FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. HIRONO. Geographically, Hawaii is the world's most isolated archipelago. It is the only U.S. State made up completely of islands. There are four counties in Hawaii, all of which are separated by a body of water. Air travel is the fastest and most effective means of transportation between our islands. It is also the mode of transportation that we rely on most for moving goods and other cargo and even our daily mail.
The 15 airports operated by the Airports Division of the Hawaii Department of Transportation are responsible for maintaining safe and efficient facilities that accommodate approximately 25 million passengers a year. This is a tremendous responsibility and an ongoing challenge. It is because of the fundamental role that air travel plays in the day-to-day lives of the people of Hawaii and in the commerce of Hawaii that Congress saw fit to provide the State with an exemption from charging passenger facility fees, or PFCs, on interisland flights. These are the flights between our islands.
This exemption is important for Hawaii's residents. Without it, for many, the daily commute would be unduly burdensome. I know many people who live on O'ahu, for example, who commute to work on one of the other islands. It would be as if you, or if any of your constituents, got in your car to go to work and then had to pay $4.50, which is our PFC fee, just to leave your driveway and then have to pay another $4.50 upon your return.
While we greatly appreciate and seek to preserve this exemption, there have been unintended consequences with regard to its impact on Federal funds for Hawaii's airports. This is because of the way that PFCs impact the formula funding that is apportioned to each State under the Airport Improvement Program, or the AIP.
As my colleagues know, AIP grants are awarded to each State based on a formula. For airports that opt to collect PFCs, formula funds are cut by either 50 or 75 percent. This reduction depends on the amount charged. For airports that assess PFCs on 100 percent of their passengers, this arrangement works well. However, in the case of Hawaii, the two airports that collect PFCs only collect them on a portion of the passengers.
At our large hub airport in Honolulu, 38 percent of our passengers are interisland travelers. Interisland travelers also constitute 51 percent of the passengers served by our medium hub at Kahului Airport on Maui. Therefore, the $4.50 PFC being assessed at Honolulu is only being paid by 62 percent of its passengers. On Maui, that number is only 49 percent.
Based on the current formula, the Hawaii Department of Transportation calculates that the State is losing approximately $5.7 million this year in AIP formula entitlement funds. My amendment would change the formula under which Hawaii's PFCs and entitlements are calculated in order to correct this inequity.
I want to be clear to my colleagues: This amendment is intended only to ensure that Hawaii gets its full fair share under the AIP program. Hawaii's airports would still be subject to the same 75 percent reduction as any other airport charging a $4.50 PFC. The calculation would simply take into account the percentage of passengers traveling interisland and therefore not paying a PFC.
I also want to point out that this is not a windfall for the State or, in my view, an earmark. In fact, House rule XXI, clause 9(e), the definition for ``earmark,'' defines an ``earmark'' as essentially any member-requested Federal assistance to a targeted entity or locality ``other than through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive award process.''
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. HIRONO. I rise to speak in favor of this amendment, and I certainly appreciate the opportunity to speak on this amendment.
The basic idea of this amendment is to ensure the safety of the traveling public and those whose job it is to get them safely to their destinations, and my amendment has to do with smoke in the cockpit.
I do note that the FAA reauthorization bill that is under consideration today already acknowledges the concern about smoke in the cockpit, because it requires the GAO to study what the FAA has done to address smoke in the cockpit. So my bill takes this concern to a more focused level by establishing an aviation rulemaking committee, an ARC, made up of representatives from aviation labor, industry, and other experts.
Their task would be to carefully examine and provide regulatory recommendations on the issue of cockpit smoke. This advisory committee will not cost the taxpayers any money, and this amendment does not mandate rulemaking. The administrator of the FAA would then review the recommendations, and report to Congress on the steps that he or she will take to address them.
The problem of smoke in the cockpit is not new. In fact, my colleague from Hawaii, Senator Inouye, introduced legislation to address this matter as long ago as 1993. And I want to note his introductory remarks on the bill because, 20 years later, we still have not adequately addressed this problem.
In introducing his legislation in 1993, he said, ``My colleagues will be troubled to learn that over the last 20 years there have been a dozen accidents on commercial aircraft in which dense continuous smoke in the airline cockpit may have been a factor. In these accidents, over 850 people have died.''
That was in 1993. Almost another 20 years has passed. Since then, even more lives have been lost in accidents where cockpit smoke was the cause or a factor.
Some will say that, while tragic, incidents such as these are rare and that there are already procedures in place to avoid them. Fortunately, yes, incidents that end in death are rare. However, I believe the available evidence tells a different story about the number of times when smoke in the cockpit comes about.
According to a more recent report, the FAA's Information for Operators Bulletin released October 6, 2010, the FAA noted that they receive over 900 reports a year of smoke or fumes in the cabin or cockpit. An average of 900 incidents in 365 days does not seem to me to be a rare occurrence.
I believe that our national response to this issue has been inadequate. We need a comprehensive, up-to-date analysis of the issue and real-action next steps to protect our pilots and passengers. Therefore, I believe that my amendment is reasonable, logical, does not cost money, and it takes us toward resolving this issue. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. HIRONO. I again note that the underlying FAA reauthorization bill that we are contemplating tonight acknowledges this concern by asking the DOA to assess what the FAA has done in this area. So, to me, that says that this is an ongoing concern that is acknowledged in the underlying bill.
In addition, I would like to note that there are any number of private airlines that already have these kinds of systems that I am talking about in my amendment in their fleets. For example, Jet Blue has these systems, UPS. And on the Federal side, I think it is really interesting to note that the FAA's VIP fleet has this kind of system in its cockpits to make sure that their pilots can see when there is continuous dense smoke in the cockpit.
So, again, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment as being reasonable and taking us to the next steps to address this issue.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. HIRONO. I would like to close by reiterating once again that I think it is interesting that the FAA chooses to focus on the causes of cockpit smoke. Frankly, if there is smoke in the cockpit, I don't know that we need to be focusing that much on what causes the smoke. Of course that is important. But at the same time, what I care about on behalf of the pilot and the flying public is, what can we do. What systems are already available, what technology is already available, being used, I might say, extensively by the private sector as well as in government airplanes, that would ensure the safety of our pilots and flying public? This is why I continue to press the adoption of my amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source