Segment 2 Of 2 Previous Hearing Segment(1)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION'S BUDGET REQUEST AND FUNDING NEEDS
Wednesday, March 1, 2000
House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Aviation, Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:33 a.m. in room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John J. Duncan, Jr. [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. DUNCAN. We are going to go ahead and call this subcommittee meeting to order.
This is the second day of hearings on the funding needs of the FAA. Because we do have a couple of witnesses, both Administrator Garvey and Mr. Carty and possibly some other witnesses who are on a time schedule, we have agreed to waive opening statements and go ahead and proceed immediately with the testimony of Administrator Garvey.
Administrator Garvey, thank you very much for being here with us. You may begin your testimony.
TESTIMONY OF HON. JANE F. GARVEY, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Thank you once again for the opportunity to appear before you this morning to discuss the President's budget request for Federal Aviation Administration for 2001.
First of all, just the put it in a little bit of context, the FAA is a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week service delivery organization. We safely manage approximately 200,000 take-offs and landings every day in a system that moves over 600 million airline passengers per year, and we expect that number to reach one billion within a decade. We anticipate 30 billion cargo ton miles of high-priority shipped cargo this year, which represents an 88 percent increase since 1990.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
In the context of that dramatic growth in the industry, the President's budget provides the resources for us to continue the modernization of the national airspace system, or the NAS.
Modernization of the NAS is a two-pronged effort. First of all, it is sustaining the infrastructure, those thousands of pieces of equipment that are out there, and, secondly, deploying the new technologies to improve the safety, to improve the efficiency of the airspace. But, again, we need to do this within the context of a 24-hour-a-day operation.
The FAA has over 14,500 facilities and buildings. Many of our buildings are beyond their economic service life of 30 to 40 years, and these facilities are critical to support the technological advances we are bringing online.
Just by way of example, the average age of an airport air traffic control tower is 26 years. Specifically at some of our Nation's busiest airports: the control tower at New York LaGuardia's Airport, for example, was commissioned in 1964; Washington's Dulles, commissioned in 1962; and Newark International Airport, commissioned in 1960.
Clearly, there is a need for resources if the FAA is going to be able to meet the challenges of the 21st century, but the issue is not simply a matter of more money. It is also whether the FAA will have a steady and reliable source of funding for the investments required to ensure that the traveling public has a safe and reliable air transportation system.
Given this need, the real question becomes: is the FAA up to the task? Are we able to manage the resources that we have?
Now, I will say that the FAA has been criticized in the past for not managing large projects well, and I think if you were to ask many people within the FAA they would agree with that assessment. The real question, the real issue, is whether or not we have learned from the past and are we doing business differently.
I certainly do not want to suggest today or suggest to this committee that we have solved all of our problems. Not by a long shot. But I believe we are managing differently and I believe we are on the right track.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
In my view, two key elements that I think are absolutely essential to good management is establishing the consensus with strong collaboration with the industry and with our labor unions, and I think we have done that. And, secondly, a realization that the best way to move forward on any large, complex projects, particularly one as complex as modernization, is to do it incrementally, step-by-step, building-block-by-building-block, and to measure the results as you move forward.
And these efforts are paying off. By May of 2000, all 20 of our en-route centers, the centers that control aircraft in high-altitude spaces, will have state-of-the-art controller work stations that replace 30-year-old equipment. This new equipment is more reliable, it is easier to maintain, and, more importantly, it provides the platform for future safety and capacity upgrades, all of which is good news for our controllers, good news for our technicians, but ultimately very good news for the traveling public, because it will mean fewer delays caused by equipment failures.
I would also like to point out that a very important tool in this effort has been acquisition reform. Last year we replaced the HOST and the oceanic in record time. We accomplished this enormous task in 18 months, and we simply could not have done that but for acquisition reform. We thank Congress and thank this committee for that important management tool.
Our modernization efforts do not stop at the centers. We are now moving to the terminal areas, which, quite frankly, is the most challenging aspect of modernization, because the terminal area is the most complex for air traffic management.
We recently dedicated the first version of STARS in El Paso, Texas, and in Syracuse, New York. We have done this in full partnership with the controllers and the technicians, and I cannot say enough for both of those unions. They are full partners with us, full partners in solving what is an enormously complex issue.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. Chairman, this is an exhilarating time to be in aviation. It is a wonderful time in the history of aviation. And most often I have heard from you and from members of this committee, ''What can Congress do? How can Congress help?''
Well, first of all, I would ask for your support to see that the President's budget request for 2001 is fully enacted. But, equally important—and I really enter this more for the record, because I know this committee knows this full well—an expeditious conclusion to the FAA Reauthorization Conference. This committee has provided extraordinary leadership in moving forward an ambitious, long-term reauthorization bill. These critical legislative initiatives are intimately connected to our efforts in making progress on the modernization of our entire air traffic management system.
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate your support and the support of this committee for the work that we are doing at the FAA. I look forward to working with you, to working with all members of this committee to meet our shared goal of improving the air transportation system for the 21st century.
That completes my remarks, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Garvey.
We are going to go first to Mr. Baldacci for questions and then to Mr. Lampson.
Mr. Baldacci, you may make any comments or questions that you have at this time.
Mr. BALDACCI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Recognizing the time of some of the people who are to testify, I would like to be able to withhold comments and be able to put a statement in the record at a later time.
I would just thank Administrator Garvey for her leadership and the work that she has been doing and the entire agency. On some of the visits that I have taken to some of the control centers, I have been pleased. The morale seems to be picked up and people seem to be really concentrating, and I appreciate her leadership in that endeavor.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you.
Mr. BALDACCI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much.
Mr. Lampson?
Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Ms. Garvey, for being here this morning.
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you, Mr. Lampson. Good to see you.
Mr. LAMPSON. Demand for airline travel keeps rising nationwide at a rate of about 4.5 percent or so per year for much of the 1990s, and that growth rate curve has put a lot of pressure on the air traffic control system, on airports, and on airlines. Last year was the worst year in many years for air traffic control delays.
I do not think that there is any question that the FAA needs increased funds to have any hope of keeping up with that rising demand, and I am pleased to see that the President's budget request recognizes that fact with a 12 percent increase for FAA operations and 22 percent increase for facilities and equipment. Those are steps in the right direction.
But if we are going to have any chance in the coming years of getting you the increased funding you need to keep up with the demand for air travel, the reality is that you are going to have to be able to make a great case for the idea that you are putting the money where the rate of growth is the greatest and where the most capacity enhancement and delay reduction can be achieved for each dollar spent.
What can you tell us about the FAA's ability to do that? How are you making sure that the FAA's resources, both on the ATC side and the airport grants side, are going where the challenge of growth is the greatest and where the most can be done per dollar to alleviate congestion and delay?
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you very much, Congressman.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Let me try to answer that question three ways. First of all, tactically, I think the issue of delays is something that we have certainly wrestled with and recognize very well. And, we have worked very, very closely with the industry over the last few months on the whole issue of a spring/summer plan that we can implement together—and I want to emphasize that ''together''—that we can implement together to really deal with the issue of delays. We expect that plan is going to be unveiled within the next week, so I am looking forward to that, and I think it is an extraordinary effort on the part of the airlines, as well, who have been terrific to work with.
But tactically that is the answer. It is not the long-term answer, as you have suggested.
The long-term answer is really modernization. I think the approach that we are taking, a building block approach about build a little, test a little, is the way to go.
I will say that we have a very straightforward contract with industry, and the contract is: we will deploy the technology, but you help us measure it. Tell us if it is really working.
I think that is really the way that we are going to attack and be able to deal with what is an enormously complex issue, as you have suggested.
In terms of the airports, I think one of the real keys for the future is making sure that the small-and mid-size airports get their share of AIP funding. And I know this is an issue this committee cares about, as well. We certainly support some of the AIP funding being targeted for some of those smaller airports. Large airports, while they may need some of the AIP, have a number of other opportunities, as well. PFCs is certainly one answer for them.
Mr. LAMPSON. Good. Thank you. And certainly, from all levels of the size of the airports, it is awfully important. But this is more than an academic concern on my part for the country.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
While the country as a whole has been struggling to keep up with the passenger growth rate of a fraction over 4 percent or so per year, at Houston, at the same time, we have been averaging a fraction over an 8 percent growth rate per year, passenger growth rate, nearly twice the national average, so we know first-hand the challenge of trying to keep up with that kind of growth rate, that kind of growth and demand, and it is not an easy thing to do.
Ms. GARVEY. It certainly is not.
Mr. LAMPSON. I look forward to working with you in making that happen.
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Lampson.
Mr. Pease?
Mr. PEASE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Garvey, it is good to see you again.
Ms. GARVEY. Good to see you, Congressman.
Mr. PEASE. Earlier this year, I was one of those folks that was on a plane at Washington National when we had, I guess, a software problem that closed that airport, similar to one that had happened a week before that in the Boston area. I want to say publicly that you and your staff responded immediately when I had inquiries about that, and I am grateful for it. I appreciate your responsiveness. But can you explain to the committee exactly what is the nature of that problem? How are we responding to it? Can we expect it again? What do we need to do to help you get the resources that are necessary so it will not happen again?
Ms. GARVEY. Well, first of all, thank you for your generous comments in the paper. You were very kind, because I know that was an extremely inconvenient delay.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We had, over the last probably eight months or so, a couple of issues where our software equipment associated with some of our hardware we had some difficulties with, and in each case we have been able to take care of it.
I think it is important to point out that the difficulty and the problems that we had were never experienced with the hardware. That is the new equipment that we have been able to get online, and that is important, so the hardware performed very well. It is the software which we would absolutely agree, in the long term, needs to be replaced.
While I think we can certainly deal with it in the short term by maintaining it—that is an expensive proposition, but we are doing that—but we do have some long-term issues about replacing the software, particularly in the HOST.
Mr. PEASE. Thank you. Will you be placing before us a specific request, or will that be part of your larger budget request? Does it need particular attention, or are you already addressing it as part of a larger solution?
Ms. GARVEY. Well, I think it is really being addressed, Congressman, as part of a larger solution. We know that the replacement of the HOST will be a six-step process. We have got great support from our union, which issued a statement recently about that. It is going to be complex, but, again, I think doing it incrementally will be the right approach. But, again, it is the long-term modernization issues, and you are absolutely right—while we can do some things tactically now, long term the system needs to be modernized.
Mr. PEASE. I appreciate that.
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. PEASE. There has been a lot of attention, obviously appropriately so, to crashes over water, particularly oceanic crashes in the last year or two years. What is the FAA doing in that area in terms of monitoring and assuring safety in oceanic flights?
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. GARVEY. Well, certainly, of course, we work very closely with the National Transportation Safety Board, so anything we learn from those accidents and those crashes are things we apply to our body of knowledge and certainly look at very carefully and look at the recommendations from the NTSB.
We have a technical center in New Jersey that focuses a great deal on some of the issues related to cabin materials that are used and so forth, including the oceanic issues that you have mentioned. So our tech center is really the place where we see a lot of the research, testing of the materials, testing of the flotation devices, and so forth, and, again, working very closely with the NTSB on specific recommendations.
Mr. PEASE. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Pease.
Mr. Costello?
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Administrator Garvey, it is good to see you here before the committee again.
Ms. GARVEY. Good to see you, sir.
Mr. COSTELLO. There are a number of questions I have. One relates directly to the FAA's apparent willingness to terminate the contract tower program for general aviation airports. As you know, without the contract tower program, many of these busy general aviation airports will not be able to provide air traffic control services, and I wonder if you might comment as to how you see these busy general aviation airports being able to operate if, in fact, the program is terminated.
Ms. GARVEY. Right. Congressman, let me say we have certainly heard from you and from a number of Members, as well. I know this is a very critical issue. In fact, frankly, that is a program I have enjoyed working with the contract tower people, and I think it is a very fine program.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We are really suffering with some shortfalls this year in our budget, and we have looked at a number of options. We have made no decision on the contract towers, and I know that a number of the airport directors have visited us, as well as hearing from Congressmen that there are some serious safety concerns. So we have not made a decision and I really would be very reluctant to reach that decision. So I am still confident that we can find some other way to close the shortfall, but I do appreciate your concerns in that area.
Mr. COSTELLO. Well, I appreciate your concern, as well, and would encourage you to take a very hard look at the issue—
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you.
Mr. COSTELLO.—because it is very important to small, busy—
Ms. GARVEY. Yes, it is.
Mr. COSTELLO.—general aviation airports.
Secondly, last year the Administration submitted the reauthorization proposal. They included a $2 increase in the PFCs. As you know, the House bill that we passed included a $3 increase in the PFCs, and I am wondering if the Administration is supporting the $2 increase or the $3 increase this year.
Ms. GARVEY. On that issue, we would be, obviously, very willing and very eager to work with Congress on that and would certainly support the $3 if that is where Congress ended up.
We were, I think, sending the signal that we thought there should be an increase, and would be happy to work with you on whether it is two or three.
Mr. COSTELLO. Very good. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Costello.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. Bass?
Mr. BASS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much. I apologize for being late.
I was prepared to ask you a question about the contract tower issue, but I am advised that you already answered that for Mr. Costello, so I will refer to that in the record.
I have a question regarding the FAA beginning the process of drafting regulations and procedures to accommodate the operation of tilt rotor aircraft when the military and civil versions of this new aviation technology begin going into service within the next couple of years, and I would like to commend you for your efforts on this.
Considering the already-congested conditions in our airspace and the unlikelihood of any new construction or major expansion, or little at our major hub airports, it would appear to me that rotor craft operations do offer a potential solution to increasing the capacity and enhancing efficiency in air transport, and I was wondering if you could outline for me the status of the FAA's rule-making process, if you know about it. If you do not, we can do it for the record. And also, what support can the FAA provide for the development of what are going to be known as ''vertiports'' and other sites from which tilt rotor and other rotor aircraft can operate.
Ms. GARVEY. Congressman, let me say that, like you, I have had a chance to see some of that equipment, and it is fascinating, and I think offers some interesting possibilities, particularly in the congested areas that you have talked about.
I would like to get back with you about the exact status. I know we are in rule-making, but I am not exactly sure how far along we are. We would be happy to provide that information.
[The information received follows:]
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
[insert here]
Ms. GARVEY. I think, in addition, within our AVR organization, there is a group of really fine specialists and experts who can offer some technical advice. We have actually worked collaboratively with the airports association to offer some seminars at some of their conferences on this as a possibility for the future. So we are happy to continue with that technical advice and we will certainly get back to you with the schedule for the rule-making.
Mr. BASS. Thank you very much.
I only conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying that I appreciate the fine work that you have done, Ms. Garvey, as head of the FAA.
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. BASS. And, as one who is deeply concerned about the long-term viability of our aviation infrastructure, given the enormous increase in demands and what is potentially going to be even worse, and the fact that we know that the system is almost at its breaking point now, that you can do whatever you can to help us get a good FAA reauthorization bill similar to the one that this committee has passed out so that we do not get behind the eight ball on the issue of improving aviation structure and making sure that it is part of the importance of maintaining a prosperous economy in this country that we do not allow our aviation infrastructure to lag.
I want to thank you for the good work that you have done as head of the FAA.
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Bass.
Mr. Filner was here next.
Mr. Filner?
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. FILNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Madam Administrator. I join my colleagues in their praise for you and the work you have done. I, too, apologize for being late.
I did not notice in the prepared testimony—did you comment at all on the program that is involved with privatization of municipal airfields?
Ms. GARVEY. I did not comment specifically. What I can tell you is that we do have some pilot programs underway. In fact, we are getting very close to issuing one of our first sort of signals for privatization, working of an airport in—
Mr. FILNER. We have not done that, as yet?
Ms. GARVEY. We have just the pilots underway. That is right. And they are in various phases of development.
Mr. FILNER. Is there a list of those pilots?
Ms. GARVEY. We can provide that for you, sir.
Mr. FILNER. Because, as you know, Brown Field in San Diego—I am not sure if that is on your list. Is that on your list?
Ms. GARVEY. No. I would have to go back and check. I remember—Suzanne is telling me—and this is why this is always so great. She said yes, we are working on that one. It is on the list. It may be in the little bit early stages.
Mr. FILNER. I just got called from some constituents who said, ''Why is this on a list?'' And I said I did not know what list they were talking about. If there is a list of pilot programs that are just being evaluated or reviewed, I would like to see that.
Ms. GARVEY. And we would be happy to get that to you.
[insert here]
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. GARVEY. I would also add, though, of course, this is only after people have applied, so the airport has applied.
Mr. FILNER. The city and a group are working jointly to try to do that, but I did not know how far that was, and I did not know what experience you have had so far.
Ms. GARVEY. We will provide you with the status on that one.
Mr. FILNER. Let me just ask you another question. I will be happy to get an answer later on, because I did not tell you I was going to ask a very specific question.
In this Brown Field situation, which is right near the U.S./Mexico border, it happens there is a mountain range directly to the east of the airport, and planes have to land from the west to the east, and they have to take off in the same—back to the west. They cannot go off to the east because of the mountains.
Ms. GARVEY. Yes.
Mr. FILNER. So they are landing and taking off—
Ms. GARVEY. Same direction.
Mr. FILNER.—off the same runway—obviously, hopefully, at different times. But is this a common situation or a rare situation at airports? And what is the safety evaluation? I know many of my constituents are worried about the safety of such a plan and I do not know whether this is done routinely or it is rare or there is other experiences with it, especially with big—it is a general aviation airport now.
Ms. GARVEY. Right.
Mr. FILNER. But the plan is to take it to a major cargo airport with bigger planes—DC-8s and 747s, 767s. So that situation, what is the safety of that situation with these big cargo planes is what I am interested in?
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. GARVEY. Well, let me say that we will get back to you with some specifics on that airport.
[The information received follows:]
[insert here]
Ms. GARVEY. Just speaking more generally, at any airport there are some very careful procedures that are followed by the air traffic controllers. Actually, one of the reasons that even some of the privatization efforts have taken some time is because it does call for a change in the airport and developing the right procedures, and making sure that those safety standards are not compromised is a key part of it. So sometimes that takes a little bit longer than we would like.
But I would be happy to look at that one, in particular, but I can certainly say that we do not allow operations that are not following procedures that have the highest standards of safety.
I know that Duane Woerth, who is here from the pilots, would say that they are very much a key part of that.
Mr. FILNER. Do you have the authority in these pilot programs, or just in general to impose time restrictions, curfews on these airports, or is that a local decision?
Ms. GARVEY. Actually, that relates back to some of the ANCA rules from even previous legislation, where not if it really limits the access. But I know that that is becoming increasingly an issue at local airports. Sometimes there are some accommodations that are agreed to between the airlines and the communities.
Mr. FILNER. Do you have the authority?
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. GARVEY. Not really, unless—
Mr. FILNER. For community quality of life?
Ms. GARVEY. If it limits access, not really, because there are national airspace issues. But we try very hard to work out some sort of accommodations with both the kind of flight patterns that we use, but also working with the airlines. And sometimes there are voluntary curfews that people agree on. It is not done frequently. I do not want to suggest it is. But—
Mr. FILNER. I mean, Lindbergh Field in San Diego has a curfew. Is that done by the local—
Ms. GARVEY. I believe that is local. We would certainly participate in those discussions, but it is generally—
Mr. FILNER. They have the authority to do that?
Ms. GARVEY. As long as they would have the agreement with the airlines. And I think in that case it has been a longstanding agreement, as I understand it.
Mr. FILNER. Okay. Thank you so much.
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you.
Mr. DeFazio?
Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Garvey, good to see you.
Ms. GARVEY. Good to see you, Congressman.
Mr. DEFAZIO. You had great adventures on New Year's Eve, I assume.
Ms. GARVEY. And you did not need your generator.
Mr. DEFAZIO. I did not need my generator, but I had it, just in case. And you did not have any problems in the air.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. GARVEY. It was wonderful.
Mr. DEFAZIO. I have still got the generator. I will need it some day, I am sure.
I have a couple of questions that go to perhaps other than budgetary issues, but I have long been concerned and brought up for many years—you have been here, it seems, a long time. You are the third Administration I have dealt with, and I do not know how many administrators.
Back in the 1970s, the FAA, as is allowed under Federal law, took an exemption for regulation of the aviation industry from OSHA, the Federal law rationale being that agencies that have particular expertise could better develop guidelines and targeted rules for the industries under their jurisdiction.
We are still waiting. We are now in the 26th year, I believe, of waiting for the promulgation of OSHA compliance guidelines from the FAA.
Is there active, ongoing development of guidelines at the moment, or a rule?
Ms. GARVEY. Congressman, actually it is very active. As a matter of fact, I met with the flight attendants last week, and they are submitting some comments for the record. We have a comment period right now. They are really very constructive and very good comments.
There is a bit of a sticking point between us and OSHA, but I think it is one we can solve very easily. I know the White House has indicated an interest in it, as well.
We have a slightly different view about our ability to share responsibilities. We think we can share them, that we can create a kind of division of labors, if you will.
As a matter of fact, I just called the head of OSHA last week to see if the two of us could get together and sort of resolve at a higher level the kind of shared concept that we think might work, and then ask our lawyers to sort of work it out in detail.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
But the comments from the flight attendants were excellent. We are actually going through some of them right now to figure out if there are some elements we can even do absent a rule and do sort of ahead of time.
I think, particularly after we have a direct conversation with OSHA, I think we can continue some movement on this.
I know it has been frustrating for the flight attendants, and I appreciate your patience on it, as well. But I am going to get it done.
Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay. Well, let me follow up on that, because, obviously, in part the working conditions for the flight attendants and pilots are also shared by the customers of the airlines.
Actually, Ranking Member Lipinski and I will be shortly meeting with members of your staff to discuss a particular concern we have. We have noticed that a group—the Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, apparently people who do not fly very much—is recommending that we should further lower the amount of air exchange, air changes made available to passengers on airplanes, I guess because perhaps their budget is supported by the airline industry, which is always wanting to save more money on fuel.
I have been expressing concerns about air quality since hearings in the late 1980s, when we were trying to get rid of smoking on planes. I think it was 1988. And one of my concerns is that we have not promulgated a rule—which, again, might come under OSHA. If you work in this building—well, we are sort of semi-exempt, but you work in any other office building that is not Federal, there are certain standards that must be met in terms of air quality, air exchange, volume of air, and those things.
Now, here we have an environment in which many Americans travel for pleasure and work in aircraft interiors, where we do not have a fixed standard by the FAA, and, in fact, we have this group of engineers saying, ''Well, let them eat cake and bring their own oxygen masks.''
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Is this anything that you are entertaining? And I do not even understand how ASHRAE—since we do not have a standard, I guess they are taking the current average and saying, ''Let us lower it,'' because there is no—I am not aware of a promulgated rule or standard. Is that correct?
Ms. GARVEY. Right. And I cannot imagine that we would be lowering it. I would like to get back to my staff and understand that study, in particular, a little bit more.
Mr. DEFAZIO. Right.
Ms. GARVEY. And I will do that.
[The information received follows:]
[insert here]
Mr. DEFAZIO. Particularly, what we talked about at the 1988 hearing, in addition to smoking, was that we were looking at a new generation of aircraft at that time, which was 57s, 67s, and others that were going to provide less air exchange. They were designed that way. And a number of us—I believe Jim and I and others—expressed concern at that time that no longer were we going to have the issue of airflow on a discretionary basis, but, in fact, the planes were going to be designed to a standard where they would provide less.
I would hate to see another generation of planes designed to provide even less air exchange than they do today, because many people, like myself, who fly a lot really feel that the air is not particularly healthful on those planes and we could do better.
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. DeFazio.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Dr. Ehlers?
Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am very pleased to be here for this presentation. I hope that by the time we reach the question period I will have some intelligent questions. I yield back to the Chair.
Mr. DUNCAN. Well, that is the first I have heard that.
[Laughter.]
Mr. EHLERS. You mean the honesty?
Mr. DUNCAN. Yes, the honesty.
Mr. Holden?
Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I do not know if it is an intelligent question, Ms. Garvey, but I just have an issue maybe your staff could check on and get back to me.
I understand that there is a feasibility study going on for a cargo airport in Hazelton, Pennsylvania, which is located in my neighbor, Paul Kanjorski's District. I am just curious about the status of that, if some time in the near future someone could get back to me.
Ms. GARVEY. We will get back to you as quickly as we can, Congressman.
[The information received follows:]
Supporters of this airport project had some initial difficulty in obtaining a sponsor for the project. Recently, the County of Luzerne agreed to be the sponsor of the project. The FAA provided a letter to the Mayor of Hazelton and the Board of Commissioners of Luzerne County which outlined the scope of a feasibility study. This letter also provided points of contact within the FAA's Airport District Office (ADO) to which the application for the study would be submitted.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. HOLDEN. Nice to see you again, Ms. Garvey.
Ms. GARVEY. Nice to see you, Congressman.
Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you.
Mr. DUNCAN. Vice Chairman Sweeney?
Mr. SWEENEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity.
I will submit for the record a formal statement, and I want to welcome you, Ms. Garvey.
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. SWEENEY. I think you know that I recognize the work you have done in really bringing the FAA around, especially with some of the challenges, the Y2K challenges.
I have to say that I am having a real hard time swallowing or even acknowledging the Administration's budget request. I know it is not necessarily a position you would want to be in, either. I think it poorly serves the American public, and, frankly, I am not at all happy because I think it is really more of a game of political gamesmanship.
But, having said that, let me ask this question: how much is it going to cost to transition the satellite-based navigation system? And how long will we have to keep the existing ground-based navigation systems?
Ms. GARVEY. I would like to get back to you with the exact number.
But I can tell you, in terms of the transition—and we have had some interesting discussions, both with industry and even within the Administration over the last year on that issue—we really are going to look at it based on two criteria. One is we are not going to rush to judgment. Let me start with that. We are not going to rush to decommission the ground-based systems that we have. It is really going to depend very much on user acceptability. Is the user comfortable? Are we ready to transition? That is something we are going to work very, very closely with industry on.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So, from my perspective, I do not think we are going to see the decommissioning for a long period of time. I think the number of years that even the inspector general has referred to is 10 to 15, at a minimum.
So we want to be very clear about saying, one, we are not going to remove them before we are all very, very comfortable about it, and, two, we are prepared to keep them and maintain them and stay with them as long as it really is necessary.
Mr. SWEENEY. Do you have an approximation of what it would cost?
Ms. GARVEY. We can certainly get that for you, Congressman. I do not have it with me. We can certainly get that for you.
Mr. SWEENEY. When will you be able to completely install the technology, the airport surface detection equipment and the airport movement area surveillance system? You know the number of runway incursions has remained high, and I have a very deep concern, especially in light of, I guess, the rather callous approach the Administration is taking in terms of the budget in this regard.
So my question is: when will you be able to give us that information, as well?
Ms. GARVEY. Let me, first of all, start by absolutely agreeing about the urgency with runway incursions. That is something that not only we are very focused on, but the National Transportation Safety Board, and the Inspector General. It is something that we are very focused on together.
We have an aggressive runway safety program. It is made up of three parts. One is the training, which is really critical—training for pilots, training for controllers in runway incursion. What we are finding is a large number of runway incursion problems are due to communication and can be avoided by proper communication, so training is a key part of it.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The second are some strategies that we can do now. They are sort of low-hanging fruit. We have sent, for example, runway incursion teams out to the 20 worst airports to make a list of some short-term actions that those airports can take, and then we have gone back to those airports.
The third area is the area that you are really talking about, and that is technology. The AMASS Program that you have referred to is critical for the future. Last year we had some human factors issues. That is, there were some technology issues that we did not feel the technology was where it should be. It resulted in a slippage in the system. But we have been on track for the last nine months or so. I think it is 2002 that we will be putting that in.
I will tell you, though, that we are also looking at some low-cost technologies that we can put in place before then.
So, again, I think of this program as a series of tactical interventions and then longer-term technology.
Could I also make one other final point? I am sorry. I am almost finished. But the runway incursion piece, because we felt it was so important, we do have a good, strong piece in the budget for runway incursion. It is important.
Mr. SWEENEY. How many airports are you targeting, and how many airports will get this equipment? Do you have that costed out?
Ms. GARVEY. I can certainly provide that for you, sir. It is at least 40, but I would have to get that for you.
Mr. SWEENEY. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much.
Ms. Tauscher?
Ms. TAUSCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. GARVEY. Congressman, nice to see you.
Ms. TAUSCHER. Thank you for coming to San Francisco the night of the Millennium. I did not wait for the ball to drop. As soon as you landed, I went to bed. I figured it was all safe. Thank you for coming to the bay area.
Thank you for your leadership and commitment on constructing the northern California terminal radar approach control facility, NTC or TRACON, on schedule by January of 2000. You know that the implementation of this TRACON system is vital to the air safety and air efficiency of northern California, including radar coverage for a lot of the small airports in my District—Livermore, Buchanan Field, and for Sonoma County and the greater bay area.
This is critical as many of these smaller airports do not have any coverage, and I am glad this project continues to be a high priority for you and the FAA.
As you know, last year the House provided the full $31 million to construct the NCT in last year's bill, but that number was reduced by the Senate by 13.5 million during the conference.
Are you aware of any problems at this point with fully funding the NCT request in this year's bill?
Ms. GARVEY. Congressman, we have worked very, very hard to reprogram funds to make sure that we could commission it exactly on schedule. We agree with you that we certainly do not want to leave a building standing there, one that is as important as that, so we have been able to reprogram some funds and we are going to make it.
Ms. TAUSCHER. Well, we think you are the best. Thank you so much for your leadership on that.
Another issue I have been working with your staff on is the aviation safety action partners, or the ASAP program as it relates to the ASRS Program under NASA.
We have been approached by several machinist groups in my District that are concerned about the funding reductions for the ASRS program and the implications for their ability to report safety concerns under the new ASP program.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We are continuing to work with your staff on it. Thank you for them for being so responsive. We really want to make sure that these folks understand that they have the same kind of protections that they have had before, if not more, and thank you for your continued work on this.
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you, Congressman.
Ms. TAUSCHER. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much.
Mr. Boswell is next.
Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Garvey, I would like to add my compliments to the job you are doing. You are doing a good job.
Not only as a frequent flyer, as a passenger, I still drive my own airplane some, and I want to tell you, having been to the centers and a user, that you have got some very, very professional people working for you and for us, and I appreciate it.
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. BOSWELL. And I feel very good about it.
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you.
Mr. BOSWELL. That was my nice remarks. Now I want to say something bad.
Ms. GARVEY. Oops.
Mr. BOSWELL. Not too bad. Do you have a check when Members are flying or something? I do not know. I am being a little facetious here. But why is it that, time and again, at Des Moines we push back on time, then we sit out there for 30 minutes waiting for ATC clearance to get into Chicago—and I already know, because I have checked weather, Chicago has not got a weather problem.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I fly through Chicago twice a week and it is a very, very busy place and they do a good job there. And when they have weather, I understand. But when they do not have weather, I do not understand.
So I wish you would comment on that because it happens very frequently.
Ms. GARVEY. You know, I would like to take a look at the issues that you have talked about, or the specific areas that you have talked about.
Again, I will speak a little more generally. I hope that that whole issue of how we handle delays and so forth is something that we are going to be able to attack head-on in the spring/summer plan. Again, I mentioned a little earlier that we will work very closely with the airlines, with the pilots, with the air traffic controllers to come up with a spring/summer plan that really establishes some criteria for when we have ground stops, when we hold planes, when we let them go, and really looking at it in a much more system-like fashion.
Without knowing all of the specifics of what you have talked about—and I would really like to talk with you a little bit more about it about your particular airport—but I do hope we will be able to minimize those delays.
I will tell you we will never be able to eliminate them, obviously, and certainly in some weather conditions all of us would prefer not to fly and we would prefer to be delayed, but I think we have all agreed that there is more that we can do.
Mr. BOSWELL. I am not fussing with you about the weather delays. I understand that.
Ms. GARVEY. Yes. And that I just cannot answer when you say that you have not been able to take off because of an area where you do not think there is a weather problem.
Mr. BOSWELL. Well, the explanation we get from the crew is, ''We are being held for ATC traffic adjustments,'' so you think there must be weather in Chicago.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. GARVEY. You know what? I am looking at my friend, Don Carty, here because we have had an ongoing discussion about some of the causes of delays. But we will follow up. I really will, because I think that is an important issue.
[The information follows:]
The Des Moines air traffic is frequently affected by ground holds initiated by the Air Route Traffic Control Center to handle the demands at Chicago-O'Hare airport. On numerous occasions in the past 2 months, the winds at Chicago have caused the use of an unfavorable runway configuration which restricts the use of Land and Hold Short Operations. Therefore, the airport arrival rate is reduced, and we have to use first and second tier ground stops as traffic management initiatives to handle the volume. These actions affect traffic departing Des Moines for Chicago. Our Air Traffic services will continue to monitor the situation and provide as much relief as possible, while maintaining the safety and efficiency of the overall air traffic system.
Ms. GARVEY. I bet it is not always air traffic control delays though. What do you think?
Mr. BOSWELL. I have got a suspicion of my own, but that is the explanation we are given, so that is why I am raising the question.
And, again, I want to close on a note. I think you have got some very fine people.
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. BOSWELL. I always feel satisfaction when I am flying and working through the hand-offs and everything else. They are very professional and I feel very confident and I appreciate it. But I am frustrated when I miss appointments and I get to Chicago and—if you have got weather, I understand. But I get there and it is just looking pretty darned good.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. GARVEY. Right.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOSWELL. I will yield.
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you.
Mr. OBERSTAR. The gentleman raises a very important point that was at the heart of a hearing this subcommittee held last year about general air traffic control delays, and an issue that I touched on at that hearing that is really, truly interested, I do believe there is preferential treatment in the air traffic control system for jets over commuter aircraft. I think you find a pattern of conduct all across the system.
In the hub and spoke era of aviation, the carriers want the larger capacity, higher speed jet aircraft out in front, do not want them burning up expensive fuel with large numbers of passengers sitting in the air waiting for a smaller-capacity, slower-moving commuter aircraft to get into that busy airport and use up that very expensive airspace.
You need more in-trail on approach and you have to be careful about wake turbulence if a Saab or a Fokker is following a 757 or other wide body aircraft. And I know the airlines like to say that 757 is not a wide body. It is, for the wake turbulence that it creates.
And I think you find this pattern all across the country, and I think that is something that you need to look at very carefully with your ATC staff.
I think that there is clearly preferential treatment. It is not fair to air travelers. It is not. And I have heard some airline executives say, ''It just makes me furious to see one of those little airplanes out there on the runway taking up time and space when I have got a plane full of 150 or 180 passengers, and this 35-passenger or less aircraft is out there causing our planes to burn up expensive fuel.''
Well, I have got news for them. In the era of hub and spoke aviation, if the aircraft cannot get in from the ends of the spoke, the hub is going to wither.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I thank the gentleman.
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much.
Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DUNCAN. Dr. Cooksey?
Mr. COOKSEY. Well, it is always great to have you here, Ms. Garvey.
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. COOKSEY. Also as a pilot, I have a lot of confidence in the way you are growing at the FAA, but the problems still get back to these other politicians not giving you the amount of money that you need. All of us are on your team, but it is those other people in Congress.
One of my concerns is what is going to be done with the aviation trust fund and then the other funding.
When you stop and think about it, this country depends heavily on aviation, and we will depend on it to an even greater extent in this millennium than in the past.
I think that for us to put $2 billion to $3 billion into the FAA is really a small amount of money to put in to supplement what comes out of the aviation trust fund, and I really would lean toward that more so than what the Administration is proposing.
It is my understanding the Administration is proposing that you increase user fees, and probably there is some room for increasing user fees, but I do think—when you look at the total $1.8 trillion or $1.9 trillion income to this country, the $1.8 trillion budget that we have, or whatever is being negotiated this week and this month, to put $2 billion to $3 billion into aviation from the general fund seems like a small amount to improve aviation safety.
What is your reaction to that? I know that is going against what you and the Administration are proposing.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. GARVEY. Well, Congressman, first of all, let me say, I think in terms of resources, I do think the President's budget is saying we need resources for the FAA. You are absolutely right. It also proposes user fees, and that is very, very controversial.
We have continued to say that that is one option to get the resources, but we want to work with Congress to find the other options that are out there. I mean, that is one option, but there are a number of options.
From my perspective I could not agree with you more that the issue is, however, you do it, we need to have the resources to really keep this system as vibrant and as vital and as safe, frankly—really, I should lead with that—but as safe as it has always been. It is an extraordinary challenge, given the growth that we are seeing in the industry.
Mr. COOKSEY. And the safety, when you look at the overall picture, I really feel like the safety record has been good, even this past year, and there was one accident in Little Rock that there was some loss of life, but overall it has been good as far as American carriers.
I would like to see the Administration support a position of putting the same kind of firewall around aviation trust fund that was put around the highway trust fund, and I feel that is fundamental.
Again, I do not trust the politicians up here that want to take money out of these various trust funds, even though they have been doing it for many years. It is still not the right thing to do.
If the flying public pays money that goes into the aviation trust fund when they buy a ticket, it should be used to improve the safety of these airlines and the system that operates the airlines as they fly.
And then, again, we should not blink an eye or bat an eye at putting $2 billion to $3 billion out of the general fund, and that seems like a very rational thing to do.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
My other question is it is my understanding that the Administration says, ''Well, we are going to increase user fees,'' but you really have not told anyone who it is going to be increased on. Do you have some secret—
Ms. GARVEY. I am sorry?
Mr. COOKSEY. Who are these additional user fees being placed upon? What segments of aviation?
Ms. GARVEY. Well, one point, and that is that the Administration has been very clear about saying it does not include general aviation.
The theory behind the user fees—and it is something that was discussed, I know, at Congressman Mineta's Commission, as well, is that you link the services provided and cost, so there is a direct linkage.
I think the airlines make an excellent point, and one that I agree with, and that is that, in order to really structure the right kind of user fees, you need a very solid cost accounting system, and we are not there yet. We are making great progress, and I am pleased with the kind of information that we are getting to date in terms of helping us understand more about our own costs.
I mean, a cost accounting system, aside from user fees, is a wonderful management tool, so we are making progress in understanding what it costs to really run the air traffic control system, but we still have a ways to go, and I think the airlines certainly make a good point.
So the premise would be that you would structure user fees based on what your cost accounting system is telling you and based on the cost to provide those services, and there would be a direct link between the cost and the services.
Mr. COOKSEY. And there is no question that ideally every agency in government should have a good cost accounting system in, and yet there are a lot of businesses in the private sector and certainly a lot of segments of government that do not have cost accounting in as a part of their accounting process, and it should be done.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Again, you are doing a great job.
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. COOKSEY. Keep it up. And hopefully we will do the right thing about the funding.
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you.
Mr. COOKSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Dr. Cooksey.
Mr. Berry?
Mr. BERRY. I will join my colleague from the other side of the aisle in saying that I do not have anything intelligent that I think needs to be said, other than I think, Ms. Garvey, you do a great job.
Ms. GARVEY. Thanks, Congressman. Good to see you.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. McGovern?
Mr. MCGOVERN. First of all, I, too, want to welcome you to the committee and I want to apologize for being late. I was at a Massachusetts delegation meeting, and before I left the dean of our delegation, Joe Moakley, wanted me to express to you his personal gratitude for the sensitivity and the understanding that you and your staff demonstrated in helping to deal with the issue of an additional runway at Logan Airport. He wanted me to make sure that I made that clear.
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. MCGOVERN. I have some specific questions about a regional airport in my District, which is Worcester, which I will submit questions to it, because I know you are on a time constraint.
It is my belief that the way you deal with the Logan Airport issues that we are now confronting ought to strengthen regional airports, and I appreciate all that you have done to help divert resources to strengthen some of the regional airports, not only in New England but across the country. I hope that you continue to do that.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I just also want to thank you for all the courtesies that you and your staff have given to my office. It has been very, very helpful.
Thank you.
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you, Congressman. Great staff.
Mr. MCGOVERN. Yes.
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. McGovern.
Mr. Isakson?
Mr. ISAKSON. Good morning.
Ms. GARVEY. Good morning. How are you?
Mr. ISAKSON. I, too, want to thank you for the support you have given us at Hartsfield and for the future expansion which we so desperately need because of our traffic, and, more recently, the assistance your staff gave me with regard to McCollum Field in improved software for radar. We are very appreciative of that.
I am sorry I missed your remarks, but I have been sitting here reading quickly, so I did not have to be the third one who could not ask an intelligent question. I am going to try my best to ask one as it relates really to a personal experience.
I noticed a tremendous amount of comment with regard to improved technology, improved systems, and I appreciate the comments you made about our improving your procurement and personnel, but I want to talk about personnel for just a second.
I have been in the Hampton Center on two or three occasions. I had a neighbor who, unfortunately, passed away a few years ago who was an air traffic controller—passed away at a very early age, was disabled pretty early in life in his 40s because of stress. I just wanted you to talk for just a second about our manpower, because, after all, after all the technology, all the satellites, all the radar, and all the computers, there still is a human being communicating with that blip on the screen. How are we, manpower-wise, with regard to our system? Are we stretched to the limit? Do we have plans? Would you just address that for just a second?
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you, Congressman. And I could not agree more that it is a wonderful professional staff and, frankly, very extraordinarily stressful jobs, both for the controllers and, I believe, for the technicians, as well, who have quite a job in keeping up with all of the equipment that is out there.
In terms of the staffing for the controllers, one of the key elements of the contract that we signed about a year-and-a-half ago, almost two years now, with the controllers was an agreement on what the numbers would be, so we have arrived at a number in terms of the air traffic controllers.
We have also divided the facilities into those facilities that have much more traffic, and those controllers are paid higher, to lower facilities with less traffic. And we have arrived at numbers at each one.
But I have to say, as we move forward, we are always making adjustments to that. There are some facilities that pick up in traffic. Memphis, for example, is going to increase by about 24 percent just in the month of April, so we are going to have to make some adjustments within the 15,000 number.
The technicians I think have had a tougher time. Their numbers have been lower, and we are trying very hard, again, within some very tough budget constraints, to make sure that we have the right numbers and, frankly, that they have the right kind of training, because, as we move forward with the technology, new training for the controllers, new training for the technicians.
But they have extraordinarily stressful jobs sometimes, and I think they do a remarkable job, and I appreciate both your comments and some of the comments earlier on their behalf.
Mr. ISAKSON. Thank you.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. Danner?
Ms. DANNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Hello, Jane, how are you?
Ms. GARVEY. How are you, Congressman?
Ms. DANNER. I, too, am pleased to see you here. Forgive me, I will be leaving immediately after, because my other committee is meeting and Bill Richardson is going to be talking to us about the crisis of oil and gas, the OPEC situation. But I did want to stop by and say hello to you.
As I was sitting here, I recalled an article I read in yesterday's paper, one of the Washington papers—and I cannot recall which one. I called my office and asked them to get it down here to me quickly, but they have not arrived yet. But my memory is that in yesterday's paper—and I am sure some of your staff may have called it to your attention—an organization had put together a report card on the different departments. Perhaps you have seen that. Frankly, I can recall that Social Security got a very good report card and, frankly, the FAA did not get a very good report card. And, if memory serves me, having read that article among so many others yesterday, I believe that FAA got the worst grade of any of them with regard to financial management. I believe it was maybe even a ''D'' and your overall grade was ''C.''
I wonder if you could tell us what you are going to do and see that your minions do to improve upon that.
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you, Congressman.
First of all, actually I am very glad you asked that question.
One point is it was very old information. That part of the report—I guess we were among the first agencies to be evaluated, so that was a couple of years ago.
On the financial management piece, when that was done, that was the right grade, because we did not have a clean audit. And, in fact, I can remember sitting in at OMB and saying the FAA may be one of the only agencies in government that stands between the whole Administration having a clean audit and not having a clean audit.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
And people worked extraordinarily hard over the last year, and I am delighted to say that just this past week—by the way, with a lot of good support and help from the Secretary's office and from the IG's office, but, most importantly, from the men and women in the regional offices who worked very, very hard over the last year—we are going to receive a clean audit. We have received a clean audit. We received the draft the other day.
So my sense is if that were done today—and that really was the key reason why we did not do well. So it was accurate then, it would not be accurate now.
I was pleased to see that they did give us a higher grade for managing for results, and I think that was very encouraging.
But I think in all of those other areas we have certainly seen some improvements from the time two years ago. I hope the Syracuse University comes back and revisits some of those agencies.
Thank you.
Ms. DANNER. Well, thank you for clarifying that, because we certainly do know that so many of the statistics we see around here do have some age to them, and so it is refreshing to know that you have already addressed the issue, not that you are going to sit here and say, ''We are going to do it,'' but to hear you say, ''We have done it.''
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you, Congressman.
Ms. DANNER. Now my information is arriving. Thank you. I am glad you were aware of that. That made our conversation a little easier.
Always good to see you.
Ms. GARVEY. Good to see you, Congresswoman.
Mr. DUNCAN. Well, I am glad Ms. Danner asked that, because I saw that same article and I was concerned about that, as well.
Mr. Sherwood?
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. SHERWOOD. Good morning.
Ms. GARVEY. Good morning, sir.
Mr. SHERWOOD. It is nice to see you again. I apologize for coming in late. I also apologize for going over ground that has been ploughed and harrowed today, but I have to ask you about the contract systems, having a very important one in my District.
You know, I know that it is the general policy to take the pressure off the overloaded hubs by using some of the regional airports more, and I do not understand how that details in with the possible elimination of the contract services.
You know, the whole thing is working towards—we are very concerned about the modernization of the system and making sure that our air traffic control is using the best technology and becoming more efficient, have better computers, etc., etc., and this looks to me like a step backwards.
Can you help me through that a little bit?
Ms. GARVEY. And I will be very brief, because I know this is an issue that you care deeply about, but also we have had lots of questions, so I know that the Congress cares about this issue.
We have made no decision. We are suffering a shortfall this year in the 2000 budget. That is one of a series of options, but I can tell you that the comments that we have gotten, both from Congress and also from the individual airport operators, stressing the importance of this program—and it is one I have been very intimately involved in, and I am very supportive of—I do not believe we will reach that decision. We are going to try very hard not to. It would be extreme circumstances that would prompt us to that, and we are going to do everything we can to not make that be the decision that we need to make.
Mr. SHERWOOD. Thank you very much.
Ms. GARVEY. Thanks, Congressman.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. SHERWOOD. If that changes, I would ask you to call me or have someone call me.
Ms. GARVEY. I think we would have a lot of calls to make, Congressman.
Mr. SHERWOOD. Thank you.
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Lipinski?
Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is a pleasure to have you here this morning.
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. LIPINSKI. I want to say for the record I think you are doing an outstanding job as the administrator of the FAA.
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you.
Mr. LIPINSKI. And it is always a pleasure to work with you and your staff. They are always extremely cooperative.
For the record, I want to say that Congressman Boswell was not flying on American Airlines. I just want everyone to understand that. I am sure Mr. Carty appreciates me making mention of that.
I was wondering if you could take two or three minutes and tell us about the code share safety guidelines which you have just recently issued.
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you very much, Congressman. As you suggested, those are being released, I believe today, by the Secretary's office, and we have been very key players in it, because clearly our interest and our focus is safety, and that is one of the premises of the code sharing.
As the guidelines have suggested, we will be asking for audits of any of the airlines that are U.S. airlines will be entering into a code sharing agreement with. We will be checking those. We will also be looking at safety information that we are getting from our own regional offices.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I think I would make one very important point, and that is that these guidelines were not developed in isolation. They were developed in concert with the industry, as well. I think our airlines have an abiding interest in safety and want to make sure that these code shares are exactly as they should be.
So I think it is a step forward. It is another raising of the bar for safety, and I think the Secretary really is to be commended for his leadership on this.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Do you see the need for additional funds because of the fact that you are going to be going into something like this?
Ms. GARVEY. Congressman, I will tell you, that is something that we are looking at very carefully. We are obviously now working within the resources that we have, but that is a question we have been asking ourselves, because our own safety forces are stretched pretty thin, and we want to make sure that as we move forward we are being rational and reasonable, and also asking Congress for what we need.
I think at this point we can work within our resources. We have done some shifting and I think can do it well, but I appreciate that question, because I think as we move forward we need to work with you and assess our needs in that area very fairly and accurately, because I think there will be some additional needs.
Mr. LIPINSKI. And when do these guidelines go into effect?
Ms. GARVEY. I believe it is in 60 days.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Sixty days?
Ms. GARVEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you very much. I appreciate your being here this morning.
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, that is all I have.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Lipinski.
Ms. Garvey, let me just say that we often in this subcommittee have tried to get across the message that everyone benefits from a good aviation system, even people who do not fly, and that was mentioned again yesterday. Mr. Boyer was here from AOPA, and he expressed strong opposition to the user fees. One Member mentioned that these fees had been placed in budgets from Presidents Reagan and Bush and all through the years and referred to them as, I think, a budget gimmick. Several people said that they are non-starters.
Dr. Cooksey mentioned that he is concerned about the proposal to eliminate the general fund contribution, and that is something I think almost all of us on this subcommittee support.
What does the Administration plan to do in regard to the FAA budget if we do not go to those user fees, if those are not realistic, and if we want to get back to a general fund contribution?
Ms. GARVEY. We have had a number of discussions about that internally, Mr. Chairman, and I know the Secretary has repeatedly said that he wants to work with Congress on these issues, put this forward, but I think we really need to be prepared, as you are working through the issues, to work very closely with you. So I think we are very eager and willing to work with the Members of Congress to look at whatever options are out there.
This is the proposal that we have put forward. We recognize that there are other options. I think what we want to say, and certainly what I would like to say, is that the resources are key to getting the job done.
Mr. DUNCAN. It was also mentioned yesterday that the military uses a certain percentage of the air traffic control system and other aspects of the FAA, and I think one instrument is 15 percent, one instrument was 20 percent. Have you ever really figured that out? And, along with that, has the Department of Defense ever contributed anything to these tremendous development costs that the FAA has for its air traffic control modernization?
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. GARVEY. Mr. Chairman, I think the 15 to 20 percent is just about right. The kind of cooperation that we have with the Department of Defense is that, in some cases, we take the lead. For example, in STARS we are the lead and they will procure from us the STARS equipment that they will be using. They are part of our development team as we meet every week on STARS, so they are a part of that. In the ASR-11s, the DoD is the lead and we would purchase the equipment from them.
So there are those kinds of sharing of resources, if you will.
I think as we move forward with the spring/summer plan, we are working very closely with DoD and have asked for and requested some additional use of their airspace as we deal with some of the spring/summer issues.
Congressman, by the way, I think on the issue of jets we actually paid attention, and I think you will see in some of the information we talk about next week some discussion of that, so I would like to follow up with you after we announce the plan and not pre-judge it at this point, but I think there are some interesting things there.
But we are going to be working very closely with Defense to use some of their airspace this summer.
Mr. DUNCAN. There was also concern expressed that the OASIS program was under-funded by the Appropriations Committee by about 55 percent. Can you tell me what impact that has had?
Mentioning Mr. Boyer again, he said the FAA raided general aviation funding to the tune of 88 million, I think it was, for general administrative costs at the FAA. Is that accurate?
Ms. GARVEY. I am not sure about that last statement from Mr. Boyer and I would have to look at that. I am not exactly sure what he is referring to.
On OASIS, though, you were correct. We did get less than we had appropriated, and that was a disappointment, because I will tell you that I think a year ago—maybe slightly more than that—OASIS was in trouble, and it was, I think, not much of an agreement between us and the unions. We really come together. We got a very clear direction, a clear time table, if you will. But the impact of the budget has been to delay that significantly, probably as much as 20 to 22 months. We are still trying to shorten that if we can, but there is no doubt the slippage has moved the schedule to the right.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. DUNCAN. There also have been some articles about the fact that the FAA has several warehouses full of equipment that it has been unable to install. Can you tell me, is that accurate?
Ms. GARVEY. Let me—
Mr. DUNCAN. Do you have a lot of new equipment that has been purchased but you have been unable to install for some reason?
Ms. GARVEY. Mr. Chairman, if I could answer that in two ways, first of all, I think we had a real issue with the inventory, particularly even as recently as 1996. There was about $453 million worth of equipment that was in storage.
I am pleased to say that that number has been reduced. We are down to about 53, and most of that is replacement and so forth or one of a kind, and we do have money, about 26 in the President's budget, to deploy those technologies.
However, I would also add that some would suggest in the FAA that if there were additional resources in that area we could perhaps build up some of the inventory in those areas where we really need to and then deploy them. That may be more a question of resources.
Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Well, I thank you very much.
We will go next to Mr. Oberstar.
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Administrator Garvey—
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. OBERSTAR.—for committing so much of your time for being here with us. I understand that you have other agendas to attend to, but I think it is good for us to spend a little time together.
Ms. GARVEY. I would agree.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. OBERSTAR. I want to compliment you, as others have done, deservedly, on the leadership that you have exerted, the hands-on manner in which you have conducted the office, and the involvement with the personnel of FAA, getting out to facilities all across the country. And I think also your tenure underscores something that Senator Wendell Ford and I years ago championed, which was a long tenure in law for the FAA administrator.
There was a time during my chairmanship when there had been four administrators of FAA during the time I was chair of either Investigations and Oversight or Aviation Subcommittee. I had longer tenure on aviation issues than the administrators had, and that was not good for the FAA.
It is good that you are there and that you are conducting the job in the manner that you have, even though you have stolen several of our committee staff personnel. That helps the quality of your performance.
Ms. GARVEY. I would agree.
Mr. OBERSTAR. From both sides of the aisle, I must say.
I want to make a couple of observations, one rather lengthy, perhaps, observation, and then a couple of questions.
We have heard a lot about delays over the last year, and that has been the subject of committee hearings. There has been an almost 23 percent increase at a cost of $6 billion. That somewhat mirrors the condition of aviation in 1989, 1990, when we began a major expansion of funding out of the aviation trust fund into airport improvements and modernization of the air traffic control system.
So we made progress, and then we slipped back. There are many causes of that delay. But what infuriates me is the continual carping about FAA not modernizing air traffic control. You hear it from people. I think there is a paragraph in reporters' computers all over the country and they punch that computer button, that lousy paragraph comes up, and it nicks the FAA time and again.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
FAA manages 30,000 pieces of air traffic control equipment. Most of them are modernized. There are 470 towers across this country, 178 TRACONS, 21 en-route centers. You manage them all 365 days a year, day in, day out, every year, 24 hours a day, with the greatest safety record of any aviation nation in the world.
When the VSCS was installed two years ago, it was a $1.7 billion system. It was done over one weekend. The air traffic control system was not shut down for one second.
When General Motors converted its old facility from one model to another, they shut the plant down for three weeks. When other companies convert to a new processing system, they shut the production line down. FAA did not shut down aviation for one minute to install. That is like changing the tire on a car that is driving 60 miles an hour down the highway.
And the VSCS came in under budget. The HOST and oceanic computer system replacement is on track. In fact, you accomplished the hardware portion of it in 18 months. That is a terrific record. The software is still to come—very complicated, needs a lot of lead time.
What people do not understand though is it takes more technology, more personnel, more advanced equipment to manage the air traffic control system than it does our space program. You have got six people out there in space. On any given day you have got 2.5 million people in the air in the United States whose lives depend on the men and women of the air traffic control system of the FAA, and you do it wonderfully.
The DSR is in place, four more to go by the end of May. People said it would never be done. I thought it was not going to be done at one time when we stomped all over IBM—and this is long before the Jane Garvey era—on the complexity they were building into that system.
But now it is done and you can go into the en-route centers, as I have done several places across the country, and see those old ghosts sitting in a store room, the old 9020s and the old round screens. As one controller said, ''It raises the hair on the back of my neck to see that. I have got such an attachment to them, but I am glad they are gone.'' And the new system works, and works wonderfully.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We do have some challenges yet ahead for air traffic control. The oceanic system is still using paper strips. Canada and New Zealand are ahead of us in a more automated display system. We need to stay ahead of the state of the art. I know it is a big challenge, but, again, we are dealing with real time information. This is not data retrieval systems that we use in our offices up here in the Hill or that the Library of Congress uses, where you are researching, getting stuff that is already stored and does not have a time. These are people moving at 500 miles an hour in the air whose lives are at stake and where computers have to have the information instantly and predictability to manage the system safely.
Weather remains the biggest challenge. FAA has moved ahead on all fronts, but still we need better equipment to do better detection and better prediction, common situational awareness for pilots.
I know that you have convened a new coordination initiative at the command center in Herndon, and I, frankly, am going to ask you to arrange a time when I can get out and see it first-hand and talk with the personnel, because I think that will be the single most important step forward.
I have seen the routing of air traffic from Minneapolis, when there has been weather, and that route that would normally follow a fairly constant path out to the east coast took turns down into Chairman Duncan's State of Tennessee and even further south and then back up a little bit, and then another turn and up toward New York, and then back down into Washington. That wastes time, wastes fuel, wastes air travellers' meeting time and important events.
But the funding problems remain the core of what you have to contend with.
Tony Broderick, at a hearing of our committee a year or so ago, said, ''The two single best financial commitments that can be made to improve delivery of FAA safety programs and services are to improve the stability and the predictability of FAA funding.'' That is what AIR-21 will do, not this wacky idea of fees and stuff that the Office of Management and Budget has stuffed down your throat and the Administration has sent up here to Congress.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I said yesterday we will just ignore it. I mean, that is the kindest thing I can say about it is we will ignore it and will not do it. It was just a budget gimmick to get the Administration budget past some hurdles that they have internally. It is not good policy. It does not make good sense. The president ought to get behind our AIR-21 bill. And in the end I predict that, just as TEA 21, as Chairman Shuster said, when the President signed that bill, looked as though it was his idea all along. Well, we want to make the AIR-21 his idea all along.
On the code share issue that Ranking Member Lipinski raised, I completely share his concerns about adequacy of FAA personnel to oversee airlines, overseeing code-sharing partners overseas, and I would particularly like to call your attention to the situation in Korea.
I have information about a Korean Airlines pilot whose status was questioned—in fact, was recommended that he not be certified to fly, and KAL has, indeed, instated the pilot and certified him for flying.
This is an example of how code share safety audits work on our side but do not work on the other side.
The use of AIP funds for essential air service is contrary to current law. We should not be using AIP funds. They should come out of general revenue dollars. And, while I am happy to have essential air service, I think it is vitally important, as I have said many times, had it not been for the EAS provision in the deregulation, I would not have supported it.
But we have not kept faith with EAS, and that is not good for communities, it is not good for air service in this country, and for the fairness and equity of air service. So while that is not an FAA issue, that is a DOT issue, nonetheless, you mention it to the Secretary and I will mention it to the Secretary.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the extension of time to raise these matters.
Again, I want to compliment Administrator Garvey and reinforce what Mr. DeFazio said about air quality onboard.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
One other point I wanted to make. We have had several hearings on this subject, including the time when I was Chair and during Mr. Duncan's chairmanship, and at one point we were assured that airlines were going to install onboard aircraft filters of submarine quality that submarines used to filter air and get even items as small as viruses out. That has not happened.
The quality of air filtration has improved, but it is not as good as it should be and we need to do better.
Thank you.
Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Oberstar.
Let me apologize to the other Members who have just come in. Because of the schedule of other witnesses, and also because Chairman Shuster has asked that I and Mr. Lipinski and Mr. Oberstar come to a meeting about some developments in the FAA reauthorization bill, we do need to move immediately to the second panel.
Ms. Garvey, let me just say that we all appreciate the work that you do very, very much.
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DUNCAN. And we will ask the second panel to take their places at the table at this time.
I would like to introduce the very distinguished second panel, Mr. Donald J. Carty, the chairman and CEO of American Airlines; Mr. Jeffrey P. Fegan, executive director of the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, on behalf of Airports Council International and the North American and American Association of Airport Executives; Captain Duane Woerth, who is president of the Air Line Pilots Association, International; and Mr. Joe Del Balzo, chairman-elect of the Air Traffic Control Association.
Gentlemen, we thank each of you very much for being here. We do proceed in order of the call of the hearing, and that means, Mr. Carty, you may begin your testimony.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
TESTIMONY OF DONALD J. CARTY, CHAIRMAN AND CEO, AMERICAN AIRLINES; JEFFREY P. FEGAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DALLAS/FORT WORTH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, AND CHAIRMAN, AIRPORTS COUNCIL INTERNATIONAL-NORTH AMERICA, ON BEHALF OF AIPS COUNCIL INTERNATIONAL-NORTH AMERICA & AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF AIRPORT EXECUTIVES; CAPTAIN DUANE WOERTH, PRESIDENT, AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL; AND JOE DEL BALZO, CHAIRMAN-ELECT, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL ASSOCIATION, INC.
Mr. CARTY. Thank you, Chairman Duncan.
As the chairman said, my name is Don Carty, and I am the chairman and the chief executive officer of American Airlines. While this testimony is, obviously, my own, as chairman of the Air Transport Association's Executive Committee, I can assure you, all of you, that the airline industry is unified in its support of AIR-21 as an essential first step toward the long-term solutions of our Nation's aviation system's needs.
I can also, I might add, attest to the growing sense of urgency that all of us feel to get moving and pass a bill. We are currently operating in a state of limbo, expending an inordinate amount of the entire industry's energy in the legislative debate, when we really ought to be, of course, devoting all of our energy, every ounce of our energy, into helping Administrator Garvey and her staff fix the serious problems that we face—and serious, as we have discussed this morning, they are, indeed.
As we rapidly approach another extremely busy summer—and it will be an extremely busy summer in our Nation's airports and skies—and as we prepare for the significant growth that we all expect in the years to come, there is more than sufficient justification for concern.
Obviously, an efficient and a safe air traffic control system is the basic foundation, simply the bedrock upon which we strive to provide a safe and a predictable and quality service for our customers.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
However, in 1997, American Airlines completed a study that demonstrated that we were quickly approaching a point at which the ATC system was simply going to become overloaded. Unfortunately, as we all now know, the industry's 1999 operating results validated that analysis.
During 1999, as I think this committee knows, the number of delays that were attributable to air traffic control increased by 36 percent, while the total minutes of delay were up 34 percent, compared to 1998.
Now, these results, coupled with the dramatic increase in customer complaints that were related to delays and cancellations, clearly were a wake-up call to us and should be a wake-up call to all of us on the approaching chaos that that same study that we did in 1997 predicted would exist by 2005.
Five years, mind you, is the most optimistic projection for implementation, and, given the size and the complexity of the ATC system, which Chairman Oberstar referred to earlier, and the lead time that is required to implement improvements, five years is really just around the corner.
If we are going to avoid the gridlock that we are approaching, we simply must, starting right now, do what it takes to ensure our ability to pay for modernization and infrastructure development, not just this year but in an ongoing, multi-year basis.
Now, as I said, AIR-21 is an essential first step, for it is going to provide both stable funding and some needed reform.
Moreover, our support of the bill as an industry is based on three very fundamental elements: first, a greater level and a more reliable source of funds; second, a commitment to continue general fund support of FAA functions that are, as Chairman Duncan observed earlier, essentially for military use and public safety purposes; and, third, the beginning of the reforms needed to make the FAA and the Nation's air traffic control system operate more efficiently and in a way more consistent with the best practices of the private sector.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Now, it is clear that there is a desire on the part of the leadership in Congress to resolve the outstanding issues quickly, and it is important to note that there is precedent for the AIR-21 budget treatment for transit, which includes a combination of trust funds and general fund revenues.
For years, Congress has—and I might add correctly—admonished those of us in the airline industry to get our acts together. To be fair, the lack of consensus, I think, in the past years among industry players has contributed to the mess that we are in today. But today the differences between the airlines, at least insofar as this subject is concerned, have been resolved, and virtually every aviation-related group in the country has endorsed AIR-21. It is our fervent hope that the remaining Congressional differences can be resolved quickly and that we can move forward.
But, to put it mildly, time is of the essence, and everyone involved really needs to keep focused. It is imperative at this point that issues be narrowed, not opened up any further.
The worst-case scenario for AIR-21 would be for Members to lose focus of the essential issues by reopening provisions that have already been carefully negotiated and compromised. An awful lot of energy was put into those negotiations and compromise some time ago.
At American Airlines, we have devoted an enormous amount of energy to encouraging a prompt resolution of the remaining differences between the House and the Senate. In just the past two weeks, we have asked more than 600 American Airlines employees who have volunteered to help to write, call, or meet with their Senators simply urging passage of AIR-21.
Their message and the needs of our country's aviation system are very clear: we have got to pass AIR-21 and start the ball rolling towards creating the modern FAA and air traffic control system that our country needs today and, obviously, is going to need a lot more in the years to come.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Again, I would like to thank the committee leadership for the time and energy that they have devoted to this enormously important issue, and I thank all of you for your attention, for the chance to be with you today.
Mr. LOBIONDO [ASSUMING CHAIR]. Thank you very much, Mr. Carty, for your remarks and presentation.
Next we will go to Mr. Jeffrey P. Fegan.
Mr. FEGAN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I certainly appreciate the opportunity to come before the subcommittee this morning.
My name is Jeff Fegan. I am the executive director of the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport. I also am serving as this year's chairman of Airports Council International North America, and I am also pleased to be here in front of this subcommittee this morning on behalf of ACI, as well as the American Association of Airport Executives.
Before I address the topic of today's hearing, let me express my appreciation and the appreciation of the airport community for the leadership of this committee in terms of moving a lot of these issues forward.
Members of ACI North America and AAAE consider themselves privileged to be partners in this effort from the beginning, and we are sure that we will continue to work until the President signs AIR-21 into law.
In the President's recently-released budget for fiscal year 2001, the Administration has submitted its highest AIP recommendation in years, which the airport community appreciates. But, from the 1.95 billion recommended for AIP in 2001, the Administration proposed taking $60 million for administration of the FAA Office of Airports, plus an additional 28 million for the essential air service, resulting in an actual recommendation of 1.862 billion.
Mr. Chairman, the essential air service program and the FAA Office of Airports do need money, and we support both of these efforts, but we do believe that AIP should be used for investments in infrastructure, not for operational needs.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We urge the committee to include language in the pending FAA Reauthorization Conference that will prohibit the funding of those programs from the AIP account.
ACI and AAAE also object to the Administration's proposal not to include a general fund contribution to aviation programs. Without a general fund contribution, we are convinced that over time AIP funding will be crowded out at the expense of other FAA programs, expanding an already large airport funding gap.
Mr. Chairman, you have heard from us over the years about the tremendous capital needs of airports. Numerous analyses have been conducted. The level of $10 billion is often suggested, with current funding levels between 6 and 7 billion, leaving a $3 billion funding gap. That gap is real, it is significant, and it continues to grow.
With the current expansion of air passenger enplanements, the capital development needs of airports nationwide will continue to escalate.
Simply put, airports need long-term funding solutions today in order to accommodate tomorrow's air passengers.
Through AIR-21, this committee has demonstrated its commitment to addressing the funding needs of airports and the entire aviation system. We recognize that even unlocking the trust fund will not provide all the funding U.S. airports needs.
When AIR-21 was first introduced, it contained a $5 billion authorization for AIP in the out years. A few weeks ago the House and Senate conferees agreed to a further reduction of 3.2 billion authorization level, which we greatly appreciate. This is certainly a step towards closing the funding gap, but it simply does not get us to where we all need to get to.
That is why we strongly support an increase in the Federal cap on locally-imposed passenger facility charge, or PFCs, like the one endorsed by this committee and passed overwhelmingly by the House of Representatives.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
PFCs are imposed, collected, and spent locally on specific airport projects. PFCs are not permanent, and they never touch the Federal treasury.
In short, a vote to raise the PFC cap is a vote to allow airport management and local officials to decide when and why to impose a PFC charge on their passengers at their airports.
We know that the funding gap will not be met by AIP, alone. It is clear that the PFC is virtually the only funding mechanism local airports have at their disposal to expand capacity and enhance competition. An increase in the PFC cap will go a long way in helping to close the AIP funding gap.
Mr. Chairman, I can think of no other airport that better illustrates the value of airport investment and the need for additional tools than D/FW Airport. We have recently embarked upon a massive, five-year, $2.5 billion capital development program in order to meet our expected growth and demand. This program includes a new state-of-the-art people mover system, a new international terminal building, airfield improvements, including three runway expressions, and a northwest holding apron, but it also includes an additional eighth runway. This runway would make D/FW Airport the only airport in the world with facilities to allow for four simultaneous IFR approaches and provide the capacity we need to continue in our role as America's preeminent hub airport.
However, this project, as it stands today, lacks funding. It is currently on hold.
As a result of the investments being made in our capital development program, D/FW Airport's $3 PFC is committed for the next 35 years. If Congress does not increase the cap on PFCs beyond $3, we will have to wait until 2035 to build the additional runway. Our only other option is to fund the runway via rates and charges, which requires majority and interest approval by D/FW air carriers.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We are not alone. ACI analysis indicates that 66 percent of the passengers in the United States fly through airports with MII clauses.
But, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the impact that MII clauses can have on an airport development, the fact remains that PFCs cannot be used for any other development at D/FW Airport for the next 35 years unless the PFC cap is increased.
This committee has worked tirelessly to provide the Federal funds to meet aviation needs, and I am confident you will succeed in increasing the amount of Federal investments in airports, but Federal funds, alone, will not do the job. I am asking Congress to give me and my community the authority to finish the job.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning. I will be pleased to answer any questions at the appropriate time.
Thank you.
Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Fegan.
Now we will welcome Captain Duane Woerth. Thank you for being here.
Mr. WOERTH. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
I am Captain Duane Woerth, president of the Air Line Pilots Association International. ALPA represents the professional interests of 55,000 pilots who fly for 51 airlines in the United States and Canada, and we appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the very complex issue of the Federal Aviation Administration's budget and its impact on programs critical to the safe and efficient operation of our national airspace system, or NAS.
This subcommittee and the full committee have continually demonstrated genuine leadership in their pursuit of legislative solutions to critical aviation-related issues. It is ALPA's sincere hope that the differences holding up the enactment of H.R. 1000 can be resolved soon so that the much-needed funding it provides can be put to its intended use.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
U.S. consumers and taxpayers deserve a new air traffic control system that can safely handle increased capacity well into the future. We simply do not have the infrastructure to support the current demand, much less any further increase in capacity, and we cannot continue to piecemeal pilot and controller programs.
ALPA does not believe we can afford to continue a short-range budget process based on current appropriation and allocation processes. We need to concentrate on long-term budget processes which make full use of revenue sources, such as the aviation trust fund and the general fund.
It is only through the full and appropriate use of all available revenue sources that we will ever be able to truly fix our NAS and give the FAA a reasonable chance of managing numerous and complex programs through their life cycles.
We need to examine the effect budget shortages have had on the programs we rely on today and the impact of the budget on programs we are counting on to alleviate these problems in coming years.
These issues are inescapably related, because the past and the present are driving the future.
We are concerned because funding continues to be cut from programs with tremendous unrealized potential.
The impact of FAA budget shortfalls is widespread and it is deep. LAHSO languishes because the FAA lacks the manning and the funding to support the simulation, modeling, and testing evaluation necessary for full implementation.
The precision runway monitoring program, PRM, has also inadequate funds for analysis and training and only a very few radar units.
A technical problem identified for PRM involving dedicated radio frequencies can be fixed easily with a purchase of very low-cost anti-blocking devices, but it will not be fixed because of FAA funding constraints.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Critical regulatory projects such as TCAS on freighters are not pursued aggressively because of a lack of staff.
Additionally, a multitude of innovative capacity enhancement initiatives are currently being implemented piecemeal by the FAA, in hopes of addressing problems of constraints in the existing system.
Ongoing technological initiatives such as free flight phase one and controller-pilot data link communications have only received subsistence funding.
Furthermore, projected funding for the free flight human factors for fiscal year 2002 indicates a budget shortfall of nearly 60 percent, over $8 million. This risks the entire program and could result in another snafu like STARS, which was delayed for three years and is now only being implemented, as Administrator Garvey testified.
One of the most potentially beneficial areas lacking appropriate attention involves the FAA administrator's number one priority, runway incursions. Several programs are being developed that could significantly improve safety and improve capacity in this area, but the primary candidate, airport movement air safety system, remain years away from significant deployment. Other promising technologies are also being tested at airports around the country but lack the funds to support aggressive research. These programs continue to move at a snail's pace.
Free flight phase one represents the first step in the deployment of near-term air traffic management tools capable of providing real benefits to both users and providers. These applications leverage proven technology with procedural enhancement to secure benefits by 2002, but until just recently funds were not even available for the uninterrupted deployment of these capabilities.
Current funding only carries free flight phase one deployments through 2003. To date, these tools have only been deployed to a very few locations to manage risk exposure. Further deployment of the capabilities is needed to sustain and increase the receipt of benefits.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
To fully realize the potential of these systems, we must ensure a fully-funded, coordinated effort through these programs, the one designed to springboard for them free flight phase two.
Another government/industry group working through RTCA is in the process of developing the operational concept for free flight phase two. This will be the program that will take our national airspace system to the next step. Although the program is not scheduled to begin till 2003, the funding that must be made available needs to be made available now and throughout the course of the program to ensure that it will be implemented on schedule.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, ALPA believes two things are absolutely critical to the FAA budgetary process. First and foremost and most obvious is adequate funds to do the job required. But secondly, and perhaps more importantly, that these funds flow in an uninterrupted fashion over a long-term budget.
We believe both the potential funding sources of the aviation trust fund and the general fund will be required to accomplish what the Nation's citizens expect of both their Congress and the FAA.
Thank you for this opportunity to share our views. I will be happy to answer any questions you or the members of this subcommittee have.
Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Captain, very much.
Now we will turn to Mr. Joe Del Balzo.
Mr. DEL BALZO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Joe Del Balzo, Chairman-Elect of the Air Traffic Control Association, ATCA.
ATCA is a professional association of 44 years standing, dedicated to advancement in the science and profession of air traffic control and aviation safety.
On behalf of ATCA, I appear before you today to urge increased funding for operations and capital improvement programs of the Federal Aviation Administration, activities that are fundamental to maintaining and improving the safety and efficiency of the national air transportation system.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The Administration has requested $11.222 billion of funding for fiscal year 2001. That is a 12 percent increase above the enacted levels of fiscal year 2000.
ATCA recommends that the request, at the very least, be granted in full, but, more than that, that the Administration, Congress, and the aviation community must work together to get this level up to the point that FAA can really address its backlog of deferred needs in all areas, and can really explore new technologies and concepts for the future.
For FAA Operations, the Administration has requested 12 percent more than the fiscal year 2000 enacted levels. ATCA recommends that this be increased to at least 20 percent above fiscal year 2000.
Leaner is not necessarily better. Less is not always more. In this case, less is simply not enough.
For FAA F&E, the Administration requested $2.49 billion, 22 percent more than the fiscal year 2000 enacted amount. ATCA believes that this is not sufficient, and recommends that this be increased to $4 billion in fiscal year 2001 and subsequent years for the foreseeable future. F&E funds must cover maintenance, sustainment of the current system, as well as refurbishment of existing equipment and modernization needs.
For FAA research and development, R&D, the Administration requested $184 million in fiscal year 2001. Recent studies by FAA and independent working groups conclude that this simply is not enough. ATCA recommendations $500 million to $600 million in fiscal year 2001 and future years.
For AIP, the Administration is requesting 1.95 billion. ATCA recommends that this request be fully funded at the level requested for investments in infrastructure only.
There is a continuing need to reach consensus on a structure that will ensure a steady stream of funding, that is reliable, predictable, and sufficient in amounts. ATCA supports separation of the airport and airway trust fund from the unified Federal budget, as proposed by this Committee.
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
ATCA further supports 25 to 30 percent contribution by the Federal general fund to the cost of FAA operations.
Although ATCA has no position at this time on other aspects of the debate over funding methodologies, what is clear is that substantial amounts of additional funding need to be identified and applied and that all stakeholders must have an input in arriving at a consensus solution acceptable to all.
In this regard, the leadership provided by this Committee is deeply appreciated.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks, and I thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee this morning.
Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you very much, Mr. Del Balzo.
Congressman DeFazio, do you have any questions?
Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Well, certainly I find little to disagree with in the testimony we have received. In fact, the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee just adjourned to a meeting to discuss whether there is a potential agreement on AIR-21 with the Senate. Those funds need to be fully appropriated and spent to move this forward.
But, given that, and given your other testimony, if there is one thing you would choose, perhaps very briefly, each of you could say, to change to more quickly and fully implement an air traffic control system which will meet the needs of this coming century, what would that one thing be?
I mean, we have talked about the money. Let us just take that as a given. What other thing would you change, Mr. Carty?
Mr. CARTY. Congressman, we have kind of avoided that debate most recently, because, you know, I mentioned during my remarks there was, for the first time, some great consensus developed within the airline industry, at least insofar as AIR-21 took us.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay.
Mr. CARTY. There are some divergent views in the industry about what additional steps might serve to result in the FAA being better managed, better administered, discussions of privatization, corporatization, and so on.
We have simply avoided those discussions, and at American we have not yet formed a view of that. We think that the timing will be right for that debate only after we put AIR-21 behind us.
Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay. Very diplomatic. Mr. Fegan, do you want to be diplomatic, too? Does anybody want to be undiplomatic?
[Laughter.]
Mr. DEFAZIO. You do not have to be. That is fine. I mean, that is fine if you want to rest on that.
Well, given that, I would just like to do one more thing. I wish more of my colleagues were here, because they would be shocked, but I think I am about to give an airline a compliment on customer service, safety, and comfort.
As I understand—and I just want to ask, Mr. Carty—it is the intention and currently American Airlines is implementing a procedure to actually remove seats from the coach cabin of a substantial portion of your fleet and create more pitch and/or, as most of us humans would say, leg room and breathing space; is that correct?
Mr. CARTY. That is correct, Congressman. And the only thing that I am embarrassed and ashamed about is it took us so long to figure out that was the logical thing to do.
Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, I have got to applaud you. I remember one of my first terms of Congress I was sitting next to a very tall gentleman who had suffered a grievous knee injury in coach when he had his tray down and the person in front of him reclined, and he asked me about it, and he was a constituent, and I came back here and started asking in hearings, asking people at the FAA about the standards for seat spacing, and they would say, ''Oh, we will get back to you.'' But it turned out after some period of time, in fact, there were no standards. The standards went to the theoretical evacuation capability of the aircraft, and otherwise you could put in as many seats as you wanted. Perhaps you could even fill up the middle aisle, which I think some airlines have dreamed of, to not have to waste all that space where the people and the carts move up and down.
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I applaud you for recognizing this. I think it is good for both comfort and health and safety. It is certainly comfort. It is actually health and safety for some individuals, particularly taller individuals and others, and I think it is health and safety in terms of capability of evacuating the cabin in case of an emergency. Just having a little bit more room between those seats will make that more possible.
I applaud you for taking that step.
Mr. CARTY. Thank you. I think where we were slow to realize, of course, in post-deregulation all of us focused primarily on how we get the fares as low as possible, because that is what everybody wants.
I have concluded, for one, that we have over-corrected; that to be a successful airline we have to run our business in the interest of our customers, our shareholders, and our employees, and we have got to make the balance for all three constituencies make sense, and if we do we will be rewarded.
The outpouring of enthusiasm by both our customers and our employees for this idea tells me our shareholders are going to get rewarded, too.
So I think the market is taking care of a problem that you identified, obviously, five years ago.
Mr. DEFAZIO. I tell you as an almost—well, I have flown about two million miles since coming to Congress. I commute home almost weekly to the west coast. If American came back to Eugene, I would switch from United in a split second.
Mr. CARTY. Well, that is one.
Mr. DEFAZIO. I wish you would come back.
Mr. CARTY. Thank you, sir.
Mr. LOBIONDO. Well, I would like to thank our panel very much for being here today.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
With that, this hearing stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:23 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
[insert here]