCOVEL: FAA has done what I can only say is a remarkable job in hiring replacements for air traffic controllers who have decided to leave the workforce. The attrition over the last three to four years has amounted almost 5000 controllers, 2657 of those have been retirements.

FAA's projections have been a little bit low about 16 percent low in fact of what that attrition rate --

REP. BOSWELL: What percent did you say?

MR. SCOVEL: Sixteen percent low over the years. However, FAA has managed to hire up and in fact now has some 270 more controllers onboard than it did in 2004.

REP. BOSWELL: Is that adequate?

MR. SCOVEL: We do have concerns, not over the total size of the workforce, sir, but mostly over the skill level, the training level of the controllers who are currently members of the workforce. The certified professional controllers, those who are fully capable of operating on their own in their facilities, their numbers have diminished as the controllers in training numbers have greatly increased.

At some facilities, controllers in training amount to upwards of 40 percent of the workforce at that facility.

And that can be a problem in terms of training those new controllers, because each new controller requires a certified controller at his/her elbow in order to walk them through the steps.

REP. BOSWELL: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is up, but I think we're going to have to give some more continued attention to this.

REP. COSTELLO: Well, I -- let me just follow-up and make a comment to your question to General Scovel. I was not too long ago in the air traffic control tower in Orlando. And at the time there were 10 controllers on duty, only one had one year of experience. The rest of them had been on the job less than one year.

So when I think of what happened with U.S. Airways in the Hudson River, I think about the experience that was involved with everyone, from the flight attendants, to the pilots, to the air traffic controller, to the responders and the level of experience that they had.

And one has to wonder that with an air traffic control force, where we're losing the most experienced controllers at the rapid pace that we are losing them, it does make one concerned about a lack of experience in a very critical position.

The chair now recognizes the gentle lady from Hawaii, Ms. Hirono.

REP. MAZIE K. HIRONO (D-HI): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have some questions for Ms. LoBue and I note that your testimony focused on safety and efficiency of aviation as prime concerns.

So I have two questions that are relating to safety. I have learned recently that thousands of corporate aircraft as well as the crafts used by the secretaries of Transportation, Homeland Security, senior military leaders, and FAA personnel have technology on its aircraft that enable pilots to see under conditions of unstoppable blinding smoke in the cockpit.

I was surprised to learn however that there is no FAA requirement that passenger airliners or military aircraft have equivalent systems to ensure that pilots can see in the cockpit under these kinds of conditions. The technology in question costs approximately ($)25,000 to ($)30,000 per aircraft, which equates to a penny or so per ticket over the life of the system.

And as I understand that the FAA's minimum safety standard is that any failure of systems or components that result in catastrophic consequences must be extremely improbable and there's a definition for extreme improbability, but according to information that I have, and if you Google for example smoke in cockpits you will see dozens and dozens of incidents where smoke was in the cockpit, resulted in emergency landings of aircraft.

So there have also been numerous catastrophic fatal airliner incidents in which smoke in the cockpit has been a cause or a factor of that incident. And I mean, we are talking about emergency situations dealing with airlines, so seconds count, and as was the case in the U.S. Airways Flight 1549, you know, seconds count.

And so, I'd like to know why the FAA should not mandate emergency vision technology to enable pilots to see their controls and to land safely during in-flight emergencies with unstoppable blinding smoke in the cockpit, especially as these systems, and this technology is utilized in the planes that are used by the secretaries of transportation, homeland security, senior military leaders, and thousands of corporate aircraft.

MS. LOBUE: Thank you. I am not personally able to answer this question for you, but I would offer that we will get the people that know at FAA to come up and brief you very quickly.

REP. HIRONO: Well, I know that smoke in the cockpit is something that occurs as I mentioned, relatively, frequently, and that this is an issue that has been around for decades. I'm a new member to the committee so I've recently been apprised of this. And I would really urge FAA to, you know, because you're focusing on safety and nothing could be more important than the safety of aviation passengers, that since the technology is there, it's utilized, it doesn't cost very much. I would encourage FAA to make that requirement.

The second question I have is, in the 1990s the FAA contracted operations of a number of Level 1 airport towers operating under visual flight rules. These are Class D airports to private operators. And one such tower is in the Kona International Airport, which is in my district on the Island of Hawaii. This airport is currently classified as a Class D airspace and therefore it does not have approach control run by the FAA.

However, we know that over the past 15 years Kona Airport is one of the busier airports and has more than qualified for Class C status. Now that they have over 1.3 million passengers compared with the minimum of 250,000 for Class C airspace. And a Class C airspace requires FAA approach control. And I have been told by some flight professionals, pilots, air traffic controllers, they have expressed concerns of safety issues at the Kona Airport.

The contract -- private contract is about to expire and I think that this is a really good time for the FAA to review the safety needs at this airport. And with the idea that it should, you know, the question as to whether or not this airport should come -- return to FAA control is one definitely timely, and I think really important for the safety of the passengers going to that airport. And I would ask you to listen to it, and if you could respond to me -- well, if you can't right now then later.

MS. LOBUE: So yes, I would absolutely commit to you that we will look into that and get back to you very quickly.

REP. HIRONO: Thank you. I yield back the rest of my time.

REP. COSTELLO: Sure, thanks gentle lady. I now recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. McMahon.

REP. MICHAEL E. MCMAHON (D-NY): Thank you, Chairman Costello and Ranking Member Petri for organizing this important meeting on the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009.

As aviation is a critical mode of transportation for our nation and for our world, to all our witnesses from the FAA, the airlines, and most importantly to the hard-working air traffic controllers, pilots, flight attendants, ground crews, and countless other airline and airport employees, I think you are keeping air travel the safest form of travel in the United States.

As the Chairman mentioned, what we've to do is look at the heroic crew from the U.S. Airways Flight 1549, which happened right in the harbor of New York from which I come, you may have noticed that on the accent. How important it is to have experienced and dedicated people flying our planes on our air transport system.

Mr. Chairman, I'm excited about joining this subcommittee, and I look forward to a rigorous discussion of this reauthorization bill. I know that this committee and our great subcommittee staff have put together a good package over the last few years and I'm looking forward to working with you to address a number of concerns.

Of course, I support the creation of the NextGen air transportation system, and I encourage the use of the most cutting edge satellite and GPS technology available for our network.

As you know, my district includes Staten Island and the western portion of Brooklyn, New York, the gateway to New York Harbor. The New York area airports provide a critical link to our national aviation network, but they also have some of the busiest airports in the nation and we must work to build a system capacity in a way that makes sense to New York and our country as a whole.

That is why I applaud the efforts of my colleagues last year to oppose the Bush administration's plan to auction off the air slots to congestion pricing at JFK and LaGuardia, and eventually Newark.

That plan was unworkable and I'm glad that it will not be included in this year's bill. Also Newark Airport is just over the Goethals Bridge from Staten Island, and airplane and helicopter noise continues to be a big problem for my district.

I hope we can work to include in this bill ways to study the noise around New York airports.

Finally, all of us have heard countless horror stories about air delays and being stuck on the tarmac and we need to make sure that the traveling public is treated with respect by adapting a strong Passenger Bill of Rights.

With that said and with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I just have two questions to Ms. LoBue. Our air traffic controllers are often eyes and ears of our airplanes and are the backbone of our safety network. So has been brought by the Chairman how their training is so important.

What type of outreach is going on with the FAA to reach out to the air traffic controllers about the airspace redesign and staffing issues across the country, as their experience is so important and how are they being included in this process?

MS. LOBUE: My understanding is that there was some outreach when there was designing of the New York airspace redesign to the controller workforce. We can get you specifics on that and have someone come up and brief you on all the outreach that was done.

REP. MCMAHON: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time. Thank you.

REP. COSTELLO: Sure, thanks gentleman. I now recognize the gentle lady from the District of Columbia, Ms. Norton.

DEL. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON (D-DC): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and thank you for kicking off this very important series of hearings.

I want to identify myself with the remarks of the chairman and others concerning the necessity to acquire an administrator who knows how to settle disputes with the labor force and it is astounding all we have to do in this agency.

But first let me ask Ms. -- I'm sorry -- LoBue. I'm sorry, Ms. LoBue, if you would spell out in greater detail the relationship between the upcoming stimulus and the airport improvement program, or perhaps Mr. Dillingham. We understand from your testimony that it gets you somewhat beyond a six-month extensions, but would you put on the record how the use of these funds will move your own -- your own mandate for improvement programs?

MS. LOBUE: So let me make clear. There is a core set of programs that needs to be reauthorized and that this committee's bill would work towards. The stimulus program, we have a series of projects in the pipeline that we believe would create jobs, fairly immediately. And those particular items would be the types that would be done under the stimulus package. And the stimulus, since it is --

DEL. NORTON: Those types of items, for example.

MS. : Excuse me.

MS. LOBUE: It can be resurfacing runways, it can be putting in landing lights. There is -- we have a system of safety projects that under our -- under the system called the NPIAS where we put them in order. Those that would rise to next tiers are the types of items that we would choose. There are traditional items that would be done under the Airport Improvement Program. That could just advance them from 2010 to 2009, from 2011 to 2010.

DEL. NORTON: Well, every committee feels an urgent need to make sure that these funds are used quickly, efficiently. When can you get to the chairman of this subcommittee and the chairman of the full committee a list of what those projects would be and their readiness for implementation?

MS. LOBUE: I would have to go back and check that and will get back to you with that information.

DEL. NORTON: I think, if you should get back to the chairman of this subcommittee within 10 days on that information, this is a lot of money, ($)3 billion.

MS. LOBUE: My understanding is we have the list. I'm just not familiar enough with it myself, personally.

DEL. NORTON: Yes, all right. If you just submit that to the subcommittee chairman within 10 days, so that we can be aware of it, I think it will be helpful to us all.

I have a question that is very troubling. In this region we appear to be going backwards on matters of security. The only public service helicopter located in this region, we have been informed, is in danger of closing. That of course, puts into jeopardy security in this high profile, highly targeted region. It is used of course, by public entities; the Metropolitan Police Air Support Unit, U.S. Park Police et cetera.

Moreover, it is this heliport, the one at South Capitol Street, is a part of the Department of Defense Nightingale program. It is the point of departure for a number of federal officials including, the Supreme Court. And on 9/11, this heliport, in fact, became the air control command tower when the airport here was evacuated.

There seemed to have been some understanding of the importance of this helicopter because despite what was done with general aviation, which is essentially closing it down and then opening it in a way so that virtually nobody can use it. For two years after 9/11 the heliport continued to serve public service clients and corporate clients, as well as newsgathering helicopters.

An agreement was reached, as you might expect with the secret service, and actually adopted by TSA. For reasons that I would like you to explain, since October 2003, the commercial operators whose funding is necessary to keep the heliport open and why they have informed us that they're on the brink of closing, They have been restricted from using the heliport.

Now understand who the commercial -- who pilots the commercial helicopters. These are all people who are or have been military or police helicopter pilots. That's what they have to be in order to come into this airport. They cannot now -- they are to the point where they cannot generate enough revenue to keep the heliport open without going to back to what they had two years after 9/11.

Could you explain to this subcommittee, why with all of these safeguards, without explanation, this vital security defense service was abruptly cutoff and what you intend to do about it?

MS. LOBUE: I'm not personally familiar with this issue. So I will have to get someone that is, to come up and brief you.

REP. COSTELLO: Ms. Norton.

MS. LOBUE: We commit to do that within the next week.

REP. COSTELLO: Ms. Norton, the -- Ms. LoBue is here because Ms. Osmus who was scheduled to be here is ill today. So she is sitting in. And let me suggest on that issue, and we recently discussed this issue. We need to get to the department over someone who knows and who can answer us the question. We will set up a meeting with you and with the appropriate people within the agency to discuss the matter.

DEL. NORTON: I so appreciate that Mr. Chairman. It is a matter of some urgency, I believe. At the same time Mr. Chairman, may I ask --

REP. COSTELLO: If it's quick.

DEL. NORTON: Yeah, just let me ask --

REP. COSTELLO: You're already 2 minutes over your time.

DEL. NORTON: I'm not asking a question. I'm asking you if you would provide a similar briefing from whoever are the responsible officials. I appreciate the way this witness is getting ducked for the entire department to explain whether they have reviewed the virtual exclusion of general aviation from the airport of the nation's capital even though, just a few days after 9/11 it was up and running in the city of skyscrapers, New York City. And only because this committee threatened contempt did we get it opened at all and then we've got such onerous requirements. People with shotguns on board and the like that is -- and continues to be a virtual exclusion.

I would like to ask for an explanation and review of that policy as well.

REP. COSTELLO: We will be in touch with your staff, and we will set up a meeting. The -- Chairman Oberstar had a meeting yesterday with the subcommittee chairs and Secretary LaHood. And I think another meeting is going to happen sometime in the not too distant future and -- but we will set that meeting up.

DEL. NORTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. COSTELLO: The chair thanks the gentle lady and now recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Cohen.

REP. STEVE COHEN (D-TN): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Let me ask first, and I just -- I haven't had the time to look, and I don't know who the appropriate person to answer this question might be. Is there anything in the bill or is there anything that we already have in the way of help, to help airports clear away fowl from the area so they don't cause disturbances with airplanes as we saw in New York. Is there any program that we have, noise makers, you know, whatever. Yes, ma'am.

MS. LOBUE: The FAA does through its airport organization have guidance and programs for wildlife and bird hazard and works actively with most of the airports throughout the United States. It does remain a big concern, sir. You're correct.

REP. COHEN: Well, obviously it does and was the problem in New York that these birds were just lucky/unlucky? They didn't get to -- observed by your deterrent effects or your monitoring system and then they ran into the plane or vice versa or what?

MS. LOBUE: My understanding is the monitoring systems are mostly done at a lower level and these were at a higher level. I'm not familiar enough you know, obviously, they are still going through all the facts. And the NTSB is -- has not come out with all of its reports yet. But that said, we do work the issue particularly, through the airports at the lowest level.

REP. COHEN: Is there somewhat -- what gets geese to go the other way, except for the weather?

MS. LOBUE: I can get you more information on the program. I mean, they have deterrence whether it is through, you know, actively working to replace water hazards and things like that. I mean, New York is complicated in that the airport is right on the water and there is a wildlife refuge there. So they actually, you know, have a considerable problem that they do try and mitigate.

REP. COHEN: But it's on your radar, so to speak.

MS. LOBUE: Absolutely.

REP. COHEN: Thank you. Let me ask -- all three you all I presume are in favor. Could you safely say that you all are in favor of the passage of this bill? I see one nod.

MR. SCOVEL: Mr. Cohen, we are definitely in favor of the passage of the bill. We've worked with the committee to help provide some of the background information that is behind the bill. So we're definitely in favor of it.

REP. COHEN: Let me ask you this. There is a provision in here that that deals with labor laws and deals with Federal Express, which is the number one carrier of cargo in this country. And it would require them to be under the National Labor Relations Act rather than the Railway Labor Act which the courts have ruled that is the appropriate and -- legislatively and -- and also in courts judicially, that that's the proper place for labor disputes to be determined for the good of the country. Because if there is a strike there, in some remote section of the Federal Express -- FedEx express system and FedEx is halted in this particular recessionary time, if not at all times, commerce comes to a halt.

Are you all familiar with that provision, any of you are familiar with it? Nobody is familiar with it. Well, and you endorse the bill. My question to you is this. That in my opinion, and I come from Memphis, that's maybe considered provincial. But the Federal Express covers the entire the United States, the entire globe. And this issue has the potential to stop this bill.

I am in favor of the bill as you are and think it's real important as does my airport authority, that we have the next generation, that we have runway improvements, we have all the provisions in the bill to help move this forward. But this one labor provision is not germane and if the three of you all are even familiar with and yet you are experts on the field, the "Pros from Dover" as they'd say in MASH, are even familiar with, could hold up this bill.

And I think that's a serious problem and especially in the Senate because they have effectively hijacked the stimulus bill with three individuals. And I suspect that the same thing could happen over there on this bill. And I'd hate to see us not get this pill passed because of a provision that is very important to the future of this country's economy, and that is not necessarily germane to runways, extensions, and NextGen and other safety features. So with that, as a statement, if anybody wants to comment, I would appreciate it. Mr. Scovel, do you have a thought?

MR. SCOVEL: I don't sir. The topic is really beyond the purview of my office and we're happy to leave it within the sound judgment of the Congress.

REP. COSTELLO: I think the gentleman form Tennessee has sufficiently made his point on the issue, and I don't think you are going to get a comment out of anyone of the witnesses here. But we -- your point is well taken and noted. Thank you.

REP. COHEN: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you recognize me because I've got a meeting of the Tennessee delegation and I absolutely, positively wanted to be here for this particular moment, thank you.

REP. COSTELLO: The Chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes the gentleman form Arkansas, Mr. Boswell --

REP. JOHN BOOZMAN (R-AR): Mr. Boozman. You forgotten my name?

REP. COSTELLO: Boozman. I just had a conversation with Mr. Boswell, Mr. Boozman and let me remind members that we have 14 more witnesses to hear from. So I would ask members to stay within the 5- minute time limit. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas.

REP. BOOZMAN: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I will cooperate even though you forgot my name. Thank you all for being here and we appreciate the testimony. Dr. Dillingham, the EAS is an important entity in many of our districts throughout the country, many members of Congress. Can you give us some options and alternatives that perhaps Congress might explore to enhance or supplement EAS?

MR. DILLINGHAM: Thank you Mr. Boozman. We currently have a study underway for this subcommittee that looks at those exact questions. What we can say now, at this early stage is that, clearly, looking at the criteria and requirements associated with EAS, is well overdue. Since the program was started some 30 years ago, there have not been major changes or adjustments in the program; in spite of changes in population demography, in spite of changes in the aviation industry.

I think part of what we are going to try and report out is not only how to enhance EAS, but also options that will provide the sort of connectivity for small and rural communities to that national transportation network. And it may be rail, it may be bus or other surface things, but we propose to report those options to the committee as soon as we finish analyzing the data

REP. BOOZMAN: Thank you very much, sir. I yield back.

REP. COSTELLO: Chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes the gentle lady from California, Ms. Richardson.

REP. LAURA RICHARDSON (D-CA): Yes, thank you Mr. Chairman for having this meeting and welcome back to all of you; seeing you on a new year and new session. I have two very quick questions.

One, I want to build upon the Chairman regarding air traffic controllers. I notice Ms. LoBue, that in your very extensive testimony it's only until the last paragraph do you talk about air traffic controllers. And Mr. Dillingham, in your presentation, you talk about that you agree that there is someone on track.

However, all you got to do is come to my state and I'm sure you've read the headlines of both of my senators; we're extremely concerned with what's happening with air traffic controllers. So I'd like to know, you know, who -- where are we here. Because your documentation says, we're on track, things are going fine

Yet in our communities, as the chairman has shared as well, we've got a lot of inexperienced people in there where it's a disaster waiting to happen. And essentially, the recommendation, I believe, from Mr. Dillingham's report, is not only hiring, but what are you doing to resolve the labor conflicts, which I think, has been going on for several years.

And what is the secretary's commitment to resolving that conflict? Because we're projecting what's going to happen of hiring people of seven years. But I believe if we continue to disrespect working people and not resolve the contract issues, you may find that that pattern is -- (inaudible) -- same. So what are we going to do to address that?

MS. LOBUE: If I could. The secretary, the new Secretary Mr. LaHood has committed that his first tier, new FAA administrator, one of the first things he is going to have him tackle is the workforce issues. He is looking for a person that will be willing to and able to work with labor and get some of these issues behind us.

So I think we have that commitment from the secretary, and I believe the chairman has mentioned that we should look forward to that in the very near future. So I think that will be one of the items tackled by this administration pretty quickly.

As to the concern about the proportion of trainees versus experienced controllers, that is something obviously, that we have concerns about. We do have a lot of controllers, we are hiring. We are following the plan, but there are in fact, places that we understand the ratio was higher than we would like. And we are actively keeping an eye on those and we have processes in place to get those controllers checked out and to work through some of the experienced issues on a more effective and faster way. So I can tell you that we understand the problem and we're working it. Although we do understand there will be some transition issues as we move forward.

REP. RICHARDSON: Okay. In the sense of time that the chairman has said, could you please forward to the committee a report. I would say on your major airports and I know LAX has got to be on the top on the list. Not what we're preparing and we're working on. But what specifically is happening because it is of great concern, both of the senators from my state have expressed the concern and it's just not to our satisfaction at this point.

And I would also urge the secretary and I hope to meet with him soon, and I'm sure our chairman will share the thoughts of this committee. But resolving that labor agreement has got to be a top priority, not the last paragraph in your report. Because I believe, that hinges upon many of the other problems that we have.

Finally, I wanted to talk about noise mitigation. In addition to LAX, I have the Long Beach Airport in my district. And Mr. Dillingham, you talked about the local government decisions that allow communities to expand near airports may however erode some of the gains of these reductions -- in these reductions in noise.

The FAA has issued guidance that discourages incompatible land uses, such as residences, schools, hospitals and in areas with significant noise -- aviation noise. In my area, we just -- when I was on the council they approved a major project of over 2,000 homes to go right up under the airport, the plane of landing.

And so my question is what would you advise to members on committees -- this is saying, "Don't build any more." But for those of us who are there, how can we take advantage of other pilot programs or how could you recommend better addressing it for the neighborhoods that are clearly along those paths?

MR. DILLINGHAM: Ms. Richardson, as you have said, land use is strictly a local jurisdiction matter. And what FAA has done is there's a Part 150 program that allows for noise mitigation to try and mitigate some of the noise where you had this close-up usage of land.

Also we are currently doing for this committee and LAX is a big part of it. We're doing a study looking to see what airports have been doing to mitigate all kinds of environmental issues, noise and emissions. And we're hoping to bring to the committee some answers and options that we have learnt from a national study of airports. And hopefully that will be of some help in the LAX area.

REP. RICHARDSON: And if you would consider my area as evaluating as you move forward, I'd appreciate it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've extended my time.

REP. COSTELLO: The chair thanks the gentle lady and now recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Dr. Ehlers.

REP. VERNON J. EHLERS (R-MI): I thank you, Mr. Chairman. But I just arrived due to a delay and I don't feel qualified to ask a question of this august panel. We'll try and wait --

REP. COSTELLO: Would you like to yield your time to Mr. Dent?

REP. EHLERS: I'd be happy to yield my time to Mr. Dent.

REP. CHARLES W. DENT (R-PA): Thank you, Mr. Ehlers for yielding.

And my question to you is this, what benefits have been achieved by moving the Joint Planning and Development Office within the bureaucracy of the Air Traffic Organization, Ms. LoBue?

MS. LOBUE: That move was made to better work what we generally call stove pipes, and work some of the horizontal integration in the agency. So the point was those things that the JPDO had done work on that would qualify in the short and the mid-term could be put into implementation and work immediately.

Those things in the longer-term, JPDO was still actively working and has the outreach and has the responsibility to coordinate with all the other agencies.

REP. DENT: I'd like to know what is your -- what is the biggest safety priority for the agency?

MS. LOBUE: I don't know that I'm qualified to answer a single safety priority. We have many.

REP. DENT: Okay. With the downturn in the economy too it seems to me that, you know, federal jobs may look better than ever for many people. Should this help the FAA's recruitment of highly-qualified people with systems engineering and contract management expertise?

MS. LOBUE: I think we believe that it will. I think we remain concerned that across all technical industries that there is a shortage. But I think the economic downturn should help us, yes.

REP. DENT: And well, I guess, my final question I have for you then is why does the FAA not keep any safety data on air ambulances, cargo aircraft, and general aviation?

MS. LOBUE: I'm not qualified to answer that, sir. But I can get someone who is, to come up and brief you.

REP. DENT: I'd be -- I appreciate that.

I yield back my time to Mr. Ehlers then.

REP. EHLERS: No one else seems to be seeking time, so I will yield back, Mr. Chair.

REP. COSTELLO: The Chair thanks the gentleman.

And now recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Carnahan.

REP. RUSS CARNAHAN (D-MO): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to direct my -- I first thank the panel and direct my question to Inspector General Scovel.

In a report that came out last April DOT -- for DOT you stated that fewer veteran controllers were transferring from lower level less complicated facilities to higher level busier locations. The impact has been to put less experienced controllers into situations they may not be as ready for as some of the counterparts. Is that still the case nearly a year later and is there any updated data that we could see regarding that?

MR. SCOVEL: Thank you, Mr. Carnahan. We finished our report on air traffic controller facility level training as of the end of fiscal 2008. So my data are current as of September 30, 2008. At that point we had determined that fewer veteran controllers than FAA had hoped were indeed taking up the agency on its offer to move them with a bonus to facilities where veterans were needed.

As a result controllers in training were found in increasing numbers at a number of facilities across the country. And it is a concern both for the agency and for my office because, of course, controllers in training require much closer supervision and they are not qualified to operate at all positions across the facility.

REP. CARNAHAN: What role has the agency's contract had on this drop in incentives for the more experienced controllers to move up the ranks to these busier facilities?

MR. SCOVEL: I'm not aware that our study tackled that particular question. When you talk about the contract you're talking about the labor contract between the agency and NATCA sir?

REP. CARNAHAN: Uh-huh.

MR. SCOVEL: Right. We didn't address that. What we attempted to address at least in part was whether the absence of a full contract might be leading to more retirements on the part of veteran controllers.

REP. CARNAHAN: And what were your findings in that regard?

MR. SCOVEL: We found certainly that the absence of a full contract was a significant morale issue. However, we couldn't identify the absence of a contract as -- in most cases, the sole driving factor leading an individual to decide to retire.

There were just too many factors, family you name it as well as professional reasons that were leading veteran controllers to retire, perhaps in some cases, the absence of a contract was one of those. But it was expressed more generally in terms of the morale of the workforce.

REP. CARNAHAN: Thank you.

I yield back.

REP. DENT: The Chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Moran.

REP. JERRY MORAN (R-KS): Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to hear these witnesses read their testimony in this case and hear the next panel.

The economic downturn, Ms. LoBue, what's the current state of the FAA, the Aviation Trust Funds, its effect upon the FAA's budget?

MS. LOBUE: Right now the Trust Fund for the end of '09 we projected, and this goes back to the mid-term projections we did last July. We project that Trust Fund receipts will be ($)12.2 billion in -- at the end of '09 and ($)13.1 billion in 2010, which says, basically the cash balance there's not a problem right now.

We are concerned about the low uncommitted balance which shows the mismatch of receipts and spending because as we've all seen traffic continues to trend downward as much as perhaps 10 percent. So that is an issue that we'll have to look at.

REP. MORAN: When you say, the cash balances are not a problem right now, how would you define, "right now?" What timeframe -- are their expectations or what does your crystal ball foretell?

MS. LOBUE: At end of '09 we're expecting a $9.1 billion cash balance. Obviously, all of these numbers will be updated as the new administration comes forward with its budget requests. I believe that's at end of February. So they would have, I think, in that budget request much more stipulation of what -- how they see the problem.

REP. MORAN: Is there an understanding at the FAA what the administration's plans are to fill the long vacant position of administrator?

MS. LOBUE: The secretary has met both with the FAA executives and has had a couple of town hall meetings with -- open to all FAA staff and reiterated several times that this is -- one of his priorities, is getting an administrator that will both be able to tackle NextGen and be able to work through the workforce issues that we've seen.

And I understand from the chairman that, in fact, they -- he -- they have identified someone and are hoping to get them on soon.

REP. MORAN: That's encouraging. It's been discouraging for the amount of time that, that position has been vacant. And I would just publicly encourage the secretary, the administration to actively engage in finding a leader at the Federal Aviation Administration.

I thank the Chairman and yield back my time.

REP. COSTELLO: I thank the gentleman and just would comment that in a recent meeting with the secretary and others the administration has identified someone that they are speaking to right now.

And the administration's has only been in office 21 days so it seems to me like it's pretty fast action and that they are moving forward. We hope that person is appointed and moves through the process quickly. We think it's important for NextGen and a number of the other programs.

REP. MORAN: If the Chairman would yield? I did not mean to infer that 21 days was necessarily a long period of time. But it has been a long time since we've had the position occupied. Thank you.

REP. COSTELLO: The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski.

REP. DANIEL LIPINSKI (D-IL): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I know we have a long hearing today. So I'll work on keeping this short. I want to thank the Chairman Costello and Ranking Member Petri for their work in putting together this bill last year and also working with Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica.

There are a couple of things that I had worked on with the chairmen and ranking members getting the provisional legislation to continue, enhance R&D for gas alternatives which I think is important; for a provision that would establish a new FAA Center of Excellence focused on alternative jet fuel research.

So I thank the Chairman for including this in the bill that we have before us now. And that we are moving very quickly on this. I think it's very important that we move quickly and hopefully the Senate will move this time on the FAA Reauthorization.

So to keep this short for the rest of the witnesses I just wanted to ask one question right now of Ms. LoBue about Chicago Midway International Airport, which is in my district.

And it's a -- been important to me. And I've been working to increase the safety and efficiency of the airport and working with the FAA on this.

And I'm not sure if what you can provide for me right now if -- I certainly would like to get further elaboration on what measures the FAA is taking right now to ensure the safety and efficiency at Midway Airport remain a priority because this is very important to, of course, everyone who uses the airport and certainly the people who lived in the vicinity of the airport.

MS. LOBUE: If you're talking while this privatization effort that's going on?

REP. LIPINSKI: Yes.

MS. LOBUE: So as we speak nothing has changed. We have an applicant under the Privatization Pilot Program. FAA has not yet approved that. We are still awaiting some of the financial documents, and some of the exact safety assurances, and workings that you're talking about. So when we get that from the city we will proceed as soon as we can.

REP. LIPINSKI: And as we go through this, if the -- you know whether or not the airport is leased, are there -- is there any specifics that -- anything more that the FAA is looking at right now? I know that in the last few years there have been additions at the end of the runways for arrestor beds, and was wondering where we are looking at moving forward with any safety -- any more safety improvements at Midway Airport?

MS. LOBUE: I would have to have someone get back to you with the specifics for Midway and what they are doing there. I'm not familiar myself. So we can do that.

REP. LIPINSKI: I appreciate that and appreciate working with the FAA and working with the new administrator on making sure that all their airports, but certainly also importantly Midway Airport and O'Hare Airport, continue to be -- continue to be vital, and we improve the safety and work on improving the efficiency of those airports.

So I yield back.

REP. COSTELLO: The chair thanks the gentleman. And now recognizes the distinguished chairman of the full committee, Chairman Oberstar.

REP. JAMES L. OBERSTAR (D-MN): Thank you very much, Chairman, thank you, and Mr. Petri for moving ahead quickly on this reauthorization. It's a highest priority for us after the stimulus -- stimulus may need a lot more work than the aviation bill. I don't know.

Ms. LoBue, runway safety -- Runway Status Lights Program; I'm not familiar with that. What do you mean by Runway Status Lights?

MS. LOBUE: As part of our Runway Safety Call to Action Program we have put in place a Runway Status Lights. I believe it's eligible for AIT funding and it is one of a number of efforts to improve visibility and make sure that --

REP. OBERSTAR: What do you mean by "Status Lights" is what I want to understand?

MS. LOBUE: It's --

REP. OBERSTAR: What do you mean by Status Lights?

MS. LOBUE: It goes to the status of whether the particular runway is occupied, not open, closed. That's what it talks about, the status of the runway itself. For instance, we had the instance where the crew pulled on to an unused runway and that was inappropriate. And now that would be marked specifically so that they could see from these lights that that was not an appropriate place to go.

REP. OBERSTAR: Is this --

MR. DILLINGHAM: Mr. Chairman?

REP. OBERSTAR: Is this a program that or initiative you're instituting at all airports, or only the major airports, or more critical airports or what?

MS. LOBUE: I would have to get back to you on more of the specifics of the program. My understanding is that there is a program to put in -- I believe, by 2011 the top 22 airports will all have them.

REP. OBERSTAR: Dr. Dillingham, you were going to comment.

MR. DILLINGHAM: Yeah, I was just going to say that basically it's -- they work like stop lights so that, you know, the pilot can tell it's red -- sort of red and green. If it's red it's a visible sign that the -- that you shouldn't go on to that runway. So that's essentially Runway Status Lights.

And FAA has a program that, as Ms. LoBue said that they've already started -- I think they have been installed in something greater than 20 airports at this point. And I think the idea is that eventually all of the airports will have that kind of safety or at least certainly the major airports that the OEP airports and the other.

REP. OBERSTAR: We certainly need that. And it's the first time I've heard of this initiative and -- not that I've been following with as much diligence as I used to do. But I know that there further on in Ms. LoBue's testimony she discusses increased "runway safety training and awareness" for pilots and air traffic controllers and vehicle --

I see an increasing number of vehicular traffic on the airside of airports. And it really troubles me that we have so much movement in that space. And I am really concerned regarding having an on-the- ground incident and we do have some lesser ones and -- but the major incursion that result in aircraft damage, injury, or even fatality. So what did -- describe this training and the frequency at which it's occurring and the intensity and the type of training.

MS. LOBUE: FAA has had a pretty intensive program to try and tackle runway incursions over the last year-and-a-half. Former Administrator Marion Blakey did a runway Call to Action in which we talked with both the major carriers, ALPA, the major airports on what were the types of things we could do to bring the number of runway incursions down.

Because I think we also believe that that is one of the most important areas that we can look at it, in safety. As of last -- late in 2008, we instituted a Runway Safety Council which is co-chaired by ALPA to continue to look at the types of training et cetera that we can do.

I would have to get someone to come and give you a briefing on more specificity on exactly all the training we've been doing. But in fact we went out with guidance to the airlines on runway training -- runway safety training. And particularly on the Runway Safety Lights there has been -- all the major carriers have done training of their workforces over the last year.

REP. OBERSTAR: Thank you. I'll take you up on that offer. I won't delay any further with questions. This is a vitally important hearing where you all -- all witnesses, all the organizations have one shot at this.

We did this bill last year, two years ago actually, a year-and-a- half ago. We are now polishing for readiness for markup for the House floor and in a tough timeline to get this bill through the House. Hopefully the other body gets the message and get off their delaying tactics that they had done for the last few years and move the bill through because the authorization runs out at end of next month.

And we're dead serious about getting this bill through. So anybody has any questions, issues, raise now or forever keep your peace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. COSTELLO: Thank you, Chairman Oberstar. Well said. We thank all three of you for being here today and offering your testimony and answering our questions.

And the Chair now would ask the next panel of witnesses to come forward. I will make the introductions while you're finding your chair.

Mr. Greg Principato who is the Airports Council International- North America president; Mr. James Elwood, airport director to Aspen County Airport; Mr. James May, the president and CEO of the Air Transport Association; Mr. Ed Bolen, president and CEO, National Business Aviation Association; Mr. Roger Cohen, president of the Regional Airline Association; Mr. Craig Fuller, president, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association; Mr. Clayton Jones, he is chairman and president, CEO of Rockwell Collins.

And we would ask all of you to be seated as you heard me announce at the beginning of the hearing we have all of your statements. They will be submitted in their entirety in the record. We would ask that you summarize your testimony in five minutes or less which will give members the opportunity to ask questions. And we will lead off with Mr. Principato.

MR. PRINCIPATO: Thank you for allowing Airports Council International-North America the opportunity to participate in this important hearing, Mr. Chairman.

Let me start by thanking you and the subcommittee for your support of airports and HR 1. Your assistance in providing tools to improve our infrastructure while creating thousands of jobs highlights the important role of airports in our nation's transportation network.

We also appreciate your continued recognition of the success of the Airport Improvement Program and the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009. Whether one plane or a hundred use an airport on a given day we need to maintain our infrastructure to provide safe and secure facilities for the traveling public.

Under this committee's leadership airports were given a financial tool that has proved to be a model for federal-local partnerships and the lifeline for airport finance, the Passenger Facility Charge. By granting airports the ability to generate local funding through the PFC user fee, all who use the system have a voice in infrastructure development in consultation with the FAA.

This financing tool has allowed local communities to determine needs and map out a plan for improvements and development at the airport in coordination with the airport users.

ACI-North America strongly supports an increase in the ceiling of this local user fee to at least $7.50 for future increases indexed to match construction cost inflation.

The purchasing power of the PFC has been greatly diminished by skyrocketing construction costs. The current maximum PFC of $4.50 is worth only $2.46 today fully adjusting the PFC to account for construction cost, inflation, replace the fee this year at $8.33. Without your continued support of increasing the PFC airports will not have the ability to keep up with inflationary costs of construction and provide facilities that meet passenger demand.

History has shown that airports carefully evaluate the need for infrastructure projects. History has also shown that if you wait till your infrastructure is inadequate you've waited too long. Traffic may be down now but we did not have the infrastructure to meet demand just last summer. Can anyone remember the last time we had enough infrastructure to serve our passengers?

How can we expect to prevent passenger delays and inconvenience when passenger traffic returns? ACI-North America has just completed capital need survey, found that airports both commercial and general aviation have $94.4 billion in total projects over the next five years that are considered essential by the airport and airport users to meet forecasted passenger and cargo growth.

Not surprisingly over half of these projects are at large hub airports that continue to experience congestion and flight delays. And yes, our survey found that many airports of all sizes have delayed or cancelled the construction of billions of dollars of projects. Even so the needs are great and costs are rising.

We expect the PFC to play a more prominent role in airport finance and as Trust Fund revenue declines from reduced traffic and from the new a la carte ticket pricing system embraced by most U.S. airlines since these airline fees are not subject to the ticket tax.

It is ironic that the airlines continue to not only wrongly label the PFC user fee a tax but failed to mention that they have received $87 million in FY07 to collect and remit it. It's amusing frankly, that airlines claim the increase in the PFC user fee proposed by this committee -- subcommittee, last Congress will ultimately reduce passenger traffic when the a la carte pricing imposes fees that greatly exceed the PFC for services from checking a bag, to making a seat reservation, to using a pillow.

Thank you also for your support with airports work to reduce our environmental footprint, reduce emissions and improve energy efficiency. The environmental provisions supported by ACI in this bill are highlighted in my written testimony. Additionally, we commend the committee for proposing critical funding for important air service programs including SCADS and EIS. We are especially grateful for your efforts to authorize a significant increase in SCADS as the program has helped small communities enhance their air service on a self-sufficient long-term basis. In addition, my written testimony addresses the role airports would like to play in this committees' continued work on NextGen, an issue on which I've worked for 16 years now.

One final note. We remain very concerned about proposals to mandate specific airport rescue and firefighting standards. In December, we conducted a survey of our members and how much it would cost to comply with the proposed NFPA standards. We found the capital costs for compliance would average $6.5 million and annual operating costs would add ($)2.5 million forcing many smaller airports to consider closing down.

The FAA Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee which included airports, firefighters, and other stakeholders prepared a report on the proposed ARFF requirements and has recommended a rulemaking on many of these critical issues. We support initiating the rulemaking process to carefully evaluate the costs and benefits of any change in the regulations.

With that I'll conclude and thank you for inviting me here and look forward to working with you on getting this bill passed.

REP. COSTELLO: The Chair thanks the gentleman for your testimony and now recognizes Mr. Elwood.

MR. ELWOOD: Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Petri and members of the Aviation Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to participate in this hearing on FAA reauthorization. My message today is very simple. Airports deeply appreciate the good work that this committee did on FAA reauthorization in the last Congress.

We are particularly grateful that the previous bill and the legislation introduced earlier this week would raise the PFC cap to $7. We hope this committee will guide the multiyear FAA bill through Congress early this year that raises the PFC cap, increases AIP funding, and helps small communities.

The past year has been a difficult one for the aviation industry. Oil prices skyrocketed to nearly $150 per barrel and airlines responded by reducing capacity throughout the system. The declining economy has also been taking its toll. Despite this temporary downturn, our aviation system is expected to rebound again as it did after 9/11.

Enplanements are expected to increase from 765 million in 2007 to more than 1 billion in the next 10 years. In November, we saw new runways open here in Washington as well as Chicago and Seattle. Airports don't build those improvements capacity overnight.

As a matter of fact Seattle started planning that capacity increase approximately 20 years ago. Our airports prepare for the future. They are squeezed by increasing construction costs. Costs have increased approximately 27 percent in the last five years eroding the value of PFCs and AIP.

Airports are grateful for the -- that the new reauthorization bill calls for raising the PFC cap to $7 and urge this committee to consider raising it to $7.50. That would be almost enough to offset the impact of the construction cost inflation in 2008. To prevent further erosion, we also ask you to index the PFCs for those -- to the construction cost index.

AIP is another important source of funding for airports of all sizes. Airports are also pleased that the new bill would increase AIP funding by $100 million per year. And regarding small airports that relies so heavily on small community air service and essential air service programs we appreciate your continued support of these critical programs and your proposals to reform EAS.

Mr. Chairman, safety is always the most important consideration of airports across this country. The proposal by the International Association of Fire Fighters is very onerous and is difficult for airports to manage. At my small airport, we have 26 employees who do virtually everything on the airport from maintenance to facilities, to customer service, the entire gamut.

This proposal -- excuse me -- of those 26 employees, 8 of those are firefighters. The proposal to increase us to NFPA standards would require us to hire an additional 19 employees to accomplish that task. When I speak to my colleagues around the country about what this proposal might do to impact their operation, it is substantial and it is a real risk that we will lose commercial air service at some airports in this country because they simply cannot pass along the additional costs that these proposals might incur on to the airline, and it would make their routes unprofitable and they would leave our communities.

So I hope that the members of this committee will work with us to find an acceptable solution as we move forward. In closing, I would like to thank the committee again, Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Petri, and members of the aviation subcommittee for inviting me to testify. I look forward to working with you on this FAA reauthorization and a quick passage through both sides of the House and on to the president.

REP. COSTELLO: We thank you for your testimony and the Chair now recognizes Mr. May.

MR. MAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate the opportunity to appear today and also it's a pleasure to be here with my esteemed colleagues. Unlike last time around, we're really on the same page on a number of issues. We know that continuing to play the blame game is not going to get us very far and we've listened to our new president and agree that it's time for change.

All of us commercial, business, general aviation are 100 percent committed to working with you, the administration and most importantly I think each other to reach our mutual goal, which is reauthorization of FAA's program and funding, to ensure ATC modernization will be done early, will be done right, and in a way that transforms air travel in this country and keeps the U.S. competitive on the world stage.

If we do it right, modernization will allow planes to fly more direct efficient routes, significantly reducing fuel burn and CO2 emissions, reduce congestion, open up access, improve safety, security through precise tracking on the runway as well as in the air. Reduce flight delays and inconvenience to passengers and ensure the United States remains a global leader in safety, security, environment.

We realize it's necessary to put, however, the FAA reauthorization in context, U.S. and world economies are in crisis. Credit has evaporated. People are spending less, consumer confidence is at a record low point, that means travel is down and down significantly.

President Obama and others are championing a $790 billion stimulus package, dramatic, unprecedented pressure on the overall federal budget. Massive infrastructure enhancements from highways to the Internet are in play. This committee knows that modernization of the nation's air transportation network cannot wait.

It's the only certain way to achieve the environmental, commercial, customer service improvements and a competitive boost to our overall economy that we want and the nation demands. The committee also knows the current plan for NextGen deployment is willfully under funded in our view and far, far too slow.

In this regard, I feel compelled to share with the committee our disappointment, quite frankly, with a missed opportunity in the stimulus package to jumpstart NextGen, turn it into "NowGen" saving or creating 77,000 jobs, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, reducing passengers delays and it would have been a step that truly would have been transformational to our economy.

So what's different today from the last time we were here? First, as I mentioned earlier, the stakeholders are the same, on the same page as to what needs to be done with NextGen or NowGen, which is accelerate development of RNP, RNAV, ADS-B and data communication, offer aircraft equipage incentives, and we appreciate the endorsement for GAO on that point, focus FAA and operator efforts on areas of the country where we get the most bang for the buck.

Second, preliminary data and commonsense tells us that trust fund revenues are not going to be what we expected. I brought a chart along that's on the screen. They're going to be between ($)1 billion and ($)1.5 billion less this year and going forward. Why? Because there is reduced capacity, fewer flights, lower fares, far less revenue coming in and over half a million, as an example, fewer flights this January than January a year ago.

The substantial ongoing program commitments and less revenue coming in, some predict, the trust balance will zero out by 2010. In addition, general fund contributions have dropped from an average of 38 percent to 16 percent over the last 25 years.

So what is the same for decades must change. Commercial airlines and their customers, this will come as no surprise to this committee, contribute 90 percent of the trust fund revenue, and impose less than 70 percent of the costs. We paid $11 billion in 2008 to the Trust Fund. There has to be a way to true up revenues with cost imposed.

In addition, airlines and customers do PFCs, AIP rates, and charges combined, all three spend nearly $13 billion annually underwriting airport expenses. That means that airlines and customers spend over $20 billion on an annualized basis underwriting the Trust Fund and airports.

I'm not questioning the value of public need for our partners at the airports, but in this economic environment, the airports' continued push for higher PFC and AIP funds should be subjected to a reality check.

Instead of asking for more money, airports should be doing what all Americans are doing today, which is cutting costs, delaying investments, and holding the line. This is a spending issue, not a funding issue. To recap, we've got an economic crisis significantly declining our trust fund revenues and so forth.

Let's accept the president's challenge to look at things differently, look at innovating funding sources, bonding authority, look at a national infrastructure bank, eliminate amounts (ph), which is what my friend Mr. Principato wants.

And finally, I think, we want to make it known that we're happy to work together with this committee to find new constructive solutions, but continuing to look to the airlines for more money is not an appropriate answer. Thank you.

REP. COSTELLO: The chair thanks you, Mr. May, and before recognizing Mr. Bolen, let me, on behalf of members of the subcommittee, wish you a happy birthday.

(Laughter)

And thank you for spending a good part of your birthday with us. The chair now recognizes Mr. Bolen.

MR. BOLEN: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is no place, I'd rather spend my birthday than right here with this subcommittee.

(Laughter)

Mr. Chairman, it's an honor to be back representing the National Business Aviation Association. As everyone on this committee well knows business aviation is an FAA defined term; it's the use of any general aviation aircraft for a business purpose. And business aviation is clearly an important part of the general aviation community.

Business aviation is also an important engine for our nation's economy and a vital link in our air transportation system. Business aviation is about jobs, over 1.2 million jobs in the United States, good manufacturing jobs, service jobs, jobs that we can keep in the United States in the 21st century.

Business aviation is also about a lifeline to our nation's small towns and rural communities. As this committee knows there have been a number of communities that have lost commercial airline service over the past year and a half. For those communities business aviation has never been more important.

Business aviation is about making our companies more productive, more nimble, helping them communicate and survive in a very harsh economic environment. As this committee knows business aviation operators are primarily small and midsize companies. They need the benefits of business aviation to survive.

It has already been discussed today that our economy is suffering, and when our economy suffers business aviation suffers. Like commercial airlines business aviation follows market cycle. So when the economy expands, our operations expand. When it contracts, we contract as well. And clearly, this recession is forcing a very painful contraction.

Operations are down over 30 percent. Manufacturing jobs are being lost. Pilot jobs are being lost, service jobs are being lost, fuelers are losing. Our general aviation airports are hurting as well. It is a very difficult time. Having said that, we continue to believe in the future. We know aviation will return, our economy will return and our air transportation system will be critically challenged as it moves forward.

That is why we have always supported moving forward with NextGen. General aviation is not only supporting NextGen with rhetoric, we're supporting it with dollars. We commend this subcommittee for the tremendous work it has done over a two-year process immersing itself into the FAA funding issue, understanding the needs, and the challenges, and coming forward with a plan that we believe makes NextGen a reality.

We also support the process that you have not just come forward here, but the process that the Senate brought forward to the Senate floor last spring. This is a process that builds on the general aviation fuel taxes and allows us to adjust those taxes to support NextGen.

We continue to support this approach. We will not back away from it. We look forward to working with you on making NextGen a reality. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. COSTELLO: We thank you.

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Cohen.

MR. COHEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and member -- (audio break) -- I am President of the Regional Airline Association. RAA represents the interests of more than 30 regional airlines and nearly 300 industry suppliers. I want to thank you for this opportunity today.

America's regional airlines have become a fundamental cornerstone of our air transportation industry and a critical part of the nation's economy. Today, we carry 160 million passengers a year. That's more than one out of every five on a commercial airliner.

We fly 40 percent of the nation's passenger fleet and 50 percent, 50 percent one-half of the scheduled flights. But most notably regional airlines serve more than 600 airports across the U.S. And in 476 of these communities, that's 75 percent, regional airlines provide the only scheduled service.

As you all know, it was a very different aviation and economic landscape when we had the honor of testifying before you back in the spring of 2007. But the principles that we outlined to you on behalf of RAA's board of directors remain valid and maybe even more critical today. ` First, most importantly, do no harm. Preserve the network of air service to small and medium size communities. Today, most passengers are normally just one stop away from any point in the U.S. and many points across the globe.

Two, transition quickly and efficiently to a modernized satellite-based national airspace system. Three, the funding for this system should reflect the more balanced splitting-of-the-check, if you will, amongst all the users of the system.

Four, restore the balance of the 1990 ANCA law, under which airport fees would be spent primarily on expanding and improving the nation's airways and airport infrastructure, runways and taxiways.

And five, and something near and dear to us here at RAA is fulfill the promise made by Congress under the 1978 Deregulation Act, that Essential Air Service communities would not fall off the airline map without adequate protections.

And in that point we want to specifically thank you for raising the -- proposing to raise the cap for EAS funding to $200 million for addressing other EAS reforms. And on that point -- and you bill in great measure addresses these principles, and it's why we support it and help advance the measure that reached the Senate floor in the previous Congress.

But that was then and this is now and we are in a different place. Last year's speculative driven run-up in fuel costs and the tanking of the world economy have created a much tougher challenge. Just look at the numbers.

Between December 2006 and December 2007, regional airlines gained a net gain of 77 new nonstop markets. But last year, regional airlines had to cutback and there was a net loss of 243 nonstop regional markets. That was compared to a net loss of about 100 mainline routes.

In other words, communities served exclusively by regional suffered flight cutbacks last year at more than twice the rate of the mainline served airports. Even more troubling, some 31 airports lost all their scheduled service last year, potentially worsening the burden of an already overstressed and under-funded Essential Air Service program.

But like those infomercial business gurus and my old high school football coach used to say, sometimes problems are just opportunities in disguise. And these hopefully temporary setbacks -- temporary cutbacks in flights have perhaps provided some breathing room maybe a timeout from the headlines about flight delays, so that we can make the kind of real progress towards NextGen that this Congress, the FAA, and so many people in this room have been working towards for decades.

Our member regional airlines have much riding and already much invested in this effort. The hub-and-spoke networks that have provided the benefits of safe seamless service to passengers in small and medium sized communities, regional airlines have become through this network the main providers of many of the nation's busiest airports.

We operate more than one-half the flights at O'Hare, and Philadelphia, Dallas, Houston, Detroit, Minneapolis, Saint Paul, and about a third at places like Denver and JFK, LaGuardia and even Boston's Logan. This is why regional airlines have committed substantial resources to be the leaders in the transition to NextGen.

Four RAA members are pioneers in installing electronic flight bags on their aircraft to help prevent the kind of runway incursions that you all were discussing earlier today at the busiest airports; SkyWest at LAX, Shuttle America, and Piedmont at Philadelphia and New York and CommutAir in my hometown of Cleveland.

Another NextGen pioneer was Horizon Air second airline in the country approved for RNP approaches. Datacom, VAS, RNP, RNAV, ADS-B, EFD the whole alphabet of modernizations, regional airlines have become essential parts of NextGen.

REP. COSTELLO: Mr. Cohen, we'd ask you to wrap it up.

MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, while the number of flight delays -- well, flights in delays are down, flight cutbacks far more than to our liking, and the reduction in delays much less than we prefer, the need for action is greater now than it was even two years ago.

Towards that end, we look forward to working with you. Our member airlines look forward to working with you, all of Congress, your staff, administration, FAA to make it happen.

REP. COSTELLO: We thank you for your testimony.

And now the chair recognizes Mr. Fuller.

MR. FULLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Petri, members of the committee. I -- my name is Craig Fuller. I am the president of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. I've held that position now for just about six weeks.

I have been a pilot, an active pilot for just about 42 years. I've flown in the system from California to the East Coast. And some of you know I came here in 1981 with a new administration, what's not so well known is I came here in a Cessna Cutlass and I now fly a Bonanza aircraft about 200 to 220 hours a year. I've been a member of AOPA since 1973, so the issues that you have dealt with are also very familiar to me.

I want to start by taking note of some things Joe May said because I do think it's important and impressive that we're here today with you in agreement on the FAA reauthorization. And there are also members important organizations in the aviation community that are also in agreement that could not be here today.

But I think it's worth noting that we're unified all believing from our unique perspectives that the FAA reauthorization needs to go forward, needs to go forward for a four-year period to give certainty not only to the agency, but to give certainty to all of us who fly in the system, to -- who invest in the system from the airports to people throughout the aviation community.

That four-year period is in fact vital. Also I would mention that -- I think the question was asked about delaying this or extending this for temporary periods of time. A four-year authorization really allows the agency to spend money wisely.

You get a better bargain today than you're going to get a year from now, two years from now, three years from now. So this four-year extension serves the interests of the aviation community very well.

The bottom line for us -- I know you're tied on time -- the bottom line for us is we support the measure, we support the use of aviation fuel taxes as a means of providing support from our segment of the aviation community, and we do think that that increase is something that our members will live with.

We now have 416,000 members as of the end of January. It's a privilege for me to represent them here today. I look forward to representing them again here in the future. I look forward to your questions. Thank you.

REP. COSTELLO: Thank you.

Mr. Jones.

MR. JONES: Thank you, Ranking Member Petri and -- hopefully, I'm on now -- thank you. And Chairman Costello, -- (inaudible) -- in the room, I want to thank you for inviting me to testify today not only on behalf of the 20,000 employees of Rockwell Collins, but also the member companies of ARSA, AIA, and GAMA.

As this committee well knows, the civil aviation industry plays a critical role in the health of the domestic economy, employing nearly 11 million workers in all 50 states, and contributing more than $1.2 trillion annually to the U.S. economy.

And despite these laudable figures these are challenging times you've heard from the panel today. In order to adjust to the financial realities of the day, companies have been forced to ground on liquidate business and commercial aircraft they can no longer afford.

This sharp reduction in utilization coupled with the rapidly increasing inventory of used aircraft is further depressing already slumping demand for new planes.

Subsequently, as aircraft order backlog shrink manufactures of both general aviation, and commercial aircraft, and their suppliers have been forced to take painful steps and layoff thousands of hardworking employees from coast to coast.

Now, while this committee is well aware of the benefits this industry provides, I respectfully request that you remind your colleagues of these benefits and ensure they avoid any legislation that would further damage this vital industry such as preventing corporate ownership of aircraft.

Additionally, Mr. Chairman, smoldering beneath today's immediate economic crisis is a much longer-term challenge that everyone in this room is aware of, the challenge that has the potential to inflict significant future economic damage to the United States. Today, we are operating on an aviation infrastructure based on radars and control processes designed in the 1940s.

We must advance from this 20th century system to a 21st century system taking advantage of the advances and information management, satellite based flight tracking and navigation to yield the safety, efficiency, and sustainable -- environmental sustainability benefits that we know NextGen will offer.

Now to be clear, next generation -- NextGen is not a mere modernization program, but rather a transformation program, one capable of accommodating the future growth while avoiding billions of dollars of lost productivity and unnecessary environmental impact.

Regarding environmental impact, the civil aviation industry understands the importance of this issue and its potential impact on our future growth. While we have made great strides in minimizing the impact through our products, and technology developments, and operational practices much more work remains to be done. And I think NextGen offers the promise of getting us closer to carbon neutrality.

Now in order to accommodate projects that serve the public good like NextGen and they achieve the related congestion and environmental benefits, appropriations from the general fund should return to the levels of the 1990s when funding averaged 29 percent per year.

And hopes of returning to this sensible level of government funding, I believe, it is reasonable and appropriate for Congress to increase the general fund share of FAA operations to 25 percent per year for the life of this pending legislation.

With such an increase, Congress can then take the next bold step in aerospace modernization and authorize and appropriate $3 billion general fund dollars over the next four years to fund the equipage of Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast or ADS-B.

This funding would allow the vast majority of commercial and general aviation fleets to be equipped with this important technology at a far earlier date than would be achieved in the current timeframe of 2020 by FAA rule.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to stress the aviation industry's commitment to safety and security particularly at our manufacturing and repair stations around the world.

As you know, aviation is a global industry and as such it requires an international network of safe and secure stations to repair and maintain aircraft.

Although Section 304 of H.R. 2881 was no doubt designed to improve the safety oversight of foreign repair stations, I believe it could ultimately undermine the very safety systems we are trying to improve.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to testify before your committee. I look forward to passage of long-term reauthorization bill that will provide critical direction from Congress and along with the new FAA administrator focus attention on managing these challenges.

But to be clear, not only -- that responsibility is not on the shoulders of just one person. Clearly, Congress, and the House, and the Senate, but it also falls on the shoulders of industry.

Consequently, I call on my industry partners to focus on the broader aspects of this legislation and recommit to work together for its safe passage.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd be glad to answer your questions.

REP. COSTELLO: Thank you, Mr. Jones.

Mr. May, as we've discussed in the past both in this hearing room and privately, to a great degree the success of NextGen will -- and there is a lot of things that have to happen to make it successful, one is equipage that the airplanes have to be equipped with the necessary equipment. Where is ATA and the airlines in working with the FAA regarding equipage of the aircraft?

MR. MAY: Mr. Chairman, we are aggressively supporting accelerated equipage of aircraft. We've got about half of our fleet that are now equipped, not quite as much for RNP, we've got some GPS in the aircraft.

But we think if there is nexus between the ground operations for NextGen, which we would prefer to call NowGen, and the fleet, it is going to rest on the equipage. So they have got to finish getting the standards out and then they have to do something that we are not satisfied they've done just yet and that is give us the business case --and I'm sure Mr. Jones would underscore this, for spending the kind of dollars that are necessary.

We have to know that there will be reduced separation. We know that we have to be able to use that equipment to -- and FAA will permit closely spaced parallel operations, things of that sort to make the business case for us to spend that money.

Ideally, I think the best way to do it is what we suggested be included in the stimulus package, which Mr. Jones just referred to and we all signed up to, which is a $4 billion investment in equipage across not just the civil fleet, but GA, private aviation, the military, and others so that we know we've got the tools to be able to deploy this technology as aggressively as possible.

REP. COSTELLO: The issue of Mr. Jones mentioned and you mentioned in your testimony the general fund contribution to the trust fund has during the '90s was in the high 20 -- 28, 29 percent range, it is down to 16 percent now --

MR. MAY: And it's correct.

REP. COSTELLO: You've heard me saying many times that we need a robust number from the general fund. Do you have a number in mind? And looking at -- you put a chart up here earlier -- what should the contribution from the general fund to the trust fund be?

MR. MAY: Mr. Jones used the number 25 percent. I certainly wouldn't disagree with that. We recognize that the trust fund has a significantly declining balance. We recognize that the general fund is paying in less and less every year.

And that contributes to the contretemps that we've had over user funding of the trust fund. I think the more general fund opportunities that we can address in the ATTF, the better off we'll all be. If it could be 30 percent, I'll be all in favor of it.

REP. COSTELLO: We look forward to receiving the budget from the new administration and have been encouraging them to look very hard at increasing the number over what it is now.

The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member Mr. Petri.

REP. PETRI: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, with the economic -- growing economic insecurity around the world, there is ever to do everything we can to protect jobs and bring jobs back home to America and all that.

And in that connection I wonder if Mr. Jones could address some provision in this bill that probably are well intended but might -- sometimes this law for unintended consequences. And we try to bring jobs that do work here in the United States, other companies try to do the same and the net result can be that we all lose or we shoot ourselves in the foot.

We had an agreement with the EU for many years of a reciprocal basis as that tended to work to our advantage, there is more work then here in the United States than in the EU would -- if they were to retaliate, if we were to take the initiative in slowing that down or putting up barriers to that, how -- would we gain jobs or lose jobs. How would that really work?

MR. JONES: Well, let me try to address that Mr. Petri because you raise a very good point that I referred to in my testimony. Today, there are about 1,200 repair stations in the United States that repair not only United States built aircraft, but also EU aircraft that come in our space.

So those are 1,200 repair stations that have a lot of good high quality jobs that are serving those aircraft. There are about 425 in Europe and so as you can see by just that ratio, if this legislation should precipitate trade barriers and a trade war and a retaliation by the Europeans, we stand to lose a far greater volume of work given the footprint that we have in the United States than we might gain if we were to gain extra work that we do in Europe.

I think the other thing to point out relative to this legislation is that we are not opposed to inspections and to safety. That is not the issue at all. The issue is, are the dollars spent and the amount of labor and manpower that FAA has to do these inspections available and will that be deployed in the right way.

We may find that some repair stations only need the once-a-year inspection that is mandated today. Others may need more than that. And so the risk-based approach that I believe FAA has strongly endorsed is one that we would endorse as well as a better bang for the buck to create that safety that we're both in favor of.

REP. PETRI: Thank you, Mr. Jones. I have another question for most of the panel that I will submit for them to respond in writing, which really would be how you are doing and what steps you're taking to prepare for NextGen, and the importance of us getting our act together to maximize the investment that you and your members or your associates are doing in this whole area.

REP. COSTELLO: Thank you.

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Boswell.

REP. BOSWELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It seems like we ought to -- maybe expected a little discussion about who is paying for what, but Mr. Bolen, would you respond the airlines' claim the business aviation not paying its fair share in the trust fund, how do you respond?

MR. BOLEN: Well, the FAA numbers indicate that business aviation was just part of the general aviation community. The entire general aviation community is currently paying about 8-1/2 percent of the revenues going into the Trust Fund.

If general aviation were grounded tomorrow, I believe that the system maybe 7 to 9 percent less expensive than it is today. That's based on a 1997 Cost Allocation Study done by the FAA, so I think we're in the ballpark.

I also would say that Mr. May referenced the FAA's Cost Allocation Study and as this subcommittee knows questions have been raised about the methodology and some of the applications that were used in that. Cost allocation is certainly not an exact science, but reputable groups have raised concerns and I think those should be explored.

REP. BOSWELL: Mr. Jones, do you think a proposal for us to raise to the level -- historic level of the general fund, do you think you touch a figure high enough?

MR. JONES: I'm not exactly sure, sir. I think there are lot of other inputs into the budget that probably I am not an expert to talk to. But 25 is a heck of lot higher than 16 and it's a great place to start. And I would supplement my comments and support what Mr. May said in that if you're looking at infrastructure and targeted incentives to try to create economic activity, I think that this proposal to put this increased funding not only from the general fund, but targeted toward the acceleration of NextGen, which we're all in raging agreement on, is the right thing to do.

I think it is intolerable to think that we will not have ADS-B built out to another 11 years from now, 2020.

REP. BOSWELL: Yeah.

MR. JONES: And we'll be sitting here for many years begrudging that fact, and we have a moment with billions of dollars going into stimulus activity.

And this would be targeted at a specific need. This would be temporary because once equipped that would go away. And obviously, it's timely because we're ready to move. We believe that the ADS-B regulations will be ready at the end of this year, at the latest 2010.

And with your encouragement, I'm sure FAA could get them out. And then the industry would be ready to produce equipment within 6 to 12 months after that. So we have engineers and workers that would be ready to move on this if Congress can support that.

REP. BOSWELL: Well, I'm not so sure if Congress can support it, but I would guess, yes, Mr. Chairman is going take all of these folks as well as us to try and make this point understanding what the situation is and the economic side of it.

But I personally think Mr. Chairman that -- and I would guess we're probably in agreement that the whole country benefits if we can get that done. And it's an investment with a long return.

MR. JONES: Yes, sir.

REP. BOSWELL: And I believe that as well, so let's see what we can do. By the way, Mr. Jones, I have used some of your equipment probably more than anybody else in the room, I don't know. I'm looking around, maybe not likely, possibly. But I'm curious how did you arrive in Washington today? How did you get here?

MR. JONES: Sir, I took a business aircraft into Washington. I'm pleased to say I have access to one because I couldn't be here, had I not. And I quit my other responsibilities to give you just my own personal example of how that happened. I was in Florida this morning speaking at an investor conference to a number of shareowners, which are obviously very important to our company.

I'm here this afternoon, and I'm flying from here to Philadelphia for a board of directors meeting tonight. That would not have been possible had I not had access to a business aircraft. One other mention, because this is a very topical issue right now, sir, as you know. I had -- in advance of this; I had my flight department do a survey of how much, I as the CEO use our aircraft.

And in total I use, in the total aircraft time flown, I use the aircraft 17 percent of the time -- one, seven. That means 83 percent of the time that that aircraft is flown; it's program mangers, it's sales representatives, it's engineers going to our other locations around the United States, providing us the business advantage we need that that aircraft affords us.

Especially, as you all know, sir, coming out Cedar Rapids, Iowa, with the relatively limited connections we have, and the time it takes to hub-and-spoke through the system. Now, we use both. But having this as a capital tool for business is critical for our success, and I would submit, sir, you above all people, know how successful this company has been over the last few years.

REP. BOSWELL: We want to have -- continue to have access with Cohen. I guess, we'll have another round. But I want -- but I have other questions. But you know, those of us that believe in general aviation, as well as believe in the airlines. Don't misunderstand me. And they took a pretty bad rap with the automobile competition, that little testimony they had. And the public out there, it's useful to hear what Mr. Jones has said, and what it means to the whole economy of what is being contributed by using these aircraft in a proper way. And thank you for coming, I appreciate it.

MR. COHEN: Thank you, sir.

REP. COSTELLO: Thanks gentlemen, and I think maybe it's worth noting for Mr. Jones that you've arrived here today in a business aircraft, but Rockwell Collins is not asking for billions of dollars for a bailout either.

MR. JONES: No sir, I don't intend to either, sir.

REP. COSTELLO: Okay. The chair now recognizes the distinguished chairman of the full committee.

Mr. Moran, do you have questions or --?

REP. OBERSTAR: Now, go ahead. Go ahead Mr. Moran, please. Please go ahead, Mr. Moran.

REP. MORAN: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Mr. Elwood indicated about the values, as my colleague from Iowa was indicating about the value of general aviation. I come from a state in which we see it in both aspects. We're certainly a manufacturing state, and so jobs created is significant to us. But Kansas is a very rural state and our ability to connect with the rest of world is very much determined upon either commercial air service or upon general aviation.

And as we've seen, there has been this concern about the use of general aviation aircraft. And I would like to at least state for the record that many communities would not have a small-business component; manufacturers and others who service the rest of the world. Businesses would make decisions about where they locate in the absence of general aviation or regional service in places that we would -- that we all care about.

And so the state of the general aviation economy certainly matters to us in the most obvious way; it's the jobs at home. But as a person who represents a very rural state, in the absence of our ability to connect, we would not have small business operating in our states. They would locate in larger communities where there is a full commercial service.

I want to explore the state of this economy. Mr. Jones, you've outlined difficulties that aviation industry and subcontractors are experiencing. We're debating a stimulus package in many ways. I think most of us wanted to focus that effort on construction, shovel- ready projects, and things that put people to work.

But in the general aviation industry and its subcontractors, are there specific things that we could do that would stimulate or at least reduce the burden of the economy upon general aviation. I'm thinking about -- you mentioned some regulatory changes. And I'm also wondering about tax changes. We've used the tax code in the past in order try to generate additional opportunities for people to purchase, repair, and maintain aircraft. Any observations?

MR. JONES: Well, a couple I would have sir. First let me thank the Congress for what it did in including accelerated depreciation in the recent legislation that does have a stimulus effect for all companies that are in the capital goods segment. And I think that's a known and proven stimulus that you all passed after the 9/11 downturn, and that we saw had a direct effect on stimulating aircraft purchases. I think that's one thing.

Obviously, the other one, I would say, is including something to do with aviation in the stimulus.

The one that I mentioned would put avionics manufacturers -- obviously, I have a particular interest in that -- toward immediately equipping these aircraft. And it would help the airline industry too, as Mr. May said.

These stumbling blocks, the next gen -- make no mistake about it -- is going to be aircraft equipage. And I think, Mr. May said exactly right thing, is a cost benefit analysis that has to be shown if we require them to spend the amount of money they will need, that is -- that is very precious in terms of cash with them on these equipments.

So this stimulus would get us over that hump, and then allow us to see the benefits of reducing secondary radars and accelerating the other aspects of next gen. So I think those are the kind of things that would stimulate this industry and keep these very well-paid knowledge workers in place until the rest of the economy recovers.

REP. MORAN: Thank you, sir.

Mr. Fuller, I look forward to working with you in your new capacity. I appreciate our relationship in your previous. The FAA Reauthorization Bill requires the establishment of a number of registration, certification, and related fees for services and activities provided by the FAA. Do you have a response as to whether they are satisfactory, they're something that's livable, or are we once again regulating and increasing the cost of business in an unsatisfactory manner?

MR. FULLER: Well, thank you for the question. We have seen the list. Mindful of Mr. Oberstar's comment of speak now or forever hold your piece, I would say that it's a manageable list, and there is nothing there that should prevent this legislation from going forward. I do have my medical requirement up this year. I do pay a physician for it, and I pay the cost of that medical. And one of those fees has gone from $0 to $42, which is the fee associated with a medical certificate.

There is 600,000 pilots in the country. All of us have to get medicals on our annual or twice -- some three -- every three years. Now, that's generating an awful lot of revenue for filing medicals. I might say if there is any one of those on that list that we may take exception to, it would be going from $0 to $42 in a fee associated with that medical.

REP. MORAN: Thank you very much. In the 8 seconds I have left, I want to give Mr. Elwood or Mr. Cohen an opportunity to express any concerns that we ought to be aware of in regard to essential air service. Again, I represent a state, which EAS is a significant component. Both of you've mentioned it; anything that you'd like to highlight?

MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Moran, I just thank this committee for its leadership and in -- primarily in recognizing that the communities, the airlines, passengers, that there is really -- reform that is needed to be done as the previous panel even recognized. We really look forward to working with this committee to get that right now, and you've done the most important thing to show that you really have a commitment to fixing this project.

MR. MORAN: Mr. Chairman, thank you.

REP. COSTELLO: Chair thanks you and recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Graves.

REP. SAM GRAVES (R-MO): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with remarks of the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Boswell. I was very concerned when we had -- being a commercial pilot myself -- when we had the outrage that we had about individuals flying in to D.C. in their private aircraft. And it concerns me a great deal when you got companies -- I obviously don't represent Cessna, it's in Kansas -- when they're laying off thousands of employees -- that's huge to the aviation industry. And it affects everybody out there.

It may not be my district where those thousands of employees are laid off, but I've got companies in my district that supply Cessna, and they supply Beech, and they supply Raytheon, and they supply -- they supply everybody. And so I very much appreciated the comments. I'm glad you asked how Mr. Jones arrived because I was curious myself.

And again, I'm just very upset, I want to express that because I think it's very misguided when we hear some of the comments that were made by folks, just literally demagoguing the issue of aviation, which is so vitally important to our nation, and in particular, our smaller communities. So thank you.

REP. COSTELLO: Chair thanks the gentleman, and now recognizes the distinguished chairman of the full committee, Chairman Oberstar.

REP. OBERSTAR: Now, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will necessarily be brief, because I'm going to have to go to the meeting of Democratic Caucus to hear the report from the Committee of Conference -- the House members of the Committee of Conference on the stimulus initiative; see what they have created for us. We will see. Committee has a very distinct interest in this stimulus initiative.

Mr. Cohen, Regional Airline Association has been a major partner in the Essential Air Service Program, which was crafted in this committee room in 1978. And I remember -- sitting right down there in that second row. There were fewer members on this committee at the time. And I remember in concluding my argument in favor of the Essential Air Service as part of the deregulation act that, Mr. Chairman, if this amendment isn't adopted, then there are communities in my district that are so remote that the only way to get there without air service is to be born there.

(Laughter)

There was much bigger laugh -- (laughs) -- at that time it was a much more serious issue. So this laughter subsided, the amendment motion was put, the amendment passed. And then we've seen a whittling away of the funding, and of the authority, and of the application of EAS. So in this legislation, we have included provisions that, I think, will substantially improve the Essential Air Service, particularly in this era of the increasing consolidation of airline operations; and fewer airlines, fewer competitors. So we have increased to $200 million, the amount authorized for EAS each year. I gather you're in accord with that.

MR. COHEN: Yeah, absolutely; thanks to the committee and your leadership on this, Mr. Chairman.

REP. OBERSTAR: And we authorize the secretary to include financial incentives based on performance goals. You know, what I -- the reason I've crafted that language is that we hear complaints from communities that are at the end of the spokes in the hub-and-spoke system that they are getting short trips.

They're not getting the frequencies they want, they are not getting the service they want; they are getting a higher number of service cuts, such as delayed or cancellations of flights. And at the same time, they are getting -- the airline is getting the EAS subsidy.

So we want better on-time performance, we want to reduce the number of cancellations; we want reasonable fares, including joint fares from beyond-the-hub airport. Convenient connections -- example, I've heard in a recent town, a meeting with airport authority directors and business persons, smaller businesses -- not Rockwell Collins who have their own aircraft, but who charter -- or it may be King Air that -- sure, they get up at 4:00 in the morning, they drive an hour to the airport, they fly out of Northern Minnesota, and then they wait at Minneapolis, Saint Paul, for four hours for the next connection.

They don't mind getting up at 4:00 in the morning, if their 6:30 flight can connect with something in Minneapolis that's going to get them to their destination. These are business people; they don't have a lot of leisure time. They live away in remote Minnesota, but they are conducting a very viable business.

You know, they -- some of these folks can even timeshare on an aircraft.

So I think that we ought to have some accountability; we're going to have the Government Accountability Office oversee the implementation of this EAS. Mr. Cohen, what do you think about that?

MR. COHEN: I think, Mr. Chairman, I think the problems you described really are the result of a lot of -- years of kind of squeezing this program down. And so what's happened is that the airline -- there is -- several of our EAS member airlines have gone out of business doing this. Getting the -- some of the rules that have been put in place there have made it impossible for carriers to invest to try and bring on the aircraft that are needed, to bring on the training, to invest the commitment, to get people flying on those aircraft, and to get them back into the system.

And it's been this kind of drip, drip, drip, over those 30 years. I had the pleasure of sitting in this very room as public relations representative for TWA covering those hearings. And I remember your leadership on this very critical issue, and that promise that was made. And over these 30 years, that promise has been whittled away at. And so what -- you know, we really look forward to working with the members of this committee, to be able to try and move this into that 21st century; move EAS into the 21st century, because things have changed. Demographics have changed; transportation modes have changed.

We would caution the committee because some of the carriers that are trying to provide this service don't do the kind of seamless service that most of regional carriers do, don't have -- may not have an interline relationship, may not have, you know, independent ticketing. So that to provide those kind of connections can be difficult. But you know, I cite one of the great success stories that a clip here from the recent Lebanon, New Hampshire newspaper, which cited Cape Air, one of our --

REP. : Yes, I remember it was Cape Air.

MR. COHEN: -- one of our great members who started service, and they were raving about the kind of service that Cape Air has provided. And I think it's that kind of community, congressional, and airline partnership that can provide those kind of success stories that we see. And I think we want to thank your leadership, and I look forward to working on some -- with you on some of these specifics.

REP. OBERSTAR: My hope is to stimulate more of the type of Cape Air service through this EAS program.

Mr. May, don't think I've forgotten about you. Welcome to the committee again.

MR. MAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've never felt unwanted.

REP. OBERSTAR: There is a new provision in this legislation dealing with antitrust community for international airline alliances.

MR. MAY: H.R. 831.

REP. OBERSTAR: I'd like your comments.

MR. MAY: With all of the respect that is due the chairman of the full committee --

REP. OBERSTAR: You needn't preface it, but state what you --

MR. MAY: -- we will oppose that provision. We have no problem at all with the GAO study. It was one done a couple of years ago that showed that actually, these alliances were positive for consumers in a number of different respects and to have them renew that study and update it, I think, would be perfectly appropriate.

But we think, to effectively change the rules in the middle of the game for alliances that have been long out there and effective and working well, in addition to having them then expire at the end of three years would be counterproductive. And so we would not support that legislation.

REP. OBERSTAR: The alliances are one thing. But antitrust immunity goes over the edge on this issue. Yet to protect the partners against uncompetitive pricing, against -- and in effect price fixing, I think alliances are one. But the antitrust immunities, we wouldn't do that for General Motors and Ford and Chrysler. And we should be doing this for airlines, frankly.

And I think the alliance relationship has provided seamless service is still a question in my mind, whether outright competition wouldn't bring better fares and greater savings to air travelers. But the immunized alliances are going to result in three mega global carriers, who will not compete with each other, who will not provide service to communities at the end of the spokes in the hub-and-spoke system, which will diminish short-haul service in the domestic the United States.

And I think it is inimical to the future of aviation in the U.S. and in international aviation trade. And you may disagree with that. And your carrier partner said -- in the ATA -- I'm sure vigorously disagreed with it. But I have to be an advocate for the public interest.

MR. MAY: We fully appreciate the intensity of your positions, Mr. Chairman.

REP. OBERSTAR: Thank you, Mr. May. And I will welcome Mr. Fuller in his first testimony before this committee as head of the AOPA. Phil Boyer is, I'm sure, relishing his freedom.

MR. FULLER: Yes, indeed, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

REP. OBERSTAR: And we hope with time you'll become as lovable a personality at this table as he was.

MR. FULLER: He was our part of the transition, I think.

REP. : I'm sure he's watching this on the Internet.

REP. OBERSTAR: No doubt. And to ATI and AAAE, thank you very much for your continued partnership in the great good of aviation.

REP. : Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. OBERSTAR: Thank you. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski.

REP. LIPINSKI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple of issues that I wanted to raise here today. First one, Mr. Principato, I fly every week just about in, you know, I get my can of diet, whatever they have. And every time I'm on the plane I always think, "What a great place to do recycling."

We have a 100, 200 cans maybe on each flight. And I know at most airports these are just thrown in with the rest of the waste. I'm aware of Oakland Airport because they're recycling -- has a recycling program there. And I'm just wondering how much effort, how widespread, how many airports actually do this. How much effort would that take?

My understanding is that it really produces great savings to have such a recycling program at the airport for the -- for the airlines coming in there. And so why is this not more widely done?

MR. PRINCIPATO: Congressman, thank you for the question. I think that it's being done at a growing number of airports. You know, Seattle is another one. You're going to have the director of the Seattle Airport here in two weeks to speak about wildlife management. But you might file that in the back of your mind. They've an excellent recycling initiative with their airlines up there, and a growing number of airports are doing that

We've actually just completed -- well, the survey of our airports. We can give you hard data on that. Our staff would be happy to get together with yours on the number and percentage of airports that are doing recycling, and a number of other environmental initiatives that they are doing.

Our board, just last week, passed a whole set of environmental goals that ACI North America Airports will strive to achieve over these next couple of years with this and a number of other issues being in there. I don't have the specific numbers on the top of my head, about the percentage of airports that are doing it. But it's a larger and -- larger than you think, I think in growing number.

We'd be happy to get together with you and your staff and brief you on our survey, brief you on the goals that are our board passed just this past Friday. And we're also putting together a little publication highlighting what a number of airports -- what a number of airports around the U.S. and Canada are doing on environmental issues.

REP. LIPINSKI: What are the main reasons that airports do not have a recycling program?

MR. PRINCIPATO: I think it's far better to look at the reasons why growing numbers of them are because of the -- as you -- the point you're talking about; cost efficiency and all that. And 10 years ago --

REP. LIPINSKI: I mean -- more just than why they don't have -- why they would not have, and what can be done to, you know, encourage or help?

MR. PRINCIPATO: Well, again, I think the industry is responding to the points that you've made. There is a growing number of airports that are doing it. Obviously, you know, 20 years ago, none of us recycled anything, and you know, we were all sort of moving in that direction. I think you'll be very pleased with the results of our survey. Like I said, they'll brief you on the goals that our board passed just this past Friday, and the other work that the airport community is doing on the environmental side.

REP. LIPINSKI: Thank you. And the other question -- other issue I wanted to address to Mr. May is, you know, something I'm sure that you hear a lot about, and it's first of all, the fees for baggage on planes. Its one thing that the fees were put in when gas prices or aviation fuel prices went up, and you know, it peaked to about $4 a gallon and now down to about $1.54 a gallon, but we still have the baggage fees.

Now, I don't want to get into debate over the fees themselves. I'm more interested in issues -- since we do pay for our bags now, on planes, there continue to be issues -- with problems with baggage. And I think, especially, when passengers are paying for the baggage service that they even have -- should have a higher, or even have higher expectations of their bags being taken care of and getting there in a timely manner.

There is a story in Chicago Tribune, the other day, about someone whose luggage actually got lit on fire. Their clothes burnt. Which -- accident happened, but the problem was it took a long time before they ever got any restitution for that.

And I myself had an experience last month. I was coming back -- or two months ago, I had taken a flight back as late at night in O'Hare Airport, and it took over an hour for the bag to get there.

Finally, after 45 minutes, someone decided that they would actually go and check on what was going on after someone -- no one else would, and they said that they took the bags off the plane and they were left somewhere, just sitting there. So we have these issues, and I hear other issues.

Shouldn't there be an expectation, especially paying for bags that their bags are going to arrive in a timely manner. It just seems like -- especially it wouldn't -- if these fees are going to continue to be charged, even though I'm not sure why they still are, but I just wanted to know what, you know, what your response would be, Mr. May?

MR. MAY: My response, Mr. Lipinski, is that I hear this issue as frequently as you might imagine I do. The good news is that in the latest report by the Department of Transportation, the number of mishandled bags has in fact dropped and it's been consistently dropping for the past number of months.

So we're getting better at it. But 2 bags or 1 bag or 15 bags is not an acceptable number. Our carriers recognize that the construct that you have posed here, that it's one thing if you lose my bag and I've just checked it, and I haven't paid anything, but if I'm being charged for it, and then you lose it, that's a whole another metric.

And so I think what we're suggesting to you is we've recognized the problem, we're working on it as we are on all of our customer service issues. And it is one that I will make sure I raise back with my folks at the earliest opportunity.

REP. LIPINSKI: One quick issue, do airlines -- if there is a problem, is there a general policy to refund the money that was paid, if there is a problem with each --

MR. MAY: Each carrier has in fact a policy. There is a DOT policy that government says, well, I don't happen to have the details in the front of my memory bank, but I would be more than happy to communicate back to your office and provide those to you.

REP. OBERSTAR: Chair thanks the gentleman, and now we'll recognize two members for questions and then we will go to the next panel. Mr. Graves from Missouri.

REP. GRAVES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to follow-up on my statement earlier and I didn't want to step on the Chairman because he had to go to the meeting, but.

Given the state of the economy and what I have mentioned earlier about the problems we're seeing, and obviously the attitude towards general aviation -- and thank goodness the provision was pulled that any company that receives federal dollars would have to sell their private aircraft, which is something that concern me.

I guess this question would be maybe for Mr. Bolen and possibly for Mr. Fuller, but I'm opting Mr. Bolen because he represents the Business Aviation Association -- I mean can you expand a little bit on what kind of impact that would have on an entire industry if a provision like that -- and I know there are companies out there selling aircraft just because of the perception that's going on, which concerns me.

MR. BOLEN: Well, Congressman, you talked about the attitude that was at the heart of the divestiture idea, and I believe that that is an attitude that is based on a caricature of business aviation that is totally unrepresentative of the community.

The reality is that it is not only unrepresentative; it's also very dangerous for our community. Business aviation is about jobs, manufacturing, and service. It's about a lifeline to small communities -- and you've talked about that yourself -- and it's about allowing companies to be productive.

And I think that the reality is that there may be times when business aviation isn't appropriate for all missions. But let's be clear about something.

Business aviation is prudent and cost-effective in a huge number of operations. It's prudent and it's cost-effective when the community you're trying to reach has no commercial service.

It's prudent and cost-effective when you're trying to do multiple sites in a single day. And it's prudent and it's cost-effective when you've got products that cannot be carried aboard the commercial airlines or shipped.

And it's prudent when you've got a team of people that have to quickly get somewhere, and they need to discuss proprietary information en route, or if there is team that needs to work together to plan a presentation and be there.

Those are times when business aviation makes sense. It makes up 99 percent of the operations; it's critical to our nation's air transportation system, it's critical to our nation's jobs base. And I appreciate very much the work of so many people on this committee, who have taken the time to speak out about the importance of business aviation, not just to their districts, but to this country. And thanks to the hard work of people like you and others on this committee, we were able to turn that around. And we ask that you continue to speak out on that.

REP. GRAVES: Thanks. Mr. Fuller.

MR. FULLER: I would just that we looked at -- on Election Day, last year -- at the question and a survey that suggested that almost two-thirds of the people responded that general aviation, as defined as non-military, non-scheduled carrier, was an important part of the nation's transportation system.

And I think one of the reasons that I looked with some horror at the singling out of certain individuals or certain practices by companies -- because I think the vast majority of the American people in community after community, recognized that general aviation does play an important role.

I know we're committed to sharing that story more broadly. But I actually think there is a base there that supports, I think, what we believe, but what you've fought for, and that we're going to continue to carry that message out there.

REP. GRAVES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. COSTELLO: Finally, the chair recognizes Mr. Boswell from Iowa.

REP. BOSWELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be brief. I know the day is long, but something I think it's okay to bring up. You can stop me if you wish, I'm sure you will if you choose to.

But I'm concerned about some other matters that I -- you know, we were the birthplace of after 9/11 of what became TSA. And now, I could tell several stories, and make comparison in my life; when people get authority, sometimes they handle it extremely well, and sometimes they don't.

Well, it seems that right now, they're thinking about coming out with a notice of proposed rulemaking which will involve general aviation aircraft weighing more than 12,500 pounds.

And I get to thinking about the cost and the involvement to do that, and what it will do to airports, like it's in my district and across the country that I've used, and then I think about the efforts -- and I'm going to ask you, Mr. Fuller, to say something about this, if you don't mind.

But I -- I think of the effort that general aviation -- private pilots and general aviation pilots have to do things as Mr. Jones have done today and so on. We've put in genuine effort into making sure that we hold up our end of that security and that safety. And the record is good.

And I think we need to discuss this very openly, and we have an economy that's really in a pain. We got budget problems, and yes we have safety problems. But I think we're dealing with it pretty good.

I think we need to discuss -- and I don't know, maybe this is not fair to you, Mr. Fuller, having commenced your -- 6 weeks into the job, but this weighs kind of heavy. And would you want to comment, or maybe some of the rest of you would do, because I think it affects everybody.

MR. FULLER: Mr. Boswell, I'd be delighted to comment. You know, first of all, I think everybody up here -- and I know AOPA -- absolutely stands for making sure that our general aviation fleet and our airports are secure.

We've had an Airport Watch Program that's worked extraordinarily well. We don't see its risks of the kinds that are being imagined that produced this regulation. The 12,500 number -- pound number -- goes to a certification guideline, not to some sort of careful study of what constitutes hazardous, dangerous weapons of destruction.

You know the King Air 90 is under that limit. I've flown that airplane. King Air 200 is over the limit; I've flown that airplane. We have an aircraft in our fleet that takes off at 13,870 pounds, carries 4000 pounds of fuel.

There's two of us up front, there's four or five people in the back. We know exactly who's in that aircraft. It is inconceivable to me that the people who fly that type of aircraft over the limit are really going to have to be subjected to a security system in a security program similar to what large commercial aircraft would have to fly -- or would have to use.

We've all testified. Some of us have testified around the country in opposition to this. We do fear that TSA -- still strongly they want to go forward. We'd hope that they would get into a negotiated regulatory procedure, so that we can have a rational discussion about what constitutes a legitimate threat, and what simply constitutes a further burden on our already overburdened private aircraft industry. Thank you for raising the question.

REP. BOSWELL: I think, Mr. Elwood, for example, your airport you described -- well, I don't, you know, you know what's going on in that airport. Your workers know what's going on that ramp.

And this watch program we've gotten going on, I'm quite sure you've implemented, you know, its working. I'm sure it is, but --

MR. ELWOOD: Now, you've obviously brought commonsense to the situation, which is refreshing. I think that there is a misconception at times that general aviation is a lot like picking up a taxi up front to this capital, and that people don't understand how the background is done. They know who's getting on that airplane, they understand the role that person is going to play on the aircraft, and that the risk is really what needs to be focused on.

And blanket solutions rarely work in aviation as you all know. Every airport has unique circumstances, as well as unique security challenges. So you know, from the airport side we look forward to trying to work with the TSA to get a better understanding about what the real risks are, and where the resources that actually do help protect the citizens of the United States are showing benefit.

And in it -- it is -- it's not an easy answer, but it is the reality.

REP. BOSWELL: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would guess that everybody could comment on this -- that -- the panel, but I'm going to ask that we put this on our plate of things to do, not that you need other things to do. But I think that we got to put it on there, and I'm going to ask we put it on our plate. Thank you. I yield back.

MR. COSTELLO: I thank you, Mr. Boswell, and point well taken, and points that I agree with. As you know, we have limited jurisdiction with TSA. We have oversight responsibility, but it certainly is something that we should weigh in on. And I thank you.

Gentlemen, we thank you for your testimony and spending most of the day with us. And we hopefully will see some of you again in the not-too-distant future in some upcoming hearings. But again, thank you.

We would ask the next panel to come forward, the witnesses please. And I will introduce them as they are coming forward.

Mr. Patrick Forrey, who's the president of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association; Mr. Tom Brantley is president of Professional Aviation Safety Specialists; Captain John Prater, who is president of the Air Line Pilots Association International; Ms. Patricia Friend, Mr. Robert Roach, Mr. Robert Gless and Ms. Kate Hanni. Would you all please come forward?

The chair welcomes the third panel before us this afternoon -- early evening. And we will begin by recognizing Mr. Forrey with NATCA.

MR. FORREY: Chairman Costello, and Ranking Member Petri, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify again.

My name is Patrick Forrey and I'm the president of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. NATCA represents over 16,000 aircraft controllers and other aviation safety professionals. FAA reauthorization is NATCA's highest legislative priority, and I'd like to commend the subcommittee for its demonstrated understanding of the important issues facing the nation's aviation infrastructure.

I would like to take a few moments to highlight some of the aspects of the bill. NATCA fully supports and endorses the Federal Aviation Administration personnel management system, as written in the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009. As this committee is well aware, the air traffic controller workforce that I represent, has been working under imposed work and pay rules since September of 2006.

This action not only violated the FAA's legal right and obligation to bargain in good faith, but it also violated fundamental principles of fairness. In effect, the FAA stripped this union of its collective bargaining rights.

The effects of the imposed work rules have been devastating not only to the working lives of controllers, but to the safety and integrity of the National Airspace System. And as a direct result of the imposed work rules and pay system, air traffic controllers began a mass exodus from the FAA.

The vast majority of those that left did so not because they reached their mandatory retirement age, but simply because they'd had enough. Since the imposed work and pay rules were unilaterally implemented nearly 28 months ago, we have lost upwards of almost 5,000 controllers equating to over 46,000 years of experience.

The FAA is hiring to make up for these devastating losses, but they cannot keep up. The air traffic control system is clogged with trainees. Approximately 25 percent of the controller workforce is still in training, and that number will grow. At some facilities the ratio exceeds 50 percent of the workforce. They are being placed in high-level terminal facilities, which do not have the curricula to train those with no previous ATC experience. And in some cases, they're waiting as much as 18 months for their first day of on-the-job training.

For fiscal years 2006, 2007, and 2008, the agency has only been able to completely certify 718 trainees out of the 4,480 hired, and still employed in those three years. Mr. Chairman, that's only 16 percent. And I want to be clear. The trainees, the new hires themselves are not the problem. They are dedicated professionals who represent the future of the air traffic control system, and if given the proper tools and training, they will excel in this safety profession.

The problem is the agency's inability to provide them with the comprehensive training they need. They are being denied the opportunity to learn from experienced controllers, quickly rushed through and flushed out of training, and forced to shoulder far too much air traffic control burden at this early stage of their careers. The staffing shortage has left the remaining workforce strained to the breaking point.

Fatigue has become a serious concern. Controllers are being required to work excessive quantities of overtime, and are therefore unable to fully recover between shifts. On shifts themselves, controllers are often finding they are understaffed and forced to work combined positions without radar assistance, and with less opportunity to recover after major pushes. In short, the imposed work rules have meant fewer eyes watching the skies, and those that are remaining are less experienced and fatigued.

FAA reauthorization addresses this problem at its root, by requiring the FAA to return to the bargaining table in order to reach a mutually agreeable collective bargaining agreement with NATCA. This would effectively stem the flow of experienced controllers in the workforce and make it easier to retain new hires. Additionally, this section amends Title 49 to ensure that this will not happen again in the future.

This bill also addresses issues of realignment at FAA facilities and services. NATCA is extremely concerned with the reckless realignment initiatives the FAA has unilaterally initiated over the course of the last year. The FAA recently split tower and radar functions at Orlando into two separate facilities, and is planning to do the same in Memphis in June, followed by other facilities.

This is another example of the FAA's go-it-alone way of doing business. Rather than truly providing an operational benefit, these de-consolidations is a design to -- only to conceal the staffing crisis at each of these facilities. FAA reauthorization must ensure that all FAA realignment initiatives are considered in a collaborative environment, and provide a specific operational benefit.

We support the establishment of a workgroup of stakeholders to review all realignment initiatives prior to the FAA beginning the realignment process. As we've said all along, if you make us part of the process, we'll be part of the solution. NATCA also supports the authorization of a scientific study on air traffic control staffing to be conducted by an independent third party. Rather than consider the safety needs of the NAS, the FAA based their current staffing standards on budget alone.

The justification provided in the FAA's controller workforce plan is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. The current standards were designed to deliberately conceal current staffing crisis. For example, according to the FAA's current standards, the New York TRACON is overstaffed. Yet the FAA is offering controllers a $100,000 incentive to transfer there. Why would that be?

Because their staffing arrangements are meaningless and do nothing to reflect the actual needs of the facility. The staffing study proposed by the FAA reauthorization would allow the FAA, Congress, and NATCA to truly assess the current risks of the system, and set benchmarks for resolving the staffing crisis.

And lastly, I would like to address the related issues of modernization and maintenance. NATCA fully supports the funding levels set aside for the modernization of air traffic control system, but we remain concerned about the direction of NextGen. Thus far, the FAA's plans for NextGen remain poorly defined and carefully guarded. We believe that the success of this or any modernization effort is dependant on transparency and collaboration with all stakeholders.

It is our hope that after the imposed work rules are removed, the NATCA and FAA reach mutually agreeable contract, we can return to an era of cooperation and collaboration that will best serve the needs of the NAS. We also want to be sure the funding for NextGen does not come at the expense of NowGen.

Under the previous administration, FAA facilities were allowed to fall into disrepair while the FAA pursued ill-defined modernization goals. This level of deterioration is unacceptable. The FAA must maintain and repair existing AT facilities in a manner that ensures the safety and security of the personnel working there, and allows aviation safety professionals the tools they need to do their job.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the time.

REP. COSTELLO: The chair thanks you, Mr. Forrey, and now recognizes Mr. Brantley.

MR. BRANTLEY: Thank you. Chairman Costello, Congressman Petri, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting PASS to testify today.

As you know, PASS represents approximately 11,000 FAA employees in the United States and overseas. And we appreciate the opportunity to present our views on FAA reauthorization. Ensuring a fair contract negotiation process at the FAA is of utmost importance to PASS.

By taking advantage of the ambiguities in current law governing those negotiations, the FAA has consistently refused to bargain in good faith with PASS and other FAA unions. The hostile environment this creates, threatens the productivity of FAA employees and the efficiency of the aviation system.

And while we're all familiar with the FAA's unilateral imposition of working -- changes to working conditions to air traffic controllers, I'd like to share with you a few of the things that we have faced over the years. Contract negotiations for four out of the five units of employees that PASS represents, have been in impasse for six years -- impasse for six years.

In our largest bargaining unit, the technical operations unit, the agency showed no interest in reaching a mutual agreement. And as a result, when the agency's final proposal was presented to our members for a vote, it was rejected by 98 percent of those members. It's clear that a change is needed in order to ensure FAA employees their right to collective bargaining.

PASS appreciates the language that was included in the FAA reauthorization bill introduced this week. PASS is in full support of the language clarifying that the federal service and PASS' panel has jurisdiction over bargaining impasses arising at the FAA, and the binding arbitration before a neutral third party is the method used for resolving bargaining disputes.

Understaffing is also a major concern for PASS, especially in our technical and safety inspector bargaining units. Inadequate technical staffing has resulted in a move toward a fix-on-fail approach where preventative maintenance and certification of NAS systems and equipment are significantly reduced.

PASS is especially concerned with changes the FAA has made to its time-tested certification process in which a certificated FAA technician checks or tests the systems and equipment on a periodic basis in order to ensure that they are safe for use. Not only has the FAA moved away from a proactive maintenance philosophy with its new concept, but it has also changed its policy to now prohibit certification of all systems that it does not own.

As the FAA works to modernize the NAS, the systems and equipment must be properly certified by FAA technicians in order to ensure safety and reliability. As such, PASS proposes that language be added to the FAA reauthorization legislation, making it clear that the FAA will make no distinction between public or privately owned equipment, systems, or services used in the NAS when determining certification requirements.

With regard to the inspector workforce, PASS appreciates the efforts of this committee to address the inspector staffing situation by including language in the reauthorization bill authorizing funding to increase inspector staffing. With the many challenges facing the aviation industry today, including outsource maintenance work in this country and abroad, it's imperative that there are enough inspectors in place to monitor the safety of the system.

In particular, PASS appreciates the language that was included mandating that all certificated foreign repair stations be inspected at least twice a year by an FAA inspector. Furthermore, in light of last year's Southwest incident and questions regarding the FAA's aviation safety oversight program, PASS supports the inclusion of language aimed at strengthening and improving FAA oversight of the system, including improvements to the customer service initiative and the Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program.

PASS is looking forward to working with this committee to ensure the safe and efficient modernization of this country's aviation system. PASS and the employees we represent, are hopeful that this committee will enact legislation that will allow positive labor management relations, and ensure that safety of the aviation system is always the top priority. Thank you. And I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

REP. COSTELLO: We thank you, Mr. Brantley.

The chair now recognizes Captain Prater.

CAPT. PRATER: Good afternoon, Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Petri, and members of the subcommittee.

When passed, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009 should make significant strides in advancing aviation safety and herald a new era for U.S. air transportation. I will outline six priority safety and policy areas for the 53,000 members of the Air Line Pilots Association, International. Several are covered in the last Congress' reauthorization bill. However, a number of critical concerns have not yet been addressed.

First, no industry was hit harder by the 9/11 attacks than the U.S. airlines. To keep our companies in business, our pilots took enormous concessions. As a result, our members often fly right up to the regulatory limits for flight and duty time. Sixteen-hour domestic duty days and longer international flying are a fact of life for pilots.

Irregular shifts, multiple time zones, all-night operations, and disruptive circadian rhythms all contribute to pilot fatigue. The eight-hour rest period in the current regulations includes travel to and from the hotel, and pilots often cannot get time or relax enough to receive more than five or six hours of sleep.

ALPA advocates a complete overhaul of the regulations based on modern science. The rules must apply to all sizes of both passenger and cargo operations. They must encompass adequate rest periods, reasonable duty periods, and provisions for crossing multiple time zones and flying on the backside of the clock.

ALPA strongly supports bill language that directs the FAA to commission a National Academy of Sciences study to collect new data on pilot fatigue, and then to use it to update the regulations.

Second, fostering a safe air transportation system also requires a foundation of voluntary non-punitive safety reporting programs. These programs must be based on the unshakable sense of trust among the participants. Most reports are sole source, meaning only the person reporting knew that a mistake occurred.

Without full confidence that reporting in there will be used solely to advance safety, employees will have little incentive to come forward, and valuable safety information will be lost. Moreover, safety management systems will be stymied without them. Programs have been suspended because of misused reports. We ask Congress to protect voluntarily supplied safety information against misuse for discipline, FAA sanction, or litigation.

Third, few would deny the need to modernize the nation's airspace. It is a priority for ALPA. Infrastructure, equipment, and facilities are severely outdated. Modernization is a complex, expensive, and long-term endeavor that must be done right the first time. Long-term stable funding is essential.

Airlines currently pay the majority of cost for operating the National Airspace System. All users will benefit from a safe modern system. All should bear a fair share of the cost. A related airspace management concern for pilots is unmanned aerial systems or UAVs. Regulations must ensure safety before these aircrafts can share airspaces with airliners.

ALPA pilots hail the provisions in the bill to enhance runway safety, research wake turbulence, icing, and other weather impacts on airline operations, and continue to operate Midway Island airfield as a trans-Pacific emergency landing option. The Wake Island airfield must also be included.

We commend your efforts to establish oversight requirements for the airlines using non-certificated maintenance facilities. We also note two areas that warrant additional support -- research to reduce encounters with volcanic ash, and to reduce encounters with wildlife hazards.

Fourth, many cargo aircraft operate without flight deck doors. A critical layer of safety for pilots, who along with their cargo, often fly animal handlers and couriers who are vetted using only limited ground procedures. All FAR Part 121 operations must be afforded one standard of safety and security. We call on Congress to ensure that cargo aircraft are equipped with reinforced flight deck doors on an equivalent level of protection.

Fifth, ALPA also strongly backs language in the bill affirming that U.S. citizens must control key operational aspects of U.S. airlines. This bill does that by identifying fleet composition, route selection, pricing, and labor relations among the operational elements that the Department of Transportation must ensure U.S. citizens control.

Finally, while safety decisions must never be based on economics, our industry's financial health is extremely important to pilots. Large price spikes and jet fuel scarcity pose the greatest threat to industry's stability. ALPA urges Congress to swiftly adopt a national energy policy that will increase a stable jet fuel supply, reduce rampant oil investor speculation, and hold the line on new fuel use taxes, charges, and fees.

This FAA reauthorization bill holds promise for a powerful change. As the professionals who make the airline industry work every day and every night of the year, we're the ones who know what works and what doesn't. When in doubt, ask us. Thank you for doing that by having us here today.

REP. COSTELLO: Thank you, Captain Prater.

And now, the chair recognizes Ms. Friend.

MS. FRIEND: Thank you, Chairman Costello and Ranking Member Petri for giving AFA-CWA, the world's largest flight attendant union, the opportunity to testify today.

My written testimony details a number of critical issues for the nation's flight attendants. Some are a lack of basic OSHA protections to the growing and serious problem of flight attendant fatigue, problems with cabin air quality, and lack of access to a HIMS program for flight attendants. These are all serious problems that the FAA has neglected and refuses, in most cases, to even recognize.

We appreciate that the leadership of this committee has worked closely with us to address these issues and to force the FAA to do its job to protect the safety and health of those that call the aircraft cabin their workplace, and those who daily travel with us. We also are in full support of the provision to prohibit the in-flight use of cell phones.

But we would like to suggest, in order to ensure the peace and quiet in the cabin that -- we know Congressman DeFazio is seeking, that the committee should also, as communication technology advances rapidly, consider a prohibition on the use of Voice over Internet Protocol in the cabin as well. We look forward to working -- to continue working with you as this bill moves through the legislative process.

However, we are concerned that the growing safety and security risks posed by the exploding number of carry-on bags being brought onboard the aircraft, is not currently addressed in the bill. Since the mid-1990s, we have tried to force the FAA to adopt and enforce a uniform policy for carry-on bags. But again, the FAA refuses to recognize the problem, and it failed to protect flight attendants and passengers.

With the airline management imposing checked bag fees, we have seen a dramatic increase in the size and number of bags being brought into the aircraft cabin. One major carrier recently measured a 25 percent drop in checked luggage, following the imposition of checked baggage fees. Those bags ended up in the aircraft cabin.

This poses a serious risk to the safety of passengers and flight attendants, and it poses a security concern in the aircraft cabin. We would like to work with the committee to include language in the final bill that will create a concise, uniform, and enforceable standard to limit the size and number of bags being brought into the aircraft cabin.

This FAA reauthorization process is also a sound platform to begin a comprehensive discussion on developing a national aviation policy for our country. This legislation addresses some immediate and long-term needs, and that is appropriate. But the larger conversation must take place on how we want to build a 21st century aviation policy for our country. It is a conversation, we believe, is long overdue.

This FAA reauthorization is one of the most comprehensive and worker-friendly reauthorization bills in memory. And again I applaud the committee's work. For instance, I am pleased to see increased funding for EIS. Service to small and even midsized communities are the first casualties when airlines cut capacity, leaving a trail of wasted infrastructure investments and unemployment for aviation workers.

I applaud the committee for making a bold policy statement that service to all communities is important. This is the type of discussion and policymaking that needs to occur on a broader stage. Chairman Oberstar's recently introduced legislation, H.R. 831, is one of those other important steps that along with this FAA reauthorization, will help in ensuring a vital domestic U.S. aviation system.

This, along with provisions in the reauthorization that address the issue of foreign ownership, and control of our domestic airlines, are important in protecting U.S. workers and consumers.

Today's hearing serves two purposes in my view, Mr. Chairman. First, AFA-CWA endorses this bill and urges you to include a one-size- fits-all carry-on baggage policy in the bill. Second, this legislation and this hearing have provided a long overdue platform for formulating a national, indeed a rational aviation policy for our country.

In this season of change, this is our opportunity to construct a 21st century aviation policy that works for passengers, communities, and the union women and men who each and every day transport a number of passengers equal to the size of the city of Chicago.

It is time that millions of aviation workers are part of the debate on what our aviation policy will be, and I look forward to working with you to make that happen. I thank you for your time, and I look forward to your questions.

REP. COSTELLO: We thank you for your testimony, Ms. Friend.

The chair now recognizes Mr. Roach.

MR. ROACH, JR.: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of this subcommittee for the opportunity to speak to you today.

My name is Robert Roach, Jr., general vice president of transportation for the International Association of Aerospace Workers, the IAM. I am appearing at the request of international president, R. Thomas Buffenbarger. The Machinists Union is the largest airline union in North America.

We represent more than 100,000 U.S. airline workers in almost every classification including flight attendants, ramp service workers, mechanics, and passenger service employees. On behalf of those workers who ensure that United States has a safe, secure, reliable air transportation system, I am presenting to you today some of their concerns they hope to be addressed in the FAA reauthorization bill.

From the outset, we're looking for a level playing field as to -- to continue to have a safe, secure transportation system. It is in the nation's interest, and as a matter of fact, it's a matter of national security, that the United States have a safe, secure system. Many of our jobs have been forced overseas to foreign repair stations.

We are asking today that the FAA reauthorization bill create a level playing field which would incentivize some of these domestic carriers to bring some of that work back home. Foreign repair stations have little or no oversight; the restrictions and testing and background checks are not required in these overseas inspection stations.

Overseas FAA inspections are not announced, and more importantly, those -- those that are announced, very rarely take place. The public deserves one level of safety regardless of where the aircrafts are maintained. The issue of express carriers, UPS and FedEx employees treated differently, the laws are applied inconsistently.

Employees under -- who work for UPS are governed by the National Labor Relations Act; employees working for FedEx, for some reason, are known to us as governed by the Railway Labor Act, which makes it very difficult to organize those employees who, in many cases, want to be represented. The express language in the Railway Labor Act needs to be modified to provide consistency throughout the industry.

Flight attendants' safety -- the recent successful evacuations of Continental flight 1404 in Denver and U.S. Airways flight 1549 in the Hudson River demonstrate flight attendants' skill and heroism. Full rest period should be exclusive of any job responsibilities or hotel transfer time. IAM contracts exceed FAA mandates, but not every flight attendant has a union protection. Flight attendants should be covered by OSHA. We need to protect the people who protect us in flight.

Fixed base operators -- there is a great debate in Congress and throughout our country about Employee Free Choice Act. Conversely, we have a group of people who voted by secret ballot, in some cases 40 or 50 years ago, to be represented by a labor organization, and now as a reinterpretation of the law -- not a change in the law -- these people are told that they're no longer represented by labor organizations.

These people fix and maintain aircraft in our country. These people fuel aircraft in our country. And as a result, there's an instability in the fixed base operations of people who once enjoyed a decent job who now have transit people make a minimum wage working on ($)40 (million) and $50-million aircraft. The misapplication of the Railway Labor Act has left many workers without a union or a contract.

Since 9/11, airline workers have sacrificed their wages, pensions, and work rules and more than 200,000 jobs in order to rescue the industry. Industry conditions have imposed great burdens on workers and carriers to compete to reduce costs. Such extraordinary focus on the bottom line demands greater, not less government oversight, and proper FAA funding is a must.

We were inspired by President Obama's speech the other night about taking education -- bringing education -- educating people to attach them to the skills that we'll need for the future.

The IAM is presently involved in a mentorship program with Aviation High School. And we mentor young men and women who graduate from Aviation High School, and then we place them in skilled jobs -- (inaudible).

We were in discussions with Governor Sebelius of Kansas to bring some of these young men and women before the economy went bad. We believe that some of the billions of dollars that are going to be spent to create jobs, to educate people, should be spent on programs such as apprenticeship programs so that people graduating from high school with skills can be mentored and placed in skilled jobs in our country.

And we look forward to working with the Department of Transportation and whomever the FAA administrator, but they should have the flexibility to work with us to create better programs so that we can have better jobs, better skills, and our work will not have to go overseas, because we will have the workforce in America to do those jobs.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to speak, and we look forward to working with you and this body and the opportunity to speak with you. Thank you.

REP. COSTELLO: We thank you, Mr. Roach.

And the chair now recognizes Mr. Gless.

MR. GLESS: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, the Transport Workers Union of America on behalf of its 200,000 active and retired members in the transportation industry, including the airline mechanics at American Airlines, American Eagle, and the flight attendants at Southwest Airlines, appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Committee.

In particular, I would like to thank the committee for its diligence in passing H.R. 2881, the FAA Reauthorization Bill, in the 110th Congress. We look forward to this 111th Congress to the successful passage in the House and Senate of a reauthorization bill that discontinues the double standard that is applied to aircraft maintenance.

In addition, we hope to see the FAA put in place critical and timely provisions for flight attendants that will enable them to perform their duties safely. Briefly, since Mr. Roach and Ms. Friend have spoken specifically on the flight attendant issues, we support occupational safety and health standards for flight attendants. We think they are long overdue.

Completing the study on flight attendant fatigue is another endeavor that will ensure that flight attendants will be able to perform their duties to the best of their ability. Specifically today, I'd like to speak on the issue of aircraft maintenance. The TWU represents roughly 15,000 workers who fall within the category of interest.

There are four recommendations regarding aircraft maintenance that we see as necessary to ensure safe and secure air travel for the American public:

One is require that all maintenance on aircraft used in domestic U.S. service be done in FAA-certified repair facilities.

Two is require, as a condition of FAA certification, that all repair stations meet the same standards. This would include, but not be limited to, drug and alcohol testing, background security checks, and Part 65 aircraft mechanic certification.

Three is to reconfigure the FAA inspection and oversight to place the greatest scrutiny on those repair stations whose audits determine to pose the greatest risk to safety and security; and

Four -- require, as a condition of FAA-certification, that all repair stations be subject to unannounced FAA inspections. The FAA should be prohibited from certifying any repair station in a country that does not allow unannounced inspections, and should immediately revoke any existing certifications in such a country.

There is no doubt maintenance work that is done in-house by the U.S. carriers themselves is probably the safest, most secure type of maintenance. This is because the work is done under the direct control of the carriers' supervisors, and there is an additional layer of supervision and inspectors dedicated to completing the tests. They ironically receive the highest scrutiny and FAA oversight of all.

As reported in the FAA's recent report, the Air Carriers' Outsourcing of Aircraft Maintenance -- the issue of September 30, 2008, out of the nine carriers that were reviewed, 71 percent of their heavy airframe maintenance check was outsourced to repair stations. Since 2003, the trend of sending this work out of house has more than doubled from 34 percent in '03 to 71 percent in '07.

In 1989, the TWU testified against the FAA rule change. Unfortunately, we were right in predicting that the elimination of limits on movement of maintenance would result in the outsourcing and loss of tens of thousands of jobs to overseas facilities. Just days ago, Congress passed an economic stimulus package that would put some people back to work.

My suggestion to keep the airline industry afloat is to keep it safe and secure by encouraging more air carriers to ensure safety by establishing the same rules and scrutiny on foreign maintenance bases as we have here in the States, which will keep the U.S. air carrier mechanics working.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. We look forward to answering any questions that you may have to my testimony. Thank you.

REP. COSTELLO: Thank you, Mr. Gless.

And chair now recognizes Ms. Hanni.

MS. HANNI: Chairman Costello and Ranking Member Petri, thank you for inviting FlyersRights.org to testify in connection with the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009.

We were pleased with the last Congress legislation, and we were disappointed that it did not get enacted. But we see that as an opportunity for this Congress to enact even stronger legislation in regard to airline passengers' rights. We applaud the provisions recently introduced in H.R. 915 by Chairman Oberstar and Chairman Costello. But we also ask you to consider language suggestions to the subcommittee staff.

Specifically, we hope you would consider Congressman Mike Thomson's H.R. 624 Passengers Rights Act of 2009. It had 24 cosponsors already, and mandates effective minimum standards for water, food, working toilets, tolerable temperatures, and an option to deplane after three hours, if it can be done safely.

An identical bipartisan bill has been introduced -- I say in the other body, in the Senate -- and our members are working to garner additional support for these bills in both chambers. You will hear from the airline lobbyists that we are doing a better job reducing or handling long tarmac delays. Let us handle it, they say.

Using the same arguments, they advanced in convincing Congress in 1999 to stop working on passenger rights legislation, and accepting voluntary airline customer service commitments instead. However, the DOT's inspector general testified here in 2001 and 2006, that airline effort slacked off after the threat of legislation abated, and that those commitments to customer service plans aren't enforceable.

The other ones will also say the tarmac delay task force report and DOT pending regulations eliminate the need for federal passenger rights provisions to be included in your FAA reauthorization act legislation. Well, we ask the task force to establish minimum standards for passenger health and safety issues, and for a maximum period for tarmac strandings.

I even asked that they clearly define what is a long delay or what is an excessive delay. And we could not get a definition. Instead, the airlines on the task force accepted no standards, with everything still being left to their unregulated discretion, and with no penalties for negligence.

Similarly, in DOT's current draft of its weak, toothless Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections regulation, the airlines are permitted to create their own contingency plans with no DOT review for adequacy, no minimum standards, and no practical way for passengers to enforce whatever the carriers propose to offer.

The airlines' lobbying and litigation activity over the past year make it clear that they don't want any government body or individual passenger to be able to enforce any standards of airline behavior during long tarmac delays. Not the states -- the airlines successfully defeated the state of New York's attempt to establish minimum standards for air passenger health and welfare imposing fines for violations.

The court's ruling was only the federal government may regulate the airlines in this preempted area, and then they turn around and say, not federal regulation. The airlines are opposed to DOT's requiring them in its pending rulemaking, to list their 1999 commitments and their tarmac-stranding policies in their contracts of carriage for fear that some passengers will try to litigate those promises in state courts. Thus, only Congress can assure minimum protections for passengers.

Mr. Chairman, time limits restrict me from explaining how we know from our 24/7 hotline calls and investigations into airline statistics, show that airline and federal agency treatment of stranded airline passengers is getting worse and not better.

In the audience today is Wayne Burnett (ph). He is a GE jet engine engineer. He had a blood clot in pulmonary embolism after a three-and-a-half hour stranding event on the tarmac. It nearly killed him. His life will never be the same. The bottom-line here, Mr. Chairman, is that unless Congress mandates in your FAA reauthorization legislation minimum standards for adequate food, water, working toilets, and a passenger option to deplane after 3-plus hours of a tarmac delay, if it can be done safely, tomorrow's passengers will continue to be as exposed to airline negligence during tarmac strandings as they are today.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I'd be pleased to answer your questions.

REP. COSTELLO: We thank you for your testimony, and as I stated earlier, there is no question that if we leave it up to the airlines to regulate themselves, it will not happen. And that's why it's necessary for us to put this in legislation, and to pursue it. So we thank you for your testimony, and thank you for your advocacy on behalf of passengers.

Mr. Forrey, we want to get into the NATCA contract issue. We all know that. We've discussed it. I think everyone on this committee is aware, and I think can say in a bipartisan way that we believe that what has taken place is unfair. Question is, what's the remedy? And we have proposed the remedy in our legislation, and we have stressed -- I personally have stressed it to the new secretary and others that -- what needs to be done.

So I'm not going to get into that now. But what I do want to get into is to talk a little bit about testimony that we heard from both Dr. Dillingham, and we've heard from others in the past about morale and what it's doing to the agency. The concern about the morale having an effect on NextGen, and the lack of involvement in all of the stakeholders and -- including your -- the controllers, Mr. Brantley's people that he represents, and Mr. Prater as well.

We've heard in -- from the past administration testimony here in this room about how NATCA in particular has been invited to the table to participate. My question to you is with NextGen in particular, because everyone is concerned about NextGen and modernizing the ATC system.

Have you been at the table? And have your people -- have you been invited to come in and give your views and help try and design the system?

MR. FORREY: Mr. Chairman, I'm aware of all those comments made by the previous administration, the FAA, and they're just patently false. The FAA has not invited us to participate in any technological improvements or modernization to the system. In fact they don't want our opinion on anything. They view us with disrespect, or they have in the past, continue to do so today. I think and hope that that will change with the new administrator and this administration.

We look forward to that. Collaboration is the only way this agency is going to move forward. It's the only way we're going to be able to train people. It's the only way we're going to be able to keep the experienced controllers from leaving this system. They're just treated terribly.

REP. COSTELLO: What was refreshing for me to hear from the new secretary about how he wanted to be inclusive, and wanted to have the opinions in not only designing NextGen, but in other aspects of the operation of the agency, all of the stakeholders, including specifically PASS, NATCA, ALPA, and the flight attendants as well. So hopefully, that dialogue will take place in the future, once they're organized and get moving.

I made the point earlier that I think we are into 22 days of this administration, so it's going to take some time to get the appropriate people in place. At this time, the chair would recognize the Ranking Member Mr. Petri.

REP. PETRI: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for your testimony and putting in a little overtime here in this hearing room today. I really wanted to take this short time I have to first of all make a comment, and that is you know we've had several years without a fatal accident in commercial aviation in the United States, absolutely a remarkable record, and that record was in very great jeopardy quite recently with Flight 1549.

And at least three of you have members who are involved; air traffic controller who helped to alert people around the area, of course, the flight crew, stewardesses who managed to prevent as best as they could a potentially catastrophic situation, turning it into an orderly evacuation, and especially your -- I think member, Captain "Sully" Sullenberger, and the tremendous job he did in acting very quickly, and correctly as it turned out, under great pressure.

And this is a testimony to the professionalism and effectiveness of experienced crews, and to the -- we keep trying to make the system better, but we can all be very proud of the performance of the people involved in saving the lives of that -- even someone who is in a wheelchair. Very few serious injuries, and almost everyone walked away, and everyone lives.

So it's a testimony to -- I just wanted to say that. And the other thing, I did have a question for Mr. Forrey just have to be -- and the bill H.R. 915, has a -- what is called a binding arbitration provision, that when the arbitrator comes out with an award, as I understand it, it's -- and I'd like you to comment on this, it's binding on the taxpayer, but not on the union, as there is a possibility of a vote to reject the binding arbitration. Again, how is that going to necessarily move things forward?

MR. FORREY: Well, the binding arbitration process is very similar to what's used in the postal service today, essentially anything that is determined by the arbitration panel is not ratifiable. In other words, it has to be accepted by the parties. The rest of the agreement that was agreed to voluntarily would be ratified. So anything that was in -- that was determined by the arbitration panel is set in stone.

I believe there's also circumstances where there certainly couldn't be an award, or a settlement, so to speak, without the government's approval. If -- obviously if the Congress is not going fund it, they're not going to fund it, and that's all there is to it. I mean, you guys make the laws, right? So that's kind of where it goes. It's a very good process, it's very productive.

It cuts out the strife. Everyone gets to have their day in court and present their evidence in support of what they want to do, and an independent panel will determine what makes the best sense. So we believe that is the only way to go, and it's similar to what's done with the federal services in past panels. It's just that they don't deal with funding basically, or with pay, and the other federal -- parts of the federal sector like the FAA does.

So we think it works very well. It's worked very well for the post office for several years now, and it should be -- create a more productive environment.

REP. PETRI: Thank you very much. And I wanted to -- just one -- very briefly, if you could comment, if you were here during the inspector general's testimony, and there seemed to be some -- at least certainly an increase in recruitment.

So they've hit their targets, or exceeded them, and are still concerned about inexperienced or the opportunities for proper training, but there were predictions a year or so ago about how we were going to have trouble recruiting our -- or keeping the air traffic control force especially in absence of a contract settlement. That does not in fact seem to have happened. Could you -- would you like to address --

MR. FORREY: Well, I think it comes down to a question of what you're recruiting, how qualified they are, and how successful they'll be in the training. As I've stated earlier --

REP. PETRI: These are your members.

(Laughs)

MR. FORREY: Yeah, I understand that. I completely understand that, and what we want them to do is to be put it into an environment where they're going to have the best opportunity to succeed and that's not being done. You've got to understand, air traffic control is an inherent ability, not something you learn. If you don't have the inherent ability to multi-task, to three-dimensional imaging, and all that kind of stuff that us weirdos have, you probably won't succeed in the job.

So you know, first of all you've got to the right pool of people in there, and certainly we hope that's what the FAA is doing. We don't have any say in that. Secondly, you have to provide an environment where they can learn their craft and their profession. And they're being placed in the facilities that don't have the curricula for training them, for people that don't have experience.

They're putting too many in places at once, where they can't get proper and on-time training. The experience level of -- the controllers that are supposed to do the training are leaving, so there's fewer of them around to show them how to do the job. And as Chairman Costello said, he was in Orlando Tower the other month, and there were 10 people in that tower, and only one of them had a year or more of experience.

Now, if we had a situation that happened with U.S. Air 1549, would that controller have had the experience and the -- and been subjected to that kind of a condition in his or her working environment for less than a year, to be able to handle the situation like that controller did or those controllers did? One was in the tower of LaGuardia, Bill McLaughlin (ph), and Patrick Harten at New York TRACON. Both had years of experience, and they didn't miss a beat, just like the crew didn't miss a beat, the cabin crew or the flight crew.

And people were called in to help as quickly as they could, and no one got hurt in that thing. So that's what we're hoping, to stop the flow of these experienced controllers from leaving the system to provide these new folks coming in a decent training program, so that they can be successful and be the next generation of this system. So we're concerned about that. You can hire all you want, but they only certified 700 of them in the last three years. That's a problem for us. We lost 5,000, certified 700, you do the math.

REP. COSTELLO: The chair thanks the gentleman, and now recognizes the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Boswell.

REP. BOSWELL: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't think I have questions. I would like to make a couple of comments if I could. Mr. Forrey, I -- all my years I've been around flying, I still -- I'm impressed if I go to a tower or a control room. Pass the word back to your people that we love them, we respect them, and we're going to continue to work our best to get the numbers you need.

I go right down the line. If I could -- (inaudible). It's not like I pick on the lady upfront. Unsung heroes; I, you know, we fly a lot. Thank you. Those flight attendants are really great, and they don't get much help from we passengers sometimes. We get cranky and so on. Your mechanics -- you make a good point. Unbelievable cost to the airplanes, and we want to shortchange the people, keep them flying. It's ridiculous. And last, thank you, don't give up, Ms. Hanni. You're going to -- we're going to win this sooner or later, going to win it.

I guess I'll stop with you, Captain Prater. I -- thinking back to the days of my own flying, when I was learning, as you know, we -- (inaudible) -- fly, we practice, and practice, and practice for -- (inaudible). And when I was instructing, you know, we wouldn't solo somebody until they could prove to us they had understood what they're supposed to do.

And over the last -- I think that the Hudson River landing tells a story to the world really that you guys are professional. You're really, really professional. Calm and cool you got to be. People of few words, just do what you got to do. And I think of all the possibilities that could have went wrong, you know, one wing digging a little low, or something, just the wrong time and what could have happened.

I think that there was a guiding hand possibly, but there was a heck of a hand on the yoke. And our compliments to those of you that give us the confidence to get back into one of those -- some of those monsters and go. And I began to see what's going on and you know, that's kind of one the harder things for pilots to get in the backseat and sit there knowing you can't do a darn thing if something goes wrong.

But then there's the flight attendants to take care of us. Mr. Chairman, this is a great panel. I wish the whole country could hear what they've got to say and what they do for us. It means a lot. Thank you very much.

REP. COSTELLO: The chair thanks you and recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski.

REP. LIPINSKI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I -- because I am to a large extent what stands between -- all of us being able to finish this hearing today, but I just want to echo my colleague's -- Mr. Boswell's comments here that we -- unfortunate with all the problems going on in our country right now, we like to focus on things that don't work, and haven't worked, and all of you are part of making this system work. And every time I get on a plane, I -- you know, I still think about the fact that all of these things have to work. The pilot, the flight attendants, those who've worked on the plane, the air traffic controllers, everybody has to do things right, so that everything works. And I -- also every time I get on a plane think about how things can be bettered. So I thank Ms. Hanni for her work.

I just want to ask one question of Ms. Friend. In written testimony, you've expressed strong support of placing limits on the size of carryon bags that may be brought on to planes. So I just wanted to ask you with the decision of many carriers to charge for bags, I just wanted to ask you how that has impacted the number of bags, the size of bags that passengers carry on, and what effects that this has had on flight attendants?

MS. FRIEND: Well, as you can imagine, people are reluctant to pay anything more than they have to. And so a lot of the baggage that used to be checked is now ending up in the cabin of the aircraft, more and larger pieces of luggage. We do know that -- as I testified earlier, at least one major carrier has -- two months after implementing the check baggage fee, they revealed that their -- the amount of their checked baggage was down by 25 percent.

And from our viewpoint, that 25 percent reduction is now in the cabin. We see a number of problems with that, obviously. There isn't room for it. It causes problems in evacuation, you know. Some of those passengers who were in the Hudson River felt compelled to try to take their carryon baggage with them as they were leaving, and which they will inevitably do.

And it's -- we believe that additional carryon baggage coming through the security checkpoint as an additional burden to the screeners, that it just magnifies their workload and makes it more difficult for them to identify dangerous items. So we're -- once again, as we have for as long as I can remember, urging the enactment of a uniform carryon baggage limitation size and number that can be enforced.

REP. LIPINSKI: Thank you. And it's a -- you know, I always see those. They still have those metal -- metal things that are sitting there, before you get in the plane, and say your bag must fit in here, and kind of wonder why those are still sitting there. I don't think I've ever seen one of those really used.

MS. FRIEND: No, they're actually a handy receptacle for anything, you know, that you can't find a trashcan for. That's about what they're good for.

REP. LIPINSKI: Thank you very much. I thank all the panelists for your testimony. I wish that hopefully there are a lot of people watching this, and understand the job that you do, and the people that you represent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. COSTELLO: Thank you. The chair thanks all of you for your testimony, and for your patience today. We think that we have a good bill that we've introduced. And it's our -- we have every intention of moving the bill as quickly as possible. We will schedule a markup as soon as we possibly can, and we will get it to the floor quickly.

As I said earlier, when the ranking member of the Full Committee was here, most of the items in the bill are issues that we had previously agreed on, that Mr. Mica, Mister -- Chairman Oberstar, Mr. Petri, and I sat down, and went through item by item in the bill. So I would guess that about 90 percent is agreed upon. The labor issues are not agreed upon, not surprisingly. But there were a couple of other issues too that were put into this bill, that we believe are non-controversial. So it's our -- we fully intend to move this as quickly as possible.

We want to move it prior to the expiration of the extension, which of course is the end of March. So we will be doing our work to attempt to get that done. We appreciate your input. As I said in my opening statement, the bill that was introduced and passed out of committee and the House in 2007 had input from all of you, and from a lot of other stakeholders as well. And this bill does as well. And we appreciate your testimony, your input, and we look forward to having you back before the subcommittee in the future to talk about other issues.

And we would encourage you to talk to our colleagues in the House, and the other body as we move the bill forward, so that we can get the bill passed out of the House, and then you can go over to the other side of the building and work hard to try and convince our friends in the other body to pass the reauthorization bill. It's important -- it's not only important for NextGen, it's not only important for a lot of the reasons that you've heard today, but I think it's important to the flying public, and all of the stakeholders involved in aviation.

So again, we thank you for your patience and we thank you for your testimony. With that the subcommittee stands adjourned.

END.

Source