[House Hearing, 110 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION'S AGING ATC FACILITIES: INVESTIGATING THE NEED TO IMPROVE FACILITIES AND WORKER CONDITIONS ======================================================================= (110-63) HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ JULY 24, 2007 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 36-964 WASHINGTON : 2008 _____________________________________________________________________________ For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800 Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia JOHN L. MICA, Florida PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon DON YOUNG, Alaska JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina Columbia JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee JERROLD NADLER, New York WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland CORRINE BROWN, Florida VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan BOB FILNER, California STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JERRY MORAN, Kansas ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California GARY G. MILLER, California LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South BRIAN BAIRD, Washington Carolina RICK LARSEN, Washington TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania JULIA CARSON, Indiana SAM GRAVES, Missouri TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas BRIAN HIGGINS, New York SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri Virginia JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania DORIS O. MATSUI, California TED POE, Texas NICK LAMPSON, Texas DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio CONNIE MACK, Florida MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa York JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr., HEATH SHULER, North Carolina Louisiana MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia JOHN J. HALL, New York MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin VERN BUCHANAN, Florida STEVE COHEN, Tennessee JERRY McNERNEY, California VACANCY (ii) ? Subcommittee on Aviation JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois, Chairman BOB FILNER, California THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina RICK LARSEN, Washington JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey NICK LAMPSON, Texas JERRY MORAN, Kansas ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa SAM GRAVES, Missouri HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas JOHN J. HALL, New York SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin Virginia STEVE COHEN, Tennessee JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of TED POE, Texas Columbia DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington CORRINE BROWN, Florida CONNIE MACK, Florida EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California York TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma DORIS O. MATSUI, California VERN BUCHANAN, Florida MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii JOHN L. MICA, Florida VACANCY (Ex Officio) JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota (Ex Officio) (iii) CONTENTS Page Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi TESTIMONY Brantley, Tom, President, Professional Airways Services Specialists, AFL-CIO........................................... 30 Forrey, Patrick, President, National Air Traffic Controllers Association.................................................... 30 Gilbert, Patricia, Chair, National Legislative Committee, National Air Traffic Controllers Association................... 30 Johnson, David B., Vice President for Terminal Services, Air Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation Administration.......... 10 Zaidman, Steven B., Vice President of Technical Operations Services, Air Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation Administration................................................. 10 PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois............................. 49 Matsui, Hon. Doris O., of California............................. 57 Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona.............................. 59 Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota............................ 62 Salazar, Hon. John T., of Colorado............................... 66 PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES Brantley, Tom.................................................... 69 Forrey, Patrick.................................................. 80 Johnson, Bruce................................................... 96 ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD Federal Aviation Administration, response to questions from the Subcommittee................................................... 104 FAA Aging Facilities Conditions, chart........................... 107 FY-2007 Ops Funded Sustain Projects_by Service Area/District, chart.......................................................... 109 Asbestos Survey Report Form...................................... 137 Eastern Service Area Prioritized List FY-07 Ops Funded Projects, chart.......................................................... 138 Eastern Service Area Prioritized List FY-07 Facilities and Equipment Projects, chart...................................... 172 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.008 HEARING ON FAA'S AGING ATC FACILITIES: INVESTIGATING THE NEED TO IMPROVE FACILITIES AND WORKER CONDITIONS ---------- Tuesday, July 24, 2007 House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Aviation, Washington, DC. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Jerry F. Costello [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. Mr. Costello. The Subcommittee will come to order. The Chair will ask all Members, staff and everyone to turn electronic devices off or on vibrate. The Subcommittee is meeting here today to hear testimony on the FAA's Aging Air Traffic Control Facilities: Investigating the Need to Improve Facilities and Worker Conditions. I will give a brief opening statement and then call on the Ranking Member to give an opening statement as well. I want to welcome everyone here to our hearing today on the FAA's aging ATC facilities and the need to improve facilities and conditions for the FAA workers. The FAA provides air traffic control services at over 400 Agency-operated air traffic control facilities throughout the Nation. Many of these facilities are over 40 years old, exceeding their useful life expectancy and not meeting current operational requirements. This has resulted in a General Services Administration Facility Condition Index rating of fair to poor. Further, this Subcommittee and other interested stakeholders like NATCA and PASS have expressed concerns as to whether the FAA has adequately funded the much needed facility repairs and improvements, given the Agency's capital account has remained flat over the past several years. The Administration consistently proposes a level of F&E funding well below the authorized level. In 2003, the FAA requested and received from the Congress an authorization of approximately $3 billion per year for its capital program. Yet, for the past three years, the Administration has requested roughly $2.2 billion per year for its F&E capital program, well below the authorized level. The fiscal year 2008 budget is no exception. The Administration is once again requesting $2.46 billion for capital spending. According to the capital investment plan estimates, approximately half of the F&E budget is set aside for equipment and modernization. Yet, the FAA has not requested additional F&E funding for routine maintenance and repair of aging FAA facilities. I have said before that we cannot put the cart before the horse when it comes to modernization. While the FAA continues to lay the groundwork for modernization, it must also ensure that the current system can continue to operate in a safe and reliable way by properly investing in the maintenance and upkeep of existing infrastructure. The FAA must also provide safe, healthy working conditions for its employees. That is why in H.R. 2881, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007, we provide historic funding levels for the FAA's capital programs including nearly $13 billion for F&E, over $1 billion more than the Administration requested. I am disturbed by the employee reports of excessive unhealthy levels of mold and asbestos, leaking roofs and other infrastructure issues, insufficient ventilation, and improperly housed conditions and equipment. Both PASS and NATCA report, the FAA is in direct violation of safety regulations including those mandated by OSHA. To illustrate the point, we are going to show a very brief video clip from the Grand Rapids tower at this time. This clip was actually filmed in the Fall of 2005. I would ask at this time to show the clip. [Video shown.] Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks Mr. Miller for showing the clip. Obviously, again that was taken in the fall of 2005 at the Grand Rapids facility. It is alarming to see the water coming through the roof and actually on the counter of the control tower. This is just one facility. I believe that there are others that could have been filmed then or today. Again, it is alarming and disturbing that we allow our facilities to deteriorate to this extent. No one should have to work in these conditions, and it is unacceptable. I am interested in hearing our FAA witnesses' response to this clip and some of the other facilities that we will be discussing today. I question whether the FAA has a comprehensive strategy to effectively manage the replacement, repair and modernization of its air traffic control facilities and equipment and whether sufficient funds are being used to carry out these important health and safety functions. Finally, in the Administration's FAA reauthorization proposal, they provide for a BRAC-like process to consolidate and relocate facilities. A BRAC process is an abdication of responsibility on the part of the Congress. Congress has always made decisions and provided oversight based on recommendations and analysis from Federal agencies. In consolidating and realigning the FAA facilities, that process should be no different. The FAA should not only engage with Congress but with the stakeholders affected. If the FAA identifies facilities that are truly not needed, then the FAA should identify those facilities, put them in their budget and come here and explain to the Congress where the facilities are located and why they should be consolidated or closed. In our reauthorization bill that passed the Full Committee and is on its way to the Floor of the House, we created an open continuous and defined process, something which the FAA should have done from the start. Contrary to statements that may be made here today, the bill does not--and I repeat--the bill does not impose a moratorium. Instead, our bill allows affected stakeholders to work together with the FAA to develop criteria and make recommendations that will be submitted to the Congress and published in the Federal Register for proper review and oversight. Any objections or changes made to those recommendations must again be submitted to the Congress. Congress does not relinquish its role but instead can provide thorough review, oversight and input. With that, at this time, I welcome our witnesses here today and look forward to hearing their testimony. Before I recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Petri, for his opening statement, I ask unanimous consent to allow for two weeks for all Members to revise and extend their remarks and to permit the submission of additional statements and materials by Members and witnesses. Without objection, so ordered. At this time, the Chair recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr. Petri, for his opening statement. Mr. Petri. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We are meeting to discuss the current condition of our Nation's air traffic control facilities and equipment. While the FAA is ultimately responsible for the upkeep of its facilities, it is not alone in the responsibility for the current condition. Over the past years, Congress has authorized funding for the FAA to maintain and improved their facilities, yet it has continually been under-appropriated and earmarked by Congress. By the time the money reaches the FAA, the Agency ofttimes does not have the adequate discretion it needs on how to spend it. The FAA has over 400 air traffic control facilities for which they are partly or wholly responsible for maintenance. Clearly, no one here today is in denial that FAA tower facilities are in need of constant upkeep and repair. In fact, there are some that actually need immediate attention. However, their average facility condition level as determined by the scorekeeper, the General Services Administration, is 93.2 percent which earns a fair condition rating under the GSA's scorecard. For comparison purposes, many other Government facilities earn lower grades. According to the GSA, the FAA headquarters building itself, where two of our witnesses are located, has a rating not of 93.2 percent as the average facility condition level but rather of 76 percent. The average Government family housing earns a rating of roughly 77 percent, and the average Federal office space has a rating of roughly 63 percent, fully a third lower than the facility rating for the average air traffic control facilities. These numbers demonstrate that less than desirable facility conditions are not FAA-specific. Rather, they are government- wide, and we have a bigger problem than just this one. According to the FAA, it receives a $100 million to $150 million annually for replacement costs. While it sounds like an ample amount of money, I understand that it is only enough funding to complete just one-third of the replacements every 10 years. At this rate, a facility commissioned in 2006 would not be replaced until 2093, 87 years later. Even if the FAA received $200 million a year, double what it is currently receiving for maintenance, the replacement schedule would still take more than 40 years per facility. In an environment where resources are scarce, integrated planning and budgeting are needed, and so I am looking forward to hearing about FAA's plans going forward. The fact remains that FAA's maintenance backlog for terminal facilities is not declining. Rather, it is growing. In 2006, it was $124 million, and it will reach $182 million backlogged by 2020. The FAA needs the authorized funding levels made available to it and more in the future. It is unrealistic to think that the FAA can keep all of its facilities in excellent condition if they are not provided the money to do it. Perhaps the most important factor in the state of our air traffic control facilities is the relation to the modernization effort. As we progress into the NextGen system, it will be vital that we update our facilities and keep them in the best possible condition and continue to update them with a mindful eye toward future needs. We cannot put our brand new and costly systems into buildings that are simply unfit to house them. Delaying the replacement and renovation of our air traffic control facilities will delay NextGen's implementation, and we all know that that is a cost that the Nation and the traveling public cannot afford. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and yield back any time remaining. Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the Ranking Member and now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Lampson. Mr. Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be quite brief. I do appreciate you all holding this hearing. The fact that we have such a significant need for maintenance in our Nation's air traffic control system and facilities is obviously critical. I have been fighting these battles with TRACON for a number of years in southeast Texas and was opposed to much of the consolidation that has been going on. We have lost one facility in one of the districts that I represented at one time and now in another district. I think that there is continuing aging and disrepair of any of these facilities in the area where there is such significant growth. The Hobby Airport which is in my district, Houston Hobby Airport, and the Bush Intercontinental Airport which is nearby, is the eighth largest passenger airport in terms of enplaned passengers, and they are showing a 67 percent increase of the past 10 years. Considering the vast amount of traffic at these airports, we truly have to make certain that every piece of equipment used to control these airplanes is maintained and in working order at all times. Again, part of the reason why I opposed that consolidation is we have to take the responsibility to make sure that the equipment is working and that our passengers who are flying are safe. I appreciate your holding the hearing, Mr. Chairman, and look forward to hearing from this distinguished panel. Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman from Texas and now recognizes the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr. Mica. Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Costello. I appreciate your hosting and conducting this hearing today. I think that it is important that the working conditions for our air traffic controllers, problems we have experienced, are addressed. It has been a concern of mine. The professionals that keep our airways safe and all FAA employees should have a safe, comfortable and modern equipped workplace. However, it is important to recognize that aging physical infrastructure is a government-wide problem that we face. The problem has accelerated in recent years because most Federal buildings were built over 50 years ago and are reaching the end of their useful lives. Other Government agencies including the State Department, NASA and GSA have maintenance backlogs totaling over $16 billion which is $6 billion more than we saw in the year 2005. I put up a little chart to show you, and this is my chart. GSA did a review of FAA's air traffic control facilities, the first bar we see there. This is an index of facility conditions, and it shows that the average condition on a scale I guess to 100 is 93.2 for FAA air traffic control towers. For the FAA headquarters, it shows a 76 which is a lot lower in the quality of the conditions. For hospitals, including our Veterans' hospitals which are Government facilities, air traffic control working conditions, tower conditions are actually better. If you skip over one to family housing which includes our military family housing, 77.59 percent. Unfortunately, we see a problem. Our Committee deals with GSA and government housing in a number of areas and government facilities in a number of areas. As the authorizing Committee, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has consistently authorized funding levels consistent with the demands of the system. Unfortunately, we have seen the funding levels reduced or earmarked in the appropriations process. This has made it difficult for the FAA to adequately perform the mandates sometimes issued by Congress and has created a lengthy backlog of repairs and replacement needs. I have a list of appropriator earmarks that reprioritize facilities and equipment. Replacement earmarked items that were relatively low on the FAA's attention list were moved to the top and ahead of higher priority facility needs. Unfortunately, by Congress' constant meddling with the FAA repair priority list, it is no wonder we are having maintenance and we hear about some of these repair problems. Equally problematic as Congress' overriding repair assessments is Congress' interference in FAA's decision regarding airspace design and facility management and consolidation or closure. Where is today's paper that I gave you earlier? Here is a great example: FAA is Targeting Airline Delays. This is today's headline. It talks about how the FAA wants to deal with this. Unfortunately, we see that even today on the House Floor, we will have measures that end up trying to close down some of the efforts for airspace redesign and we will also, I think, see an effort, at least I saw one amendment crafted, to thwart some of the consolidation. Critical to the success of Next Generation and the day solvency of the FAA's facilities and equipment budget is the ability to realize the cost savings that consolidation and relocation can provide. We can provide new centrally located modernly equipped facilities that enable FAA to take advantage of new technologies and also take great steps towards the Next Generation air traffic control system. It does not make sense for FAA to continue to maintain old, obsolete facilities or the equipment housed there. However, in a fit of parochial politics, again some Members are against seeking to put a moratorium on consolidations even today. I urge my colleagues to refrain from such actions and continue to allow FAA to manage the Agency's resources properly. It also applies to FAA's attempts, as I said, to redesign our Nation's air space system. We have an air space system in the northeast that was designed, what, in 1987. Here, today, we are going to see another attempt to thwart a long process that we have tried to do in bringing in folks from around that region to come up with a new air space redesign. One way to eliminate this sort of protectionism in dealing with the situation that I have proposed is a BRAC-like vote on a comprehensive plan for consolidation. I proposed that legislation similar to the one proposed by the Administration that would establish a realignment and consolidation board and a process for aviation experts to recommend to the President and Congress how best to align FAA's facilities and personnel in a manner that most effectively advances the capabilities of our Nation's air system and best serves the traveling public. I would like to continue to work with my colleagues in the future on that provision. I hope we can adopt something. Another option to create efficiencies under a tight Federal budget without risking safety is utilizing the private sector where and when deemed appropriate. Since 1982, the FAA has been contracting out air traffic control jobs to the private sector at VFR airports, visual flight rule airports. These airports that would not otherwise have a tower have service. Currently, 235 air traffic control towers are staffed by contract controllers, each of whom is certified by the FAA. The FAA's contract tower program provides cost effective services--these aren't my words--``cost effective services that are comparable to the quality and safety of FAA-operated towers'' according to then Inspector of the DOT, Ken Mead. We found in another study before I became Chair of the Subcommittee that validated this and then one that I asked for validated these findings that the operational air deviation rate at contract towers is 2.5 times better than at similar all FAA-operated VFR towers. In addition, in that September, 2003 report, the IG compared the cost to operate the 12 FAA towers to the cost of 12 contract private sector operated towers of similar size and operations and found that each and every contract tower would save about a million dollars in operational costs than the all Federal towers. That is an average of $992,000 less per tower annually. These savings could be freed up and use the resources towards making certain that those facilities and all our facilities are in adequate repair. I defy anybody here to walk into the halls, in fact, of Congress or walk into the halls of any public building, government-run public building, and just look at the maintenance and the repair and the conditions and then go downtown and walk into almost any private sector building. You can immediately tell the difference in the repair. Finally, I am not sure who does all of the maintenance and repair at these facilities, but if they aren't keeping it up, they should be fired or if it is a contractor that is doing this, a private contractor, their contract should be terminated because our facilities, when we are paying taxpayer money to keep them up and repaired, they need to be in the best repair. I did visit at NAV CANADA--we don't have a witness here today--which privatized their entire system which I am not advocating, but I saw some of the best working conditions. I think we have some photos. You showed leaks and repairs. I don't know if we have these, but I have got plenty that I will be glad to show you about awesome facilities that the private sector provides their air traffic controllers in Canada. Our air traffic controllers, our professionals, should have no less in facilities, accommodation or working equipment than these folks to the north of us. Thank you. Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the Ranking Member and recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Salazar. Mr. Salazar. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this important hearing. You know, Mr. Chairman, I find it disturbing that the FAA has substantial maintenance backlog for repairs of many of their facilities. The current system I think, should be able to operate in a reliable manner while providing a safe and productive working environment for FAA employees. We simply cannot afford to wait on the current system as it deteriorates, and I agree that the 401 TRACON facilities need immediate detention. I have been talking to my constituents back in Pueblo and different parts of Colorado, and they also believe that we need to focus on the 9,000 smaller buildings and the 13,000 tower structures that need attention because that is where the user is going to see the biggest impact. It is those 22,000 structures. In my district, for example, the flying public has raised many concerns with the decommissioned VORs, with the ILS shutdowns and numerous maintenance issues which directly affect the Colorado aviation system. Transitioning to NextGen will require significant investment by every user in order to save taxpayer dollars to maintain legacy equipment. Users will be able to effectively budget the investment necessary to have access to the NAS if the FAA will clearly articulate and publicize the plan. This was not the case when I approached the FAA about the concerns I had with a rumored co-location of the Pueblo TRACON. It took numerous letters, meetings and phone conversations before the FAA reluctantly provided me with rough details about their proposed plan. The FAA's initial efforts to decommission Nav-Aids and consolidate facilities suggest that the Agency is aware of current and future budget problems they face, but I firmly believe the solution lies in working with the stakeholders instead of surprising them with emergencies. I don't think it is too much to ask that every state has a clear idea of what the FAA plan is to decommission or consolidate facilities as a way to modernize the system. The key lies in communication. The FAA needs to work with the State and users instead of delivering a plan at the end of a long process that becomes the only available option. I would also like to stress how vital the F&E program is to the users of the system in maintaining the existing infrastructure. It is critically important to being able to successfully move to NextGen. I can't emphasize the point enough: When changes need to be made, communications with stakeholders is critical. I look forward to the testimony today, and I thank the panel and the Members for being here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Mr. Costello. Thank you, Mr. Salazar. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Hayes. Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding the hearing today and our witnesses for being here. We need to hurry up and get to the witnesses, don't we? I think this is a unique opportunity for the FAA and NextGen, the controllers, the stakeholders, the users to get themselves together. As Mr. Salazar said, communication will be critical. The FAA has assured me, and I have no reason to disbelieve them, that this is a new generation of cooperation, coordination and communication between themselves and the controllers and other folks. That is a great thing and I am convinced that they are going to do that, and I am going to enthusiastically encourage them to do that. Having said that, Next Generation holds tremendous promise for the aviation community, everybody involved. If we do this right, it will be the FAA doing something for the aviation community instead of the FAA doing something to the community. As we move forward with that and making sure that facilities are appropriate whether it be combination, and communication with the folks who may be affected in a reasonable time to do that will assure that. So, having said all that, Mr. Costello, I think this again is a unique opportunity to bring all the players to the table in the right frame of mind and come up with something that at the end of the day will be a tremendous improvement and a cost savings to everybody concerned. I thank you. Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Poe. Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank both of you for being here today. I represent that area of Texas that has Beaumont, Texas with a TRACON, and we border Houston Intercontinental Airport. As you know, Mr. Johnson, people are very concerned in Beaumont, Texas. I want to thank you at the outset for your willingness to come to Texas in August and go into the lion's den and explain to folks in Beaumont the FAA's concerns. I don't think it will be as vicious as maybe you are expecting, but I want to thank you for coming there. I am not convinced that fewer TRACONs will be safer or more efficient, and I am also not convinced that having more airplanes in the air and having fewer TRACONs will be safer. I am also concerned about consolidation and whether it is really going to save anybody any money. We heard all that with the BRAC closings. Now we are learning that maybe some of these closings of military bases didn't save the taxpayers any money at all include Ellington Field in Houston, Texas. As a side note, we have air traffic controllers that are getting old, and I am very concerned about the future of that profession because I do think it is a profession. One other thing, just in my limited experience of being in Congress, FAA seems to have a reputation with me and my office and other offices, maybe Mr. Salazar's, of not being quite as easy to deal with in communication. It is interesting that FAA, of all things, cannot seem to communicate very well about what their positions. I hope that that reputation does change with some action. I think one step, Mr. Johnson, is the fact that you are willing to come to Texas and state a position to the stakeholders down in southeast Texas who are very concerned about the loss of that facility in Beaumont. So thank you both for being here, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman. Do other Members have opening statements? If not, the Chair will go to our first panel of witnesses. Let me introduce the witnesses on our first panel: Mr. David Johnson who is the Vice President for Terminal Services, Air Traffic Organization with the Federal Aviation Administration and Mr. Steven Zaidman who is the Vice President of Technical Operations Services of the Air Traffic Control Organization with the FAA. Gentlemen, I would ask you to summarize your statements. Your entire statement will be submitted for the record. I would like to follow up on Mr. Poe's comment because I share his view concerning consolidation of some of the TRACONs, I think there has been a lack of communication on the part of the FAA communicating not only with Members of Congress but also the stakeholders as well to solicit their input. That is one of the reasons why in the reauthorization bill, the House bill, that we put a mechanism in place that, in fact, has the stakeholders involved in the process, solicits their opinions, and it is a process if, in fact, it becomes law that I believe that everyone, not only the stakeholders but everyone who is affected, will have the opportunity for their input. That is something that has been lacking. Let me also mention that the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr. Mica, made a couple of points that I agree with. One is that the amendments that will be on the Floor today, one dealing with both air space redesign and consolidation of facilities, I intend to go to the Floor to oppose both of those amendments. There is no question, as the headlines suggested, we have a major problem in the New York-Philadelphia-New Jersey area, and we should let the FAA move forward with the air space redesign and we shouldn't stop the process in my judgment. Secondly, with the consolidation of the TRACONs, again there is a process that we would like to see in place in the base bill, and we need to move forward with that process. Finally, before I turn to you, Mr. Johnson, let me say that I am concerned. While there is no question we have heard from Members in their opening statements that there are Federal facilities outside of the FAA that are rated as poor, similar to many of the facilities that we will be discussing today, the fact is that the Federal Aviation Administration has an authorized level of $3 billion per year for the facilities and equipment account. The Congress saw fit at the request of the FAA to approve an authorization of $3 billion a year. I will be interested in hearing from you as to why the Administration has requested less than the authorized level every year, knowing that many of these facilities need to be upgraded. Finally, I would be interested in hearing from both of you. Everyone wants to see modernization as Mr. Mica and Mr. Hayes and everyone has commented on, but we all recognize that it is going to be a long process, that it may be as long as 10 years before it is implemented. The point that I made in my opening statement is that while we are focusing on NextGen and we all recognize that we need to move forward and we also know that it is going to take 10 years or so in order to get the system up and running, we cannot continue to neglect our existing facilities. So what I would be interested in hearing from you is, one, why the Agency has not requested the full authorization level every year for the past three years and, two, my concern about all of the focus is on NextGen and neglecting the existing facilities that we are going to have to operate out of and from for the next 10 years. With that, Mr. Johnson, you are recognized under the five minute rule. TESTIMONY OF DAVID B. JOHNSON, VICE PRESIDENT FOR TERMINAL SERVICES, AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; STEVEN B. ZAIDMAN, VICE PRESIDENT OF TECHNICAL OPERATIONS SERVICES, AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Chairman Costello, Congressman Petri, Members of the Subcommittee. We are pleased to appear before you today to discuss the Federal Aviation Administration's efforts to improve aging air traffic control facilities and the worker conditions at those facilities. Again, my name is Bruce Johnson, and I am the Vice President of Terminal Services in the ATO. I am responsible for all the towers, TRACONs and radar systems around the Country. With me today is Steve Zaidman, the ATO's Vice President of Technical Operations, and Steve is responsible for the maintenance of the entire National Airspace System. As you know, the FAA faces some tough challenges with some of our aging facilities. We have hundreds of air traffic control facilities around the Country and over 22,000 unmanned facilities and structures, and we recognize that we have maintenance and repair backlogs at a number of those facilities. We are addressing those on a continual basis. We also have the challenge of making sure that the FAA will be able to reduce air travel delays by continuing on the path to a smooth transformation the Next Generation air traffic control system or NextGen. To achieve these goals, we have developed the multi-tiered approaches below. First, we have our sustainment program which covers all maintenance and repair work. We also have a replacement program where we assess our facilities and replace them with new facilities when needed. Last, but by no means least, we are continuing our transition to NextGen by updating our equipment and technology. As our facilities age, we strive to get the most mileage out of them. We complete hundreds of maintenance and repair projects at our staffed facilities every year. Maintenance and repairs impacting worker and operational safety, as always, are our first priority. Other high priority needs such as a leaking roof or an air conditioner outage during the summer are addressed immediately while lower priority needs such as new paint and carpet are planned through the normal budget cycle. Additionally, we are taking steps to reduce the large maintenance and repair backlog. We are continually doing building condition assessments for various type facilities to determine what repairs are needed and how to budget for them. Our transition to NextGen is also helping to address this backlog. As we move forward with NextGen, we are developing individual facility life cycle plans which will allow us to be more proactive in planning which of our facilities move forward. Additionally, we have facilities in our system that have so many issues that to repair and remediate them indefinitely would be financially unsound and, in some cases, completely at odds with NextGen. A central element of the FAA's transformation into NextGen intersects with our work on replacement and consolidation of our facilities. Consolidation helps improve safety and efficiency by making new technologies available for controllers. These savings and improvements mean fewer air traffic delays and lower costs. The FAA has proven that we can safely and efficiently consolidate both air space and facilities. For example, in 2002, the FAA consolidated the air space that used to be managed by five separate facilities in the Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Area into one brand new facility called the Potomac Terminal Approach Control. The Baltimore-Washington air space consolidation has been extremely successful, saving millions of dollars in fuel, reducing carbon emissions, reducing noise exposure and reducing delays. However, we must note to the Subcommittee that H.R. 2881 as currently drafted would impose a moratorium on any FAA consolidation plans and prohibit FAA from managing our assets. This would halt our transition to NextGen at the time it is most needed. Additionally, it would affect numerous FAA programs including airport redevelopment and expansion. We recognize that consolidation is a highly emotional and sensitive issue which is why the Administration proposed a process whereby objective recommendations would be made regarding which facilities to consolidate. Then public input would be considered. Presidential review would be required, and ultimately Congressional action would be necessary. We believe this approach is the fairest way for FAA to make objective, informed decisions about facility consolidation. However, we must be able to continue forward with this initial group of consolidations while this process is being developed. We strongly urge the Subcommittee to reconsider the Administration proposal when H.R. 2881 goes to the Floor for consideration. We are keenly appreciative of the uncertainty and concern change can cause, but it is simply unrealistic to expect that a major overhaul of the Nation's air traffic control system can result without it. FAA's mission is to ensure aviation safety, and we want to do that in conjunction with minimizing delays as much as possible. As you all know, today's aviation system is operating at full capacity, making our transition to NextGen an absolute necessity. At every phase, we are taking steps to minimize worker disruption and ensure smooth transitions. Wherever possible, we do not require anyone to relocate. In those cases where relocation is unavoidable, workers will be offered a fully paid move and notified well in advance of the transition. In fact, worker conditions are always a major concern. Maintenance and repairs, replacement of facilities and transitioning to NextGen are all conducted with worker conditions in mind. We have procedures in place to protect worker safety as construction projects get underway. FAA's transition to NextGen is a lengthy phased process. Until we achieve our final goals, we are committed to working on remedies available to us, whether that entails further maintenance and repairs or replacement of a facility. Our multi-tiered approach to maintaining, improving and replacing our aging facilities is designed to get us NextGen without any compromise in safety and with maximum levels of efficiency. Mr. Chairman, this concludes our testimony. We will be very happy to answer any questions the Subcommittee may have. Mr. Costello. Mr. Zaidman, do you have an opening statement. Mr. Zaidman. No, I don't. Mr. Costello. So you have no testimony to present. You are here to answer questions? Mr. Zaidman. Yes. Mr. Costello. You will take the difficult questions, right? Mr. Zaidman. Absolutely. Mr. Costello. Okay. Mr. Johnson, let me ask you. In your FCI, the Facility Condition Index, the assessment of the TRACONs and towers, it is my understanding that the FAA has only conducted and approved the FCI assessments on 89 of the 401 TRACONs and towers. Is that correct? Mr. Johnson. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Costello. You have really only done an assessment on 89 of 401, so the vast majority of these TRACONs and towers have not been assessed. Mr. Johnson. That is correct. Mr. Costello. I am wondering are you really in a good position to testify before this Subcommittee today or for the FAA to come here and talk about these facilities if you have only done an assessment on a small portion of that. Would you like to comment? Mr. Johnson. Absolutely. What we did with the FCI program is we took a representative group of facilities which included this 89. We took examples from every type of facility that we had in the system. So we actually went through the entire list. We pulled out these as examples and did the full assessment on these 89. We will continue to do 12 additional assessments every year, and again we will do different types and kinds of facilities as we do the assessment. We think that the 93.2 percent rating that came out through the FCI is pretty indicative of the entire system as it looks now. We know that there are going to be outliers on that. But, in fact, the cost of these assessments, we felt like the 90 that we did was a fair assessment without burdening the budget to do every facility. Mr. Costello. When you say that you will do 12 a year, how do you determine which 12? How do you select those facilities? Is it based on complaints? What is it based on? Mr. Johnson. The planning group that we have will go through and, again, make sure that they take facilities from every group. It could be, in fact, that some of these are indicative of what may have happened during the case and in the case we had issues with some of the facilities, then we would put those on the list to be assessed. Mr. Costello. If there are a number of complaints at a particular TRACON or air traffic control tower, you would definitely put them on the priority list, is that what you are saying, versus a facility where there are no complaints? Mr. Johnson. Right. We would want to look at those where we knew that we had issues. Mr. Costello. Do you have a process for investigating complaints from controllers concerning health complaints? I think we will hear testimony in the next panel and I have read testimony about mold and other conditions and that these conditions are causing health problems with employees and with controllers. What is the process to make an assessment of a controller's health based upon any complaint that may be made? Mr. Johnson. Well, there are, of course, always forms that are filled out by the controllers if they feel like that there was cause to do so, especially in the facility. At that time, the facility manager would confer with the tech ops managers, and they would look at whatever condition it was that might have caused the complaint to be filed or the CA1 or CA2 forms that we call them if a controller is seeking medical attention or has an issue in facility. Mr. Costello. Can you or Mr. Zaidman tell the Subcommittee today how many forms have been filled out and filed with the Agency from controllers or any employees that have complained about health problems that they believe are a result of these unsafe and unhealthy conditions in the last year? Mr. Johnson. I am sorry. I can get that for you, Mr. Chairman, but I don't have that information with me today. Mr. Costello. You must have some idea if there has been a complaint filed in the last six months. You have to have some idea. I don't expect the exact number. Mr. Zaidman. I can tell you specific to facilities but not a total at this time, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Costello. Can you move your microphone a little closer? Mr. Zaidman. Yes. For instance, we have had issues at Jacksonville. We have had issues at Dulles Tower, for example, and we have had between 5 and 15 controllers fill out this form, which is called in our parlance a CA1, indicating some health issues as a result of some unsatisfactory conditions in the facility. Mr. Costello. Walk us through the process. Once the form is filled out by a controller or an employee who says that they believe that they have a health problem related to the unsafe, unhealthy conditions, what is the next step after they fill the form out? Mr. Zaidman. Yes, and whether or not the form is filled out, it is the same process. We have trained people called environmental and safety officials. They are FAA employees. We bring them in. We do a visual inspection often times with the employees. We assess the condition. We typically bring in a third party to do air samples when required. We mitigate the issue right away to the best of our ability, but there is also an underlying issue, a structural issue, many times, for why this happens. We hire an engineering firm. We do an engineering assessment. Depending on the severity of the problem and the criticality of the issue, then we enter into what is called a corporate work plan to make the permanent repairs. Mr. Costello. Mr. Johnson, two questions that I asked before your testimony: One, can you tell the Subcommittee why the Agency has only submitted a request for $2.5 billion a year, much less than the Agency requested the authorization level to be at $3 billion? The Congress approved a $3 billion authorization every year for the last 3 years in order to address these problems for the facilities and equipment, but then the Agency only requested less than what was authorized. Mr. Johnson. I can tell you about the process coming out of Terminal. We do our assessment of what we feel our needs are. That goes up through our Air Traffic Organization Financial Group, and then they work with the ATO Financial Group to come up with the request. Sometimes, as you know, the request was for more. It goes through the two financial groups and comes out at a different number. So we make the request based on the amount of money that we feel like we would need, say, in Terminal. I can't speak for what En-Route or Tech Ops do, which obviously is considerably less than the total. I don't know where or know how the cut line is made. Mr. Costello. By the FAA's own admission, I mean you recognize these facilities are old. Some of them are in need of repair. You recognize that and everyone admits that. It is your responsibility. This is your area of responsibility. Are you saying that you agree with the fact that you are receiving less than what the Congress has approved in order to carry out your duties and responsibilities? I am not asking you to answer for the higher-ups as it goes through the food chain. I am asking you your responsibility for these facilities. Is the $2.5 billion a year adequate or would it have been better for the $3 billion to be approved so that you could have spent additional money to repair these facilities much quicker than what has been done? Mr. Johnson. The $2.5 billion is adequate for the amount of work that we could get done in any given year to work on the facilities. Now, again, I don't know. It is hard for me assess what comes out of Tech Ops and En-Route, reference the amount of money that comes out of Finance. Mr. Costello. So your answer is that the $2.5 billion is adequate for your needs? Mr. Johnson. The 2.5 is the amount of money that we get to work with, and we will use that money to the best of our ability to make the repairs that are needed in the terminal. Mr. Costello. But the additional money certainly would have helped. Mr. Johnson. Additional money would help, but the money that we get is the money that we use every year. Mr. Costello. The Chair at this time would recognize the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr. Mica. Mr. Mica. Thank you. Just a few questions and I am going to have to go down to the Floor to try to protect our turf here in a second. Mr. Johnson, we have, what, about 400 and some towers total in the system? Mr. Johnson. Correct. Mr. Mica. I have 327 of those that FAA owns, correct? Mr. Johnson. Correct. Mr. Mica. Now there are also 74 airport-sponsored towers. Do they maintain them themselves or does FAA? Mr. Johnson. They maintain them to the extent they can. Mr. Mica. Were they part of your study or review? Did you review any of those? Mr. Johnson. Yes, we did. Mr. Mica. You did. How were the conditions with those compared to the all FAA towers, about the same? Mr. Johnson. I would say they were representative from across. Mr. Mica. We have FAA in charge of, then the responsibility for what, about 250 towers, maintaining them? Mr. Johnson. Right. Yes, sir. Mr. Mica. Is that all done in house or is some of that contract, the maintenance? Mr. Zaidman. Well, we have a responsibility for maintenance, and on occasion we do contract out. Mr. Mica. But I mean can you tell me is 90 percent of it maintained by FAA and then 10 percent contracted out? Mr. Zaidman. The physical plants are virtually all maintained by FAA. We do contract out. Mr. Mica. Have you looked at contracting that out? Mr. Zaidman. No, we haven't. Mr. Mica. I will tell you one thing. I was the Chief of Staff for Senator Hawkins from 1981 to 1985. I used go to into the Federal building in Miami, and every day it was a depressing entry. In fact, I go into these halls there, the Congress. It is depressing. This is like a medieval event where people throw their trash out and leave things, garbage in the hall. The maintenance is done in house, and it is terrible. I will never forget going into the Miami courthouse one day in the early eighties. I looked in. You are from Miami. Everything glowed. It was clean. The elevator was clean. I walked in. I said, what happened? They said, we contracted out the maintenance, and we got a firm to do it. Now if that maintenance is bad, somebody should be responsible. Do you have trouble firing people in FAA that don't conduct the maintenance? None of our professionals, whether they are in the FAA building, which again is not my favorite place to visit for viewing modern, well kept buildings, why can't you get a handle on that? Mr. Zaidman. Let me just say I may be a little biased being a Federal employee for most of my life, but I think we have the best workforce and I would match it_ Mr. Mica. The maintenance workforce? Mr. Zaidman. I think they are terrific. I think they do a wonderful job. I think our challenge_ Mr. Mica. Well, that is not the report we are hearing here. Mr. Zaidman. I think our challenge_ Mr. Mica. How about repairs? Okay, here is Grand Rapids. Was the leak in Grand Rapids? Mr. Zaidman. Yes. Mr. Mica. What is the story with Grand Rapids? Now I am a former developer. Leaks in a roof will drive you batty. I have some that just have taken months and sometimes years to resolve. Is that problem here or is there a problem with the process of getting that repaired in a hurry? Mr. Zaidman. We have, like was stated, 22,000 facilities. We have issues with less than 1 percent of those. Grand Rapids falls under that 1 percent. Mr. Mica. I heard that it is still not fixed. Mr. Zaidman. It is an ongoing problem. We have just issued_ Mr. Mica. It is one of these chronic difficulties that sometimes we have. Florida is terrible because we get the heat and the expansion. It is very difficult to solve some leaks. Do you keep a repair list and is it prioritized? Mr. Zaidman. Yes, we do. Mr. Mica. Do we have that? Does the Committee have a copy? Mr. Zaidman. We can get you one. Mr. Mica. Okay, I would like to see a copy because I think we should know. Do you give that to the appropriators or do you just give them a total dollar figure? Mr. Zaidman. Well, if it is in our budget, we give them the individual projects. Mr. Mica. I think it would be good for our Committee to look at how that is does. Mr. Zaidman. Be glad to do it. Mr. Mica. Finally, replacement of buildings, you have a list of those and the order in which they would be replaced. I would imagine that also with TRACONs and others that we are looking at consolidation. We would look at where it makes sense to replace the buildings with new facilities and new equipment and also getting into Next Generation equipment. Mr. Zaidman. That is correct, sir. Mr. Mica. You have that list and it is all prioritized. Do we have a copy? Can we get a copy? Mr. Johnson. You should have a copy, but we will make sure that you get another copy. Mr. Mica. I haven't seen it, but I would like to see that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Zaidman. Thank you. Mr. Costello. Thank you, Mr. Mica. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Salazar. Mr. Salazar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Johnson, does the FAA have a master plan as to how we get from where we are today in updating and doing the maintenance on these TRACONs and whatever until we get into the Next Generation air system? Part of the problem is that we are surprised by so many things that happen, and many times when we ask FAA what is going on, we don't really get an answer. So could you maybe let us know if there is a master plan of some kind? Mr. Johnson. There is a facility master list that we have that, in fact, has rated all 534 facilities. There is no master plan per se for replacing those. What we do is up through 2014 we have a list of, I believe, 33 replacements that we are working on right now. As we do each and every one of those facilities, as they come up for replacement, we look and see what makes sense for those facilities around the new facility, whether it makes sense to consolidate at that time. So it is kind of an ongoing process as we work down the list, what is around there, what would fit, what are the operational conditions that would fit in the facility, and we try to make good judgments about what would make sense to put in there. We are always looking ahead to the NextGen. We know we have several operating systems in some of the smaller facilities that are not going to work with NextGen. So we are looking to try to get as many facilities into the STARS or IIIE platforms, which are our newer operating systems, because we know that will work with NextGen. A lot of the time, what we are doing is looking to bring those facilities into the newer facilities that have the operating system. So it is ongoing. Mr. Salazar. Wouldn't it make sense to have some kind of master plan that all of us would be familiar with and maybe that you could submit to Members of Congress so that we could maybe make some comments? This picking and choosing just doesn't seem to when you get to different facilities when they need repairs or whatever. I mean it just seems to me that most business plan ahead for the next 10 years or next 5 years to figure out where they are going to be at and that way we have a better handle on what the costs are going to be. Excuse me. Mr. Johnson. No. It is a good question. Of course, out to 2014, we are pretty solid in what we are going to do. Now looking at each facility as we do them, what makes sense to consolidate, that is ongoing. That is what is contained or certainly what we would like to see in the bill, that we get a process that looks at, with the constituents, with the stakeholders, certainly with you about what makes sense, and I think that would fulfill that need as we move along. It would be very difficult to try to do some sort of entire master list because conditions change so often. Airlines change hubs. They move around. Things happen in the system. We have air space redesign. So we have to have agility and fluidity as we look at these plans. But we are trying to, again, as we build new, make smart decisions. Mr. Salazar. Also, could you explain a little bit about your objections to H.R. 2881? Mr. Johnson. Well, I think for us, the key is that we need to be able to continue to do the consolidations that we have already announced that we need to do. The reason for that is that we are already in the funding process. So any change or stoppage to that would mean that we would have lapsing money in next year. If we had to stop, if we had a two year hold, we would lose about $110 million in lapsing funds out of that. This would also mean that any projects around the Country would be held up for a couple of years. A very good example of how this fits together is the new tower going in at Dayton. If we have to put that off at Dayton, the current tower at Dayton sits right on the terminal building. Well, the airport has plans to tear that terminal building down and do modernizations, and they have money invested in that. If we can't move our tower off there because we can't build new, that puts their plans back two years, so the snowball effect. We have a lot of projects on the book that if we had to stop now in what we were doing, it would delay all of those by a couple of years, maybe even up into four years, because we would have to do replanning. We would have to make decisions on whether we were going to put a TRACON with them or not. In cases where we hadn't planned to put in a TRACON, if we had to go back, the siting would have to be redone, the planning. The entire process would have to be redone. As NextGen goes and for what it would do to the system, it would be not good. Mr. Salazar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Mr. Costello. I thank the gentleman. Let me clarify a point, Mr. Johnson. You are not testifying before the Subcommittee that the reauthorization bill stops the process, are you? Mr. Johnson. It was my understanding that that was the language. You had expressed earlier that was not the language. So as long as the language that goes through does not stop us, then that is what we would like to see. Mr. Costello. For the record, let me clarify the point because we spent a great deal of time discussing how we should go forward in the reauthorization bill. It does not stop the process. It does not rescind the money. What it does is it requires the FAA to come up with a plan working with stakeholders, and it gives, I believe, a nine month period where they have to produce a plan, but it does not stop what is ongoing in the process. If we wanted to do that, we would not have Mr. Mica and Mr. Oberstar on the Floor of the House right now. They will be speaking against an amendment that would stop the consolidation of a particular TRACON. So it is not the intention of the Committee or the legislation to stop the process. It is to be more inclusive so that the stakeholders have a voice in this, all of the players including the American people through both public hearings and through the Federal Register, that they have an opportunity as well to voice their concerns and to have their opinions heard, but it certainly does not stop or rescind the money. At this time, the Chair recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr. Petri. Mr. Petri. Thank you very much. I wonder if you could discuss this issue of the adequacy of maintenance of facilities from the point of view of the traveling public. What concerns, if any, should they have? Is it at a point where it affects, in any way, service and safety and the timely operation of the system? If it is not, what would we need to look for as warning signs or how could it affect the traveling public? Mr. Johnson. Let me start off, and I will turn it over to Mr. Zaidman to finish up. In every case, on every day, in every situation, we will put safety first. So whether it is something that happens in a facility, if we would need to curtail operations, bring operations back, we are going to make sure that the system stays safe. Now, hopefully, anything that would happen would be a quick fix. We have examples in the past where the actions that we took, we thought were the best actions, and it turned out after reviewing that, we could have done better. We certainly publicly acknowledge that and we learn from those and we are going to get better. Hopefully, we won't have very many occasions to get better, but history would tell us that is different. In every case, Congressman, we are going to make sure that we keep the system safe. The traveling public needs to know every time they get on an airplane that they are going to be in a very, very safe system, in fact, the safest system in the world. Mr. Petri. As you know, we are very interested in the improvement of the system. It is called NextGen, the whole new technology that people are deploying around the world and we are hoping will be deployed in the United States. How does this issue of facility maintenance affect, if it does at all, our ability to move forward as rapidly as possible with the new technology and moving to the new system? Mr. Johnson. Well, I think the key in that is that as we look and as we build new facilities and as we have new operating systems in the field. The reason we have so many facilities, the large number that we have, is when we put in a radar system, we had to put in a TRACON. So it was one for one. You put in a radar. You had to have a TRACON to receive it because one operating system would only take one radar system Now with STARS and the ARTS IIIE system, we can take 16 feeds in there. We now have the ability to do consolidations and co-locations. That is why we want to make sure as we build new facilities, and we are able as NextGen starts to come online. We want to have as many facilities as we can on an operating platform, either the STARS or the ARTS-IIIE so that it can hook into NextGen and we can utilize that tremendous technology that is coming. Certainly, with ADS-B, which will allow us one second updates and will allow us to decrease the separation standard, that is going to be huge for capacity. We want to make sure that we are ready on the facility side. We want to make sure that as we need to do air space redesign, that the facilities are ready to do that. That is a huge part of consolidation. It is looking at facilities where we can actually start to erase lines between facilities. Having one operating platform means that we don't necessarily have to go from five miles down to three miles just because we crossed an imaginary line in space from an en-route facility to a terminal. So being able to consolidate facilities, we can start to rub out those lines. We can move three miles all over the system. That is going to be huge for capacity, for reducing delays, for increasing the safety in the system with one second update. We want to have as many facilities ready for that as we can as we move forward. Mr. Petri. One last question: I know it is true in our family life, and I am sure it is true in business. If you are going to be making some changes in the next few years, the amount you are willing to do in serious restructuring or long term maintenance might go down. Is there an impact on maintenance of facilities from the prospect of this whole new system which may require a different array of facilities and so on? Is that affecting long term maintenance and so on of the facilities or not? Mr. Johnson. Steve can probably add to this. It is really almost mutually exclusive in that we can use our present facilities as long as they have the operating system that will merge with the NextGen technology. We know that as we more forward we are going to have this legacy system out there that we have to make sure stays in good working condition, and that is where we will be using our sustain and our modernization money as we forward. Hopefully, we will have this two-tiered effect going on where we will be building new. We will be bringing facilities together into common operating platforms, and then, again, we will be doing the rebuilds with the new facilities. Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the Ranking Member and now recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Hall. Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member and thank you to both of our illustrious witnesses. I just wanted to make a point. First of all, if I understand the numbers correctly, Mr. Johnson, your concern about losing $110 million due to H.R. 2881 could be looked at in light of the fact that the FAA has chosen not to request the full $3 billion that was authorized and chose to instead only ask for $2.5 billion. There is actually $500 million available to help out at any time should you feel yourself $100 million short. But I wanted to ask in particular about the New York TRACON and Washington Dulles towers which were evacuated recently due to high levels of carbon monoxide. Similar incidents have taken place in Jacksonville, San Jose and elsewhere. But being from New York, I am particularly aware of and concerned about the fact that at the New York TRACON, the operations manager would not allow the controllers to leave the room or permit first responders to enter despite the fact that several controllers were exhibiting symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning. Some of the controllers needed to be taken to the hospital for treatment. I guess the questions are: What are the early symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning before one becomes unconscious and would they affect the ability to take proper actions as air traffic controller? Is this consistent with your written and oral testimony that worker conditions are always a major concern? Mr. Johnson. Sir, I don't have an answer to your first question on what would be the symptoms, and I wasn't there during the event. I can tell you that during a review of especially the New York incident, we had some real good lessons learned there. I think having 20-20 hindsight, we certainly would have gone back and let the first responders in so that they could have taken immediate readings in the control room. In fact, we have put out guidance in the system that we make sure that we do that. The example at Dulles, as soon as we had the gentleman that was using the saw down at the base of the tower, by the way, which was not coordinated through Tech Ops or any of our folks, the first thing that they did was call the first responders to come in and take a reading. So we were happy about that. We are never happy when we have an incident or an issue. I really don't have much to add to your statement other than I will certainly take your statement. There are a lot of different versions of the story, what happened at New York. We are certainly concerned any time we have an employee who think that they are unable to continue. I would certainly be happy to talk to you later about any or all of those issues. I would just say that we did learn from them, and our commitment is that we are going to try to do better each and every time. Mr. Hall. Thank you. I appreciate that. I am also curious if the manager's decision-making process in New York to keep the staff in the tower and on the job was influenced in any way by lack of adequate backup staffing or staff capacity to cope with the temporary loss of operational personnel. Mr. Johnson. I don't. Certainly, the information that we got in the aftermath, that did not occur. In fact, we were told that people were offered breaks and in fact took breaks. Again, not being there, I can only offer you third party information that I had. Mr. Hall. I appreciate that. Just one more question about an incident at Wilkes-Barre at the tower, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, which was reported under Chapter 5, Section 1, Paragraph 74 of FAA Order 6930.25 Maintenance of Structures and Buildings concerning the degeneration or deterioration of the tower, wind vibrations causing fatigue and members' loose bolts and nuts, cracked members and welds, chafing of attached components, et cetera. You are probably familiar with this report. Members may deform under loads of ice and snow. Repairs that cannot be made immediately will be scheduled for priority action. Given this last statement in the above FAA order, can you explain why for over 10 years this structure at Wilkes-Barre has still not be corrected? Mr. Zaidman. I will take that one. We did have some safety issues at Wilkes-Barre. We fixed them some 18 months ago. It is not a permanent solution. One of the challenges that we have is finding new real estate to relocate the tower on. We need to rebuild it and find some place to put it on. So, for the meantime, we are making repairs. We have made them. We are monitoring it, and are looking for real estate to relocate and build a new one. Mr. Hall. Thank you, both of you. I just once again remind you that there is money available from Congress to deal with these things in a more timely fashion. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Hayes. Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, one quick question, what independence and autonomy does an individual supervisor have at a facility when he has got a maintenance problem? How much independence does he have to advocate to his upper management, we have a problem, we need to get it fixed? Mr. Johnson. Well, I know on the Operations side, they would immediately get in touch with the Tech Ops folks, report the problem and hopefully, typically, in a facility, get very quick results. I would just like to add to what Mr. Zaidman said earlier. From a technician side, I think we have one of the finest workforces on the Tech Ops side that I have ever seen, certainly demonstrating almost heroic efforts and achievements after Katrina to put the system back together. Mr. Zaidman. I will just add to that. What we have done is we decentralized our internal budget. We don't have a bureaucratic chain. If essential repairs are needed, it keeps on going up to my level. We have subdivided into districts. We have 46 districts. We give people the money, and we say, if you have a priority, you fix it. You don't have to come to Washington to get permission. Mr. Hayes. I appreciate that. I think it is obvious to everyone the high level of interest in this Committee in safe, reliable working conditions and some of these issues. If you stop the leak, then the maintenance staff can take over before the tech staff has to come in. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Costello. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble. Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good to have you all with us. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I was talking to a couple constituents back in my district recently, and one constituent admitted he had never flown. He said, I have great fear of flying. The second constituent admitted he flies frequently. He says, my main regret is having to go through an airport to get on the plane. Airports are becoming more and more unpopular, and I am not blaming you all for that. I think it is just the era in which we live. I think you may have touched on this in response to Mr. Petri's question, Mr. Johnson, but I assume that special consideration is extended for maintenance and/or improvements which are deemed necessary from a flight safety perspective. Is that correct? Mr. Johnson. In every instance, certainly if it has a safety aspect to it, it rises to the top of the list. Yes, sir. Mr. Coble. I am encouraged to hear that because I think safety should never be compromised. Let me ask you this. Regarding sponsor/airport-owned facilities staffed with FAA controllers, how do you go about addressing the facility maintenance and construction under this scenario? I guess my specific question is who is responsible for funding maintenance and construction? Mr. Zaidman. Within FAA, we have three directorates, if you will. One is Mr. Johnson's, that is responsible for coming up with the budget requirements and the architectural studies for terminal facilities. We have a different vice president, Mr. Day, who does the 20 en-route air traffic control centers, and I do the remaining work for that. Within my area, I am responsible for the construction of facilities. The other vice presidents that I alluded to are responsible for setting the priorities, the requirements, and getting the budget to do that. Mr. Coble. I got you. Mr. Johnson, you touched on consolidation earlier. Let me put a three-pronged question to you. Does the FAA terminate employees as a result of consolidation, a; b, how does the Agency look after its employees as the Agency moves forward toward efficient facility management; and finally, if you continue to consolidate will some employees be terminated? Mr. Johnson. Thank you. No, on the termination question. We need every air traffic controller that we have in the system right now, so we would not do anything that knowingly would cause us to lose air traffic controllers. When we do consolidations, we give longtime lead notice. There is coordination with the union on what is going to happen. We pay full PCS moves, which is permanent change of station, as you know, when we move the employees. Usually, during the lead time, some of the employees may bid on other positions to go to other places. Typically, on consolidations, if we are just moving the TRACON, the tower facility will stay. So some of the employees may decide to remain at the tower and work in the tower only. Some of the employees may decide to go to the consolidated facility and work in the TRACON. Mr. Coble. I got you. Mr. Johnson. There is no difference. In fact, we are actually going to add controllers to the system from where we are now. Mr. Coble. I thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, I want you to take note that I am yielding back my time before the red light appears. Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman and would ask other Members to consider doing the same. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Cohen. Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Johnson, I don't know if it would be you or your fellow there, but I believe it would be you. The numbers reviewed by our T&I Committee staff show the backlog of building maintenance repairs somewhere between 250 and 350 million dollars. FAA appears to be spending less than $60 million making those repairs. Why have we not requested or you not requested more money from Congress to make those necessary repairs? Mr. Zaidman. Yes, thank you for the question. Well, back to the budget, we request what we need in terms of the F&E program. That was stated before. I am sure you aware that we have requirements on the Operations side as well, and so what we have to do is balance our day to day Operations budget, which does include the day to day maintenance and repair. It doesn't come out of the F&E account, which handles major capital construction projects. So we look at both of these and try to balance the need for ongoing maintenance and emergency repairs with the need for new construction of major facilities, which comes out of a different account. We put that together and go back to the Congress with our request which includes both the Operations side and the capital side. Then, obviously, the third part of the budget is the grants program which is the Airport Improvement Development program, which also comes out of our budget. Mr. Cohen. I understand that, sir. Do you think that 50 to 60 million dollars is inadequate to maintain the facilities that we have? Mr. Zaidman. No. No. We need. Obviously, with 22,000 structures and buildings, we can only touch a portion of those each year, and we prioritize them. Mr. Cohen. Then why did you not request more monies from this Congress in the past? Mr. Zaidman. Because we requested what we needed in the Operations budget, which handles the critical repair and infrastructure repair. That, in turn, competes, if you will, against the capital budget. So we are able to come up with a total budget amount and present it to you. Mr. Cohen. Could you not have requested more? I mean at Christmas, I make a list. I used to make a list as a kid. I didn't stop with just a bicycle. I went for the basketball and the football. Mr. Zaidman. Well, internally, we do have our deliberations, and that is compared to the rest of the Department's needs and the Country's needs. I am sure you are more aware of the budget process than we are. Mr. Cohen. Do you have any idea how much money we spend in Iraq for these types of facilities? Mr. Zaidman. Well, I have read in the press what we spend. Mr. Cohen. Well, I haven't. Would you help me? Mr. Zaidman. I couldn't tell you offhand. Mr. Cohen. Do you have a ballpark figure? Mr. Zaidman. I focus on aviation. Mr. Cohen. But you have read the paper, so help me with what you have read. Mr. Zaidman. No, I couldn't cite a number today. Mr. Cohen. You don't remember. Mr. Zaidman. Correct. Mr. Cohen. Do you work at the Justice Department? They don't remember anything either. Mr. Johnson, do you remember or have any idea? Mr. Johnson. Restate the question again? Mr. Cohen. How much money we are spending as a Government in Iraq and Afghanistan, for that matter, on their aviation. Mr. Johnson. I do not know what the aviation figure that we are spending in Iraq. I know we support them with people that we send over there, but I don't know what the infrastructure costs? Mr. Cohen. How about their infrastructure? Do you think we are just operating on Saddam's infrastructure? Mr. Johnson. No. Mr. Cohen. We destroyed it. Mr. Johnson. Right. I think a lot of the radars that we are setting up there are radars that we have sent over. Mr. Cohen. Can you get us that information? Mr. Johnson. I certainly can try, sir. Mr. Cohen. It is just, I think, another example of where we have inadequate monies here for our security and yet we are supplying it over there. Let me ask you this. Do you all have any knowledge of what the situation is with the Memphis air traffic control, what repairs need to be made, what problems there might be? Mr. Johnson. I don't. I don't, not in Memphis. Mr. Cohen. Are there no problems in Memphis? Mr. Johnson. That would probably be on the unsafe side to say there are no problems. I am just not sure or aware of any. Mr. Cohen. Mr. Zaidman? Mr. Zaidman. No, not sitting here offhand. It hasn't come to my attention. Mr. Cohen. So Memphis is in great shape. Mr. Zaidman. Well, I am not saying that, but we could certainly look at it. In terms of the priorities that we see on a day to day basis, Memphis is in pretty good shape. Mr. Cohen. There was a report of a near crash the other day. Are you aware of that? Mr. Johnson. Not at Memphis, I am not. I am sorry. Mr. Cohen. No, it wasn't in Memphis. It was elsewhere. I think what I read--I did read that newspaper report--was that it might have had something to do with maybe inadequate training of the controllers or the inexperience of the controllers. Do you remember? Mr. Johnson. I don't. I am sorry. Mr. Cohen. You are not aware of that. Mr. Johnson. I don't know. Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield my time. Mr. Costello. I thank the gentleman. Just a quick question and point. The question is you, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Zaidman, you really do not have the final say-so in what the level of your budget is for the F&E account, do you? Mr. Zaidman. No, but we input our priorities, and that is correct. Mr. Costello. I didn't understand. Can you pull the microphone closer? Mr. Zaidman. I am sorry. We don't have the final say. We are part of the process but not the final decision-maker on that. Mr. Costello. As part of the process, do you request a specific amount for the F&E account? Mr. Zaidman. We request it by project. So when you add it up, it does come to a specific amount. Mr. Costello. Do you recall for the current fiscal year what amount you requested within the Agency? Mr. Zaidman. No, I don't recall. Mr. Costello. Do you have any idea? Do you know what you requested or spent the year before, the prior fiscal year? Mr. Zaidman. Well, the capital account was about $2.5 billion. That has been consistent over the past several years. Mr. Costello. Do you recall if you ever requested in the past 3 years over $2.5 billion? Mr. Zaidman. Well, in our total deliberations, and we rank the projects, they come above $2.5 billion. So yes, in terms of if we were able to do everything that our staffs ask us to do, it would exceed $2.5 billion. I don't want to call it a wish list but a list of potential projects. Mr. Costello. You are telling this Subcommittee that internally you received every dollar that you requested from within the Agency? In other words, you put a request in. This is what we are going to need to do everyday maintenance and repair of the TRACONs and the air traffic control towers. We need $2.5 billion and no more, and you got every dollar you requested. Mr. Zaidman. We don't get every dollar we request internally when we add it up. It would go far beyond. Mr. Costello. Mr. Zaidman, that is my whole point. Mr. Zaidman. Okay. Mr. Costello. I mean the point is whether you requested more. This Congress authorized for the last 3 years $3 billion each year. The Agency requested $2.5 billion, $500 million less than the Congress authorized. My question to you is, and I know you do not make the final decisions, so we are not here to beat up on you. What we are here to point out is that there are needs in the field that are not being met. My question to you is this. You didn't make the final decision, but did you request only $2.5 billion or did you request more and somewhere along the line in the Agency or OMB or in the White House, they ended up on a figure of 2.5 as opposed to what you requested? Mr. Zaidman. Well, the Agency requested 2.5, and internally it would be higher if we had an unbounded budget process. Mr. Costello. I know it would be higher. But my question is did you request more than the $2.5 billion? Mr. Zaidman. Well, not me, personally. Not me, personally. Mr. Costello. Did your Department request it? Mr. Zaidman. No. Mr. Costello. Let us quit dancing around the issue and answer the question. Mr. Zaidman. I am trying. Internally, we have a committee which spans our Air Traffic Organization. The total requirements quoted will exceed $2.5 billion to do all the construction and capital projects that we think we need to do. Mr. Costello. So, within the Agency, you made an assessment and said that we need more than $2.5 billion to meet our needs, to address the needs. In the end, you received $2.5 billion. Mr. Zaidman. At the staff level, the assessment was higher. But let me, if I can, Mr. Chairman. We also have an Operations budget. The Operations budget is the budget that addresses the maintenance and repair of the system. Mr. Costello. I understand. Mr. Zaidman. In that, we have adequate money. Mr. Costello. The Chair now recognizes at one time a former Chairman of this Subcommittee, Mr. Duncan from Tennessee. Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the great job you are doing as Chairman of this Subcommittee. Gentlemen, the testimony you have given so far and the answers have, I think, been very informative and helpful. There has not been anything yet that has really surprised me or shocked me, but there is one thing that I am very curious about. Every time we have a hearing, we are given very formal briefing papers about the hearing, and these are, I am told, joint efforts by the staffs on both sides. I am sure that most of this information in here originally came from the FAA, but it says the thing I am really curious about. It says the FAA manages over 22,000 facilities. You have an Agency with roughly 45,000 employees. I have been in many FAA facilities around the Country or quite a few anyway, and there are always many employees there. Now, surely this is wrong or there is a few thousand FAA facilities with just one employee or maybe thousands of FAA facilities with no employees. I am just wondering. Surely, you can tell me this is wrong. Mr. Zaidman. Well, let me explain what those numbers are. Mr. Duncan. Explain it to me. Mr. Zaidman. We have about 420, 450 facilities that are manned facilities, occupied by air traffic controllers. We have structures that house electronics that are unmanned. These put out electronic signals in space for navigation, for instance, and they are counted as part of those 22,000. We have radio towers that permit controllers to talk to airplanes and vice versa. That is counted as one of these 22,000. Mr. Duncan. I see. So most of those 22,000 are unmanned facilities. Mr. Zaidman. That is correct, sir. Mr. Duncan. Have you done any estimates of what the costs of maintaining all these facilities as opposed to consolidation of some of these facilities? Have there been any preliminary studies or estimates made? Do we have any rough guess? Mr. Johnson. We can tell you that on average when we build a new facility, which could include consolidation, the average cost is around $30 million to build a new facility. Now we have a high end on that, which is that we will spend $90 million for a facility that may be constrained because of the siting. The new Phoenix tower TRACON was one of those. Because the siting was constrained where it was, we paid quite a bit of extra money for blast walls, and the cost of steel went up. The cost of concrete went up. So even though we try to set that level at what we think we are going to spend for a facility, we have noticed over the last few years that our costs are rising by about 30 percent. From a cost of facility, from a cost of consolidation, I don't have a figure for that. Mr. Duncan. Do you have any idea how many new facilities you need at this time? Mr. Johnson. Well, we have 33 on the list. We have around 78 facilities that are less than 10 years old that we have built, that are wonderful facilities that are out there. They get around 10 years old, and of course they are starting to need maintenance and upkeep. Again, we have 33. Some of those are in various stages of completion in the system. Then the list, the master list where we look at the needs of the facilities and when we would replace them on a priority order, all 524 facilities are on that list. That is reworked periodically when we get new information. Mr. Duncan. You don't really have any estimate at this point about how much you could save by consolidation? Mr. Johnson. Not from a total figure, no, we don't. That kind of gets rolled up. Again, as we look at new builds and we look at what we are going to bring in, then we certainly have a figure for what it didn't cost us, cost savings, not to, say, build a TRACON onto a facility, usually four to five million dollars just for the structure itself. Then you start adding the electronics and the other gear, and the cost certainly climbs. Yes, we could put very specific figures to that. I couldn't give you an exact figure because it depends on the size of the facility. Mr. Duncan. One last thing I am a little curious about since Mr. Coble asked about would any employees be terminated and earlier Mr. Mica talked or mentioned about how it is almost impossible to terminate an employee. Do you have a rough guess as to how many FAA employees are terminated or fired each year? Mr. Johnson. I would say it is a very small number. I don't have an exact figure, but I would say it is a very small number. Mr. Duncan. All right. Thank you very much. Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Graves. Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. I apologize for being late. I had a meeting with on CAFTA. But I am very curious. One of the facilities, one of the tower facilities in question with the mold issue is the Kansas City tower which is actually a fairly new tower. We do have some mold issues there. I sent a letter to Administrator Blakey with Senator Bond about a month ago and hadn't received a response yet. I was just curious if that issue is being addressed and hopefully it is being addressed quickly. I would like to see that cleaned up. I visited the tower about three weeks ago and took a look at the problem, and it is definitely there. Mr. Zaidman. Yes, sir, it is there. We just issued a contract to do an engineering analysis to determine what we need to fix. We anticipate issuing a contract award to clean up the mold and make repairs this September. Mr. Graves. I would like if you would keep me informed of that. The biggest thing is I want to make sure it is being addressed and being addressed quickly, and if you would please keep my office in the loop on how that is progressing and what is happening. Mr. Zaidman. Be happy to. It is an issue for us. Mr. Graves. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman. Let me at this time thank you, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Zaidman, for your testimony. At this point, we will dismiss you. Again thank you for being here this morning and presenting your testimony. We will have our staff follow up with the requests that Mr. Mica and others have made. I know that we have at least one list in our possession, and we may need to get another from you, but we thank you for being here today and for presenting your testimony. We would ask the second panel, as Mr. Johnson and Mr. Zaidman leave the witness table, if you will come forward, please. I will go ahead and make introductions as you are coming forward. In the second panel, we will hear from Mr. Patrick Forrey, the President of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association; Ms. Patricia Gilbert, Chair of the National Legislative Committee for the National Air Traffic Controllers Association; and Mr. Tom Brantley, President of the Professional Airways Services Specialists, if you will all three be seated. Mr. Forrey, you are recognized under the five minute rule if you are prepared to find the right page and take your time. Whenever you are ready, you are recognized under the five minute rule. TESTIMONY OF PATRICK FORREY, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATION; PATRICIA GILBERT, CHAIR, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATION; TOM BRANTLEY, PRESIDENT, PROFESSIONAL AIRWAYS SERVICES SPECIALISTS, AFL-CIO Mr. Forrey. Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to come before your Committee. My name is Patrick Forrey. I am the President of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. NATCA has been fortunate enough to enjoy a good working relationship with the Members of this Committee. As many of you know, our organization is the exclusive representative of over 14,000 aviation safety-related professionals. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Petri, I would like to begin by expressing our sincere appreciation to both of you and the Members of this Committee for your interest in the conditions of the FAA's air traffic control facilities around the Country. We are particularly grateful for your willingness to learn about the experience of the employees who are working for these facilities. NATCA members can help to provide unique perspective on the state of the towers, centers and TRACONs nationwide. NATCA recently conducted a field survey of over 200 facilities. The survey identified a wide variety of problems and needs. Conversely, there are also facilities that did not exhibit maintenance challenges. My colleague, Patricia Gilbert, who is sitting next to me on my left, will present on that survey's findings after my testimony. The air traffic control system has made vast strides in safety and technology in its short existence. Unfortunately, many of the aging air traffic control facilities that house the systems and our controller workforce have gone unchanged or fallen into disrepair. More importantly, the facility maintenance has not kept pace with the weakening controllers' ability to operate the largest and most congested air space system in the world. NATCA believe that with proper maintenance, many of these facilities can and should continue to be viable sites for air traffic control systems regardless of their age. In that respect, we strongly support the enactment of H.R. 2881, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007, which authorizes critically needed funding levels that will enable the FAA to make needed repairs and replacement of existing facilities and equipment. We commend you, Mr. Chairman, and the Members of your Committee for that effort. Simply stated, the maintenance and preservation of its aging air traffic control facilities has not been a priority for the FAA. On many occasions, we have been found FAA employees have been forced to work in conditions that are unsafe which, in turn, can create unsafe conditions for the flying public. But just as concerning to us has been the repeated mishandling of unhealthy situations by FAA management officials. While buildings do get old and sometimes accidents happen involving harmful materials and noxious fumes, and by the way mostly by contractors, quick and effective management actions can mitigate the short and long term damage. I have personally brought this to the attention of the FAA Administrator in the wake of many controllers still suffering debilitating serious health problems after exposure to harmful conditions. It is important for any employer to have the trust of its employees that they will have a safe working environment. Exposure to these harmful contaminants has resulted in unsafe working conditions in many facilities across the Nation. In the Detroit tower, for instance, over 6,000 feet of mold contamination, an identical tower to Kansas City, by the way, was contaminated with material identified as black mold or stachybotrys. Despite the obvious confirmation of a hazardous situation, the Agency consistently marginalized NATCA's concerns and suggestions and would not work collaboratively to solve the problem. While the Agency has put resources into remediation of the mold problem discovered during a safety inspection in 2004, the problem still exists today. NATCA has also discovered that nearly half of all facilities have some sort of external leaks. Many of these leaks are into equipment rooms that jeopardize vital equipment. For example, controllers in the Atlanta ARTCC, which is a center down in Atlanta, have to guide aircraft while using an umbrella to protect them from water cascading into the roof on top of the equipment. As seen in the video clip earlier at the Grand Rapids facility, there really are no words necessary to express what is going on there. Additionally, significant chemical exposure incidents have results in respiratory injury. Three incidents recently at major facilities involving failed maintenance projects resulted in over a dozen employees being severely sickened. On February 28th, a contractor-botched roofing project and failed cleanup efforts at Jacksonville TRACON resulted in employees having to breath toxic odors. To date, five controllers are still out of work and being treated by the Mayo Clinic. In April, scheduled maintenance at an engine generator in the New York TRACON sent diesel exhaust fumes into the ventilation system of the building, resulting in a slow leak of deadly carbon monoxide gas. Six controllers were affected and showed the familiar signs of carbon monoxide poisoning, yet the facility's operations manager refused to allow the fire department to respond and forced the controllers to remain on the job. On May 9th at the Dulles air traffic control tower, the FAA delayed evacuation of controllers from the tower for 45 minutes after noxious fumes from an airport construction project were circulated in the tower's ventilation system, sending 5 employees to the hospital. Here is the key in all these instances. The Agency is slow to respond to the employees' health concerns, and the Agency denied the attempts to work with the FAA to correct the problem. Talking about facility consolidations, some have made the argument that the best way to deal with aging facilities is to consolidate them. We disagree. Our position is that the FAA must first fulfill its 30 year obligation to meet a specific operational need as well as cost reduction before consolidation can be considered. Safety of the system, modernization, service to the users, the impact on the employees are all considerations that need to be considered above and beyond just a dollar value that may be saved in consolidations. With funding comes responsibility and oversight of the proper accounting of taxpayer dollars. NATCA believes that the FAA must be held accountable to make better maintenance investment of ATC facilities. Just this February, the U.S. Department of Transportation Inspector General issued an audit announcing in which the FAA could not account for $4.7 billion of their September 30th, 2006 end of year funds regarding for property, plant and equipment line items. We find that quite interesting since up to this date, the Agency does not spend the amount of funding that they have been given, and yet they can't account for 4.7 billion over the last several years. In conclusion, we believe that the FAA must be held accountable to make better maintenance investments in ATC facilities. These are taxpayer-financed, and the taxpayers' investment must be protected. We support enactment of 2881, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007, which authorizes critically needed funding levels for the F&E accounts and will enable the FAA to make needed repairs and replacements of existing facilities and equipment. NATCA strongly supports participation in collaborative process with the FAA and the Agency's air traffic control programs and initiatives. NATCA also calls on the FAA to improve its procedures for dealing with hazardous workplace conditions and install carbon monoxide detectors and other appropriate monitors in all occupied structures. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you, Mr. Forrey, and recognizes Ms. Gilbert. Ms. Gilbert. Thank you, Chairman Costello and thank you, Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Petri for letting me appear before you today. My name is Patricia Gilbert. I am an air traffic controller at Houston Air Route Traffic Control Center and have been there for 19 years. As well as being a full time air traffic controller, I serve as NATCA's National Chairperson to the Legislative Committee. I would like to begin by expressing our deep appreciation for your interest in the condition of FAA facilities. The condition of the facilities, air traffic facilities, are a great concern to NATCA and its members especially in light of incidents that have jeopardized the employees' ability to perform their job safely. For example, unacceptable working conditions came to light when controllers became ill after noxious fumes entered work areas at a number of FAA facilities. Mr. Forrey touched on how the controllers in New York TRACON and Washington Dulles tower were recently taken ill when suddenly exposed to carbon monoxide. Other employees at facilities in Jacksonville, Florida, San Jose, California and Eugene, Oregon, faced a similar scenario when unidentified fumes entered their work areas as well. In each of these instances, the employees felt the Agency response did not correspond with their concerns. The FAA has never, to our knowledge until we heard Mr. Johnson's testimony, compiled an overall list of environmental, equipment, health or safety issues for its 314, and these are FAA air traffic facilities. His testimony said they talked to and got information from 89. Based on that lack of available data and the overwhelming volume of specific complaints from individual facilities, NATCA decided earlier this year to request individual facility reports from its field representatives for compiling into a national database. The survey gathered reports from air traffic control towers, FAA en-route traffic control centers and FAA terminal radar approach controls or TRACONs. When reviewing the results of our survey, we looked for any issues that potentially presented a safety concern. While information for some facilities was not received, over 220 facilities provided data in varying detail. This nationwide field survey identified a wide variety of problems and needs. In reviewing the research, we looked for trends as opposed to individual and routine maintenance issues. In this regard, the most commonly reported problems were mold and other harmful contaminants, external links and building ventilation and temperature control. The FAA's disregard of facility maintenance has resulted in harmful contaminants in many of its facilities. Exposures to these dangerous contaminants has resulted in unsafe worker conditions at facilities across the Nation. In the Detroit air traffic control tower, two years ago, black toxic mold as well as several other toxic molds were found. Chicago O'Hare air traffic control tower had fire suppression pipes break and flood various parts of the facility in February, and initial NATCA test results show possible mold. Kansas City tower recently identified mold in various rooms. Contaminated insulation was found below the raised flooring which is located directly in front of the air supply discharge. It is my understanding that FAA's approach to mold remediation is exactly the reverse of accepted practice. Their current intent is to remove and to treat mold first, then only at a later date, address the causes of the mold. Grand Rapids has had several environmental issues in the last 10 years relating to bacteria contamination, water leaks and possible mold contamination. The survey also revealed that air traffic control towers and radar rooms across the Nation have serious external leaks. Many of these leaks are into equipment rooms and jeopardize expensive and vital safety equipment. The Chicago Air Route Traffic Control Center, located in Aurora, had major leaks over the back wall of the building and in the basement. The extent of possible mold contamination is unknown at this point. Our research has found that in nearly every facility survey, the operators and occupants report poor heating and air conditioning and air quality. In several air traffic control towers, the poor environmental conditions represent potentially serious situations not just to the employees but to the flying public. A notable example is the recurrence of condensation accumulating on the window panes of tower cabs in San Juan in South Florida causing reducing visibility which in some cases can be extreme and unsafe. This picture on the monitor shows that due to condensation the San Juan tower cab windows, air traffic controllers are sometimes blind without the ability to scan the runways or taxiways. In this picture, you can barely make out an Airbus crossing in front of the tower. The following are some quick facts and statistics about the survey. Nearly 100 percent of the facilities responding reported declining environmental equipment, safety and/or health issues. Most facilities reported overall conditions of their facilities as merely fair with 62 reporting their condition as poor and an additional 18 reporting their condition as dangerous. Forty facilities report significant mold issues. Many are dealing with toxic mold and its associated health risk with the most extreme cases reporting employees already suffering long term and permanent injuries from exposure. Asbestos in buildings, other abatement issues and dangerous releases are still a serious concern at over 30 facilities. New York Center, Atlanta Center and Fargo, South Dakota tower, among others, are still awaiting years-long promised asbestos abatement. Seventy-five facilities report water leaks of which at least a half a dozen report frequent leaks directly on controllers or equipment. Adding to this are serious issues at many facilities with fumes leaking into the work areas from jet fuel, jet exhaust, insecticides, solvents and generator or other engine exhaust. Several facilities report employees still unable to return to work due to exposure side effects. Over 100 facilities report significant issues with heating and cooling, resulting in extreme seasonal temperature variations and inconsistent temperatures from area to area. Even brand new facilities such as Addison tower in Dallas, Texas, which was commissioned in 2006, report temperature variations with lows in the fifties and highs over a hundred degrees in the operating quarters, resulting in obvious human discomfort as well as equipment risk. Of these facilities, over 50 report chronic air quality issues including cold and flu-like symptoms, respiratory and breathing problems, headaches and controllers' routinely sickened from lack of ventilation. Northern California TRACON has recurring issues with snakes in the building during the summer and fall months while St. Louis tower deals with the challenge of bats. Both are relatively new facilities. Twenty-eight other facilities report invasive infestation issues with rats, mice, wasps, termites, ants and flies. Other issues of concern at numerous facilities including poorly placed equipment obstructing the operation or obscuring visibility, windows in tower cabs routinely fogging up on the inside as you saw with the San Juan tower cab, lead-heavy or malodorous or contaminated drinking water, excessive dust or other surface contaminants. We believe that it is clear that the FAA must be held accountable to make better maintenance investments in its air traffic control facilities. These are taxpayer-financed, and taxpayers' investments must be protected. Thank you, Chairman Oberstar, Chairman Costello and Ranking Member Petri. Mr. Costello. We thank you, Ms. Gilbert. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Brantley. Mr. Brantley. Thank you. Chairman Costello, Congressman Petri and Chairman Oberstar and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for holding this important hearing today and thank you for inviting PASS to testify. The Professional Airways Systems Specialists represent more than 11,000 FAA employees including those in our Air Traffic Organization Technical Operations Unit who install, maintain and certify the radar, navigation and communication systems making up the National Airspace System. For too many years, the FAA has neglected its infrastructure, specifically the buildings and facilities that accommodate NAS equipment and the employees who operate and maintain those systems. The images displayed on the screen reveal a disturbing pattern of deteriorating buildings, leaking roofs and unstable infrastructure that places employees and equipment at risk. Technicians in the field have reported many instances in which employees fell through rotting floors or fell off unstable platforms. In addition, exposure to mold and asbestos is a serious issue at numerous facilities that has the potential to impact the health of employees for years to come. I believe that the examples provided by PASS and NATCA in our written testimonies along with the pictures being displayed clearly demonstrate the severity and scope of the problem. The FAA spent a lot of time over the last several years talking about how it is becoming more businesslike and how it carefully weighs its decisions regarding how it accomplishes its mission like a business. According to FAA leadership, modernization and operation of the NAS are now being pursued in the same manner as any successful business in the Country would follow. That may play well as a sound bite, but it clearly does not apply to the FAA's management of its infrastructure. Would a successful business allow critical buildings and facilities to fall into such disrepair that they are not only a threat to the equipment they house and the users who rely on that equipment but also a very real threat to the safety of the employees who operate and maintain them? No. Would a successful business refuse to ask for the resources necessary to repair or replace these critical facilities? Again, the answer is no. Why then would FAA leadership allow these buildings and facilities to deteriorate so badly? Why would the FAA have a plan for completing inspections at its manned facilities that will take another 25 years to complete? Why would the FAA continue with a modernization plan that often includes placing new systems and equipment into facilities that are unacceptable for those systems and unsafe for the employees who use and maintain them? No successful business could be operated in such a hazardous way nor would a successful business allow facilities considered vital to its mission to exist in such conditions. However, I can assure you, as can our technicians in the field, that these facilities are critical to safe and efficient air travel. The FAA cannot continue to deny the importance of these facilities and employees by ignoring the infrastructure problems plaguing the NAS. The time for rhetoric from FAA leaders has passed. It is time for someone, anyone in FAA leadership to step up and deal with this crisis before it is too late. We have all seen and heard about the recent steam line explosion in New York City. I believe the similarities with the FAA's infrastructure are striking and frightening. They are both considered part of the infrastructure and therefore not visible in a public way. When things are not clearly visible to the public, there is a reluctance to focus energy or resources on them, but following that logic will always lead to disaster, as we recently saw in New York. I believe the FAA must take the following actions to avoid the same type of crippling disaster: The FAA should immediately analyze all currently available information regarding its most critical infrastructure problems and request the resources to fix them. The FAA must complete inspections of its manned and unmanned facilities within two years. The information gathered from these inspections must be factored into the Agency's budgeting from now on. It is clear that correcting problems in the early stage is more effective and much less costly than waiting until a complete failure happens. Last, but certainly not least, the FAA must begin to listen to the people who are the true experts on the state of the NAS and its infrastructure, the employees who operate and maintain it. Thank you and I look forward to any questions you may have. Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you, Mr. Brantley. The Chair now recognizes the distinguished Chairman of the Full Committee, Chairman Oberstar. Mr. Oberstar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you and Mr. Petri for your good work in launching this hearing. Our Committee investigative staff were digging into the issues. I regret not being here at the outset, but I was on the Floor, defending Lake Michigan against predations of a similar nature by British Petroleum planning to dump toxics into Lake Michigan. To the rain at Grand Rapids, Michigan, the black mold in the Western Pacific tower, mold at Dallas-Fort Worth, O'Hare, Kansas City, Detroit, you can add snow in the tower at Duluth, Minnesota, snow and flies in the winter. The air traffic controllers plugged the holes in the windows to keep the snow out, but then they were batting flies that came out of the woodwork in the middle of January with zero degrees outside. Finally, the FAA came and replaced the windows and pronounced the tower in good shape. This is a tower that predates the jet age by about 20 years, and they haven't seen fit to build a new one. It is, to me, just astonishing that we have the entire aviation industry, essentially both houses of Congress, the FAA, DOT, all focusing on capacity limitations of technology in the current system, the need to upgrade technology to NextGen, and they are not paying attention to the workplace within which this new technology is going to be located and the men and women who have to operate that equipment under these appalling conditions. Our investigative staff has documented the roof leaks, the mold, the pest infestation, the poor quality heating, ventilation, air condition, asbestos, space limitations, unsanitary conditions, broken or damaged office equipment that hasn't been replaced or restored. You know if the headquarters folk of DOT or FAA had to operate under those conditions, there would be a really fast response. In fact, even this Committee, here you have the Department of Transportation headquarters with such bad and poorly functioning heating/air conditioning units that they had mold causing illnesses within similar to Legionnaire's disease within the building. This Committee, seven, eight years ago approved a new structure for DOT costing nearly a billion dollars. It didn't take them long to fix that. Maybe we should have shaved some of that money off the new DOT headquarters and put into the air traffic control facilities. We were counting on FAA to be not only good stewards of safety in the air but good stewards for the women and men who operate the air traffic control system to make sure that safety is maintained at its highest level. It is a great tribute, Mr. Forrey, Ms. Gilbert and Mr. Brantley, to your members that they operate under these deplorable conditions. I have been in those towers. I have been in the facilities that have the mold, that have the leaks, and in the case of Duluth in my district that have the snow coming in the windows. FAA needs to spend a little more time and pay a good deal more attention to the needs of the very system that they are trying to operate and to upgrade. What do you think is needed, Mr. Forrey, Ms. Gilbert? What are your thoughts about what kind of investments and what timetable and schedule and what needs to be fixed internally within FAA to get their attention, to address these problems and to do so in short order? Mr. Forrey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe probably the biggest thing that they could start with doing is to include their employees, the experts on all of these things, to what the solution should be. Mr. Oberstar. I mean there are no surveys? There are no sort of air traffic controller town meetings held with the Administrator to hear your concerns? Mr. Forrey. Not that I am aware of. There are surveys that are put out. I think the last survey that the Agency put out, the Employee Attitudes Survey, was they ranked, I think, a whole 13 percent of job satisfaction by the employees or 9 percent job satisfaction. They came out 243 out of 243 as far as employee dissatisfaction with their Agency based on a lot of these issues, a lot of the things that are going on with the Agency today, the state of the facilities, what their conditions they work in, the way they are treated by management, the way they are left out of the process of any decision-making. All those things have a morale so low in the FAA that you can only go up, quite frankly. Mr. Oberstar. That is deplorable. Ms. Gilbert? Ms. Gilbert. As far as the Agency, I was a little disturbed to hear testimony earlier from the first panel that funds were available and they have yet to use those funds to maintain their facilities. I would say in addition to the collaboration piece, working with their employees to improve the working conditions, they should also look closer at their workman's comp claims and not controvert those as they come into their desks and actually look at these people and take them serious instead of what Mr. Johnson did in his testimony which is advocate that those people had a chance to leave New York TRACON. I immediately heard it when I went into my building the very next day that those controllers, from FAA management perspective, made the whole story up. Forget the story that they went into a hospital after the fact and did test positive for carbon monoxide in their system. So workman's comp claims, I think if they paid attention to those, it would help quite a bit as well. Mr. Oberstar. What cost will it take, Mr. Brantley? Have you done some estimates of annual or recurring costs needed to upgrade facilities? Mr. Brantley. Mr. Chairman, I think part of the answer is that it depends because the way the FAA currently performs the maintenance on its infrastructure is they wait until it is completely failing, and the cost then is so much higher than it would be if you fixed it originally. So the cost should be much lower than it will ultimately be. I believe the estimates are somewhere between $250 and $350 million for the current backlog on the manned facilities. The other 22,000 that were discussed earlier, I have no idea what that cost would be, and consolidation isn't the same kind of a panacea for unmanned facilities that some believe it is for the manned facilities. Most of these are navigation systems, communication systems that have to be there regardless of where the TRACON or tower is located. They have to begin doing it now, and they have to begin doing it right or the problem is going to snowball until it is something that is unmanageable. Mr. Oberstar. Let me ask your help in preparing for the Committee in the next week or so before we hopefully bring the FAA Reauthorization Bill to the House Floor. A compilation of facilities that you would rank in some order of urgency of need of repair and a ballpark cost estimate, get that to us, and let us see if there is some way that we can work with that before we bring the authorization bill to the House Floor. Mr. Brantley. Absolutely. I would be happy to do. Mr. Oberstar. I think we ought to do that. We owe it to you. The FAA owes it to you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Costello. Thank you, Chairman Oberstar. Ms. Gilbert, you mentioned in your testimony that there are at least 40 facilities that you are aware of that have reported problems with mold. We have heard testimony earlier. You heard me ask the question of Mr. Johnson from the FAA, how many facilities that they actually made an FCI assessment on, and it was the Committee's information that 89 of 401 facilities actually had been assessed, obviously a very small number. My question is if, in fact, you are aware of 40 facilities that have mold, do you have a list now? Either NATCA or PASS, have you compiled a list based upon the complaints from your members, listing those facilities that have mold, that have other structural problems or other problems that present unsafe or unhealthy conditions? Ms. Gilbert. Yes, we do have a list of those facilities, and we can provide that to the Committee. Of the facilities that we do know of that have, at least 40, and I am saying at least 40. There may be more. My facility itself has roof leak issues, and so there are facilities around the Country. You don't know what kind of problems you have when the leaks don't get fixed and the mold is allows to get worse in facilities. So we can provide that. Mr. Costello. The list that you have, is it prioritized starting with the facility that you believe should be addressed first based upon the existing conditions? Ms. Gilbert. Yes. It is a result of our survey. We can gather further data from those that did not respond. We did rank them based on the type of issues they had in their facilities and the severity of those issues. Mr. Costello. I heard in your testimony and I would like you to clarify for me that you were somewhat surprised when Mr. Johnson talked about some type of list that the FAA has that apparently you were not aware of, is that correct? Ms. Gilbert. That is correct. Mr. Costello. Clarify that for me. You were not aware that they have a list at all? They obviously had not solicited your opinions, solicited information from you or your members. Is that a correct statement? Ms. Gilbert. That is correct. Mr. Costello. Obviously, and I think I pointed out with the first panel that Mr. Poe from Texas made the point on the TRACON and tower consolidation effort by the FAA, that there has been a horrible lack of communication not only with Members of Congress and our staff and the Committee but also with the stakeholders, with the controllers and with everyone involved in the system. Obviously, that is a problem with this situation as well, that they are not soliciting information from their own employees, from members of PASS, members of NATCA and others to ask for your help in reporting these problems so that they can be addressed. Also, I made the point over and over that, of course, Mr. Johnson does not have the final say on the FAA's budget, on the F&E account, but this Congress approved a $3 billion authorization for the F&E account. For the last three years, the FAA has requested less than the authorized amount. They have requested $2.5 billion versus $3 billion. They have left $500 million behind, and that is one of the reasons why in my judgment that we have all of these maintenance challenges that they are not undertaking. The Congress recognized the problem, and the Congress authorized the money, but the FAA has not used the money or requested the full authorization level. I have a question about process. You heard me ask Mr. Johnson the process if, in fact, an employee feels that they have health problems as a result of the conditions in the tower or the facility where they are working. What is the process, and he said, well, the employee fills out a form and files the form with the Agency. One, Mr. Forrey, I would ask you to walk us through the process from the employees' perspective, from your members' perspective, and I would ask Mr. Brantley to do the same. What is the process? I will have some other questions when you are finished explaining. Mr. Forrey. The process is when an employee gets injured on the job, it is a workman's comp claim, what they refer to as CA1 or a CA2 or an occupational disease meaning long exposure to some condition at work. In all these cases, the Agency is controverting every single claim filed by the employees. They have hired people from the Department of Labor that understand workman's comp claims and are showing them how to beat them in court or how to win them back. It is actually pretty disgusting what they are doing in my opinion. I have employees right now that the answer to any claim that is approved by the Department of Labor, a lot of times the answer by the Agency as well, is they have their claim, that is their compensation, but yet these people have to go back to work sometime. I have a couple of people at Detroit that were affected by the mold. The one has stachybotrys antibodies in his blood system. His brain is deteriorating. There is no way he is ever going to be able to go back to work. The Agency fights his claim, and now the guy is looking to filing bankruptcy. This is the kind of stuff that is going on in the field. The employees down at Jacksonville where the contractor let the toxic chemicals come through the ceiling, where controllers were complaining about the smell. It was making them nauseous, and they were having a difficult time concentrating and seeing. They got a hard time with the manager there because they don't want to interrupt the operation. It took five days--five days--for the Agency to do something. The result was they brought in some big fans to blow air, and then they test the air in front of the big fan and say, see, the air is fine in here. At Detroit, they won't even test the mold. They won't even test it to verify that it is black mold any recent time. We offered as a union to supply the money to put air scrubbers and to monitor the air when they did these projects when they first started, and they refused that. So now they spent millions of dollars trying to remediate that building, and it has still got mold growing in it. That is the kind of fighting that the Agency has been doing with us, and I don't understand why. We are there to help them. I mean we even offered to pony up to say we will pay for the air scrubbers if you don't want to do, and yet we find out that they have 500 million that they don't even spend. I don't understand that at all. Mr. Costello. Mr. Brantley? Mr. Brantley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with the process as described by Mr. Forrey of when an employee is exposed to something or is injured on the job. They fill out the form, and then they begin defending themselves for the next several months or years, however long it takes to get resolved. When it comes to an employee maybe not being injured but finding a problem, it is a very similar process. It is a different form, but they will fill out a form. They will make an entry in a maintenance log for that facility, saying that they found whatever the problem is. They will report it to their supervisor, and that is where it sits. It is kind of ironic that one of the things that we noticed first after you announced the hearing was upcoming was the word got out to the field that if anyone had any maintenance problems, they should get them in so that they could get them into the budget. I am sure as soon as any attention blows over, that is going to become irrelevant again, but it kind of illustrates how the Agency views it. It is a problem when someone is paying attention and other than that, there is no process to actually resolve them. Mr. Costello. Also, the statement that you made about the word went out for an assessment certainly goes to the point that aggressive oversight by the Congress and by Committees of the Congress, in particular in this case, this Committee. Aggressive oversight gets results from Federal agencies, and the lack of oversight gets no results. Mr. Brantley. Yes, sir, and we thank you for that. Mr. Costello. Let me ask you. In your judgment, when an employee files a workman's comp claim, does it trigger an FCI assessment by the FAA? In other words, if an employee files a claim, a workman's comp claim, if they are either injured or have some type of problem, health problem, as a result of working in a particular facility, does the FAA come out and make an assessment, Mr. Forrey? Mr. Forrey. I am not aware of that. I mean that was the first I heard of this FCI assessment today anyway. I had no idea they were doing that. I would not know if that triggers anything in their mind. Mr. Costello. So you had no idea before the testimony today that there was an FCI assessment that even existed? Mr. Forrey. No, I wasn't aware of it. Mr. Costello. Ms. Gilbert? Ms. Gilbert. No, I was not aware of that. Mr. Costello. Mr. Brantley? Mr. Brantley. I was made aware in the last week in preparing for the hearing, but no, to my knowledge, it doesn't trigger any kind of analysis. Something, if I might add, our internal experts have told us that they believe the FCI assessments are maybe not being done as well as they should be or as thoroughly either, that it may be more of a checklist that someone is going through and not actually doing an analysis to figure out where problems are. Mr. Costello. Final question and then I will turn to the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee. You have indicated in your testimony, Mr. Forrey, and I think you as well, Mr. Brantley, that some of these conditions, you believe are in violation of OSHA standards. So my question is have either you on behalf of your members or any of your members filed a complaint with OSHA and asked OSHA to come out and make inspections to determine if there are violations? Mr. Forrey. Yes, we have in several locations, and OSHA has come out in several locations and filed a complaint or a notice to the Agency that they need to fix a certain situation ongoing. Then there is some gray area as to what OSHA requires under like remediation for mold and what the industry standard requires. So we play games back and forth about that instead of just doing what is right for the employees, and that is unfortunate as well. Yes, we have gotten OSHA involved in many of these situations. Mr. Costello. Mr. Brantley? Mr. Brantley. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we have also done that. When it involves a situation where employees are or there is an immediate threat that they will be in some way injured or their health will be at risk, we have had good luck with OSHA being willing to come. One of the things we find is if it is just a potential risk, OSHA is very reluctant to even come do an inspection. They have their marching orders too, and I think as much as possible they are told to leave the Federal Government alone unless they have to do something. Mr. Costello. Well, in addition to Chairman Oberstar's request of providing a list to us of facilities that have problems, I would ask you to provide a separate list of those that you believe are in violation of OSHA standards. Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Chairman, if I may interrupt for just a moment if the Chairman would yield. Mr. Costello. Yes, please. Mr. Oberstar. I find it astonishing that FAA is hiding behind the excuse: We need to modernize to NextGen our air traffic control facilities. Therefore, we can't improve these facilities. The comment, in fact, by an FAA witness was that our transition to NextGen would be at risk. The result would be aviation gridlock. They are not going to have NextGen in place for 10 years. Meanwhile, they are going to ask all these air traffic controllers to suffer in the mold and the insects and the disease visited upon them by these wretched facilities. That is appalling. We have to fix that. Thank you. Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr. Petri, for any questions or comment. Mr. Petri. Thank you very much and thank you for your testimony here today. I guess I am kind of sitting here, thinking about what we can do to improve the situation going forward. It is easy. It is not easy, but it is important to point out problems and it is frustrating. We have very talented, dedicated, able people who are air traffic controllers with a lot of responsibility. I met with the Association of the Supervisors, and they are gung-ho and hard-focused people as well. There must be some way we can do a better job of involving people in coming up with solutions for managing the environment that they are working in properly. It is not just money. In fact, there might be ways of saving money if it is done with better communication and more involvement. One of the frustrations in any of these large organizations is that you fill something out and nothing happens. If there is better communication and there is some way of solving a problem, it helps morale and the glass is then half full instead of half empty. I don't know if there are ways we can be helpful at all, and this hearing may help some, not in a gotcha exactly, but it focuses on a problem. We need to focus on areas of making the job more satisfying and making the environment better and making sure we helping morale. That helps safety in the long run if people feel that they have respect and if they have a problem. We can all be wrong, too. In some areas, it may be that there is a reason why things are the way they are. I don't know if you have any comments on that, but if there are some things because we are working on a reauthorization now. It can be put in a political context, but this has been going on for many years in one Administration or another. It is sort of a bureaucratic organizational problem. I know you are new, so you would like to try to help, I suspect. If there are some ways that we can be constructive going forward, I would be eager to work with you on it. Mr. Forrey. Thank you, Mr. Petri. I may be new in this position, but I have been involved with the FAA for almost 23 years now and as a representative of the union for almost 19. I think up to a few years ago, we worked quite well together between the Agency and the unions as far as collaboratively to make things better and looking into the future. I don't know what the rationale behind the Agency is that they don't want to spend money appropriated to them or authorized for them to spend on their maintenance of the system. I mean I am somewhat cynical after working for the Agency and dealing with them for the last 23 years, that if they let these buildings go into disrepair, it is much easier to consolidate. That is, I think, some of the motivation here, to be honest with you. Again, we are not opposed to consolidations. This is the 21st Century. We need to think ahead to the Next Generation of the air traffic control system which right now is nothing more than a concept anyway. To do that together is the best way to do that. But we can't forget the here and now. I mean we still have 314 facilities across this Country that are providing safety services to the public, and we need to make sure that the people operating those facilities can do the jobs that they were hired to do and trained to do. Collaboratively, I think you guys touched on it in H.R. 2881 as far as the process for consolidations. The whole deal with air space, the whole deal with modernizing the system, they need to bring the experts into this process and right now we are not in this process. We have been shut out of this process. Until that changes and you, by this Congress, can change that, it would be the best thing to do to get us moving in the right direction. Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the Ranking Member. The final question that I have before I go back to the Chairman of the Full Committee, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Forrey and Mr. Brantley, in particular, you are aware of the process that we have set up in the FAA reauthorization bill for the consolidation of the TRACONs and towers. My question is that, obviously, what we attempted to do is to bring the stakeholders, to get everyone's opinion, to have a process where obviously one of the problems here with the unsafe and unhealthy working conditions is that the FAA is not talking to or listening to the employees who have to work in these facilities every day. With the consolidation and closing of TRACONs and towers, we want to make certain that the stakeholders are involved, that the people who work in those facilities every day have input as to what should happen as far as consolidation is concerned. The question that I have, you have had an opportunity to review the language in the legislation that passed the Full Committee and hopefully is on its way to the House. I wonder if you might comment on the process that we have established in the bill. Mr. Forrey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have. I think that the language in the current bill is very good language. I think it could be tightened up quite a bit. Again, it is my cynicism of dealing with the Agency over the last several years. They want to continue forward with the consolidations that they have on the table right now, but they have not evaluated whether that is a safety issue, whether service to the users, and they want to just barrel ahead because that is the way they have done things. That would be my only, for lack of a better word, criticism of the bill is it still gives them the ability to forge ahead even though they are listening to us. They are listening, but that doesn't mean they are going to take anything into account that we say. So I think that would be helpful, something in the language of the bill that would tighten that up a bit, that would at least force the Agency to adopt some of these issues that these user groups are coming up with that meet within obviously the budget and the admission of the Agency. I mean that is all I can say on that. Mr. Costello. In the process, of course, as I mentioned in my opening statement, the Congress has the last say. Mr. Brantley? Mr. Brantley. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the language is extremely good and helpful because I don't see it stopping anything. What I do see is it requiring good decisions made for the right reasons and done in the light of day, and I think that is always much better than just doing something and making everyone come along, whether it is a good idea or not. I think it is something that could help the Agency consolidate where it makes sense--when it makes sense. If I might, if I could beg your indulgence for a moment, something just struck me that I would like to respond to from a couple of remarks earlier about the idea of the maintenance either not being done properly or even there was a comment that maybe it is too hard to fire people if they can't do their jobs. The reality is when we are talking about people responsible for the maintenance of these facilities, there is no one left to fire. That workforce has been reduced so much that they don't send them out to do maintenance. The bulk of their time is spent on new construction, new installation. There is just, frankly, no one left to do the work. Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman. I understand that Mr. Boozman may have a question. Mr. Boozman. I just have a question, a couple questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Costello. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. Boozman. Thank you very much. I guess the question I would have is that these things, I know you have had some challenges working with the Administration the last few years or whatever as you alluded to, Mr. Forrey. These things don't just happen overnight, though. In other words, things just don't go in disrepair. I have a great deal of sympathy for people that are working in adverse conditions, and it is something that we need to get fixed. I guess my question is, again, this is something that hasn't just happened. There is something systemically wrong in the system or we wouldn't be in this condition. In other areas, the VA and things like that, the authorizing Committee specifically working, in the case of the VA or whomever, works with that. Hopefully, they work with everyone within the agency, and then they come up with a list of hospitals and things that need work and this and that to try and depoliticize the process. I guess my question is do we need to look at the process? Do we need to look at maybe doing some things like that that perhaps would make us a little bit more efficient? I think there is probably two things going on. Just a lack of money, a lack of resources, and certainly that is out there. The other thing is that there probably is some politicization of the process, and maybe money is at times getting there because of a squeaky wheel that it winds up getting in that situation. Could you comment on that? Would that be helpful if we looked at perhaps? Again, I am not advocating that we do that tomorrow but start looking in that direction, maybe we as the authorizing Committee getting a little bit more involved with specific projects authorized based on input from the workers and the FAA. Mr. Forrey. I think anything that the Committee can do that would include all the stakeholders like the current language does in the bill is a positive step in the right direction. What would concern me about, and maybe I heard you wrong and I think what has happened in the past is that certain constituencies have kind of stolen some of that money to do something in this district instead of working on a project that was in disrepair, that needed fixed over here. I think some of that has gone on in the past and probably will in the future. But I think the maintenance of the facilities, it is like the infrastructure problem that Tom Brantley brought up earlier. It is not seen. People don't see it, and people don't have to look at it every day, day in and day out, and they don't understand how bad it is and in how much disrepair it is. I think that anything that you could have, any process that is in place that provides input from all users and all the stakeholders, that identifies that and prioritizes what needs to get fixed would be great. We don't have that right now. Mr. Brantley. Thank you for the question. I think I agree that any input or any help that the Subcommittee could give to help bring people together and actually talk through the problem and try to find solutions that make sense would be more than welcome. I think figuring out what the real problems are might be harder than it seems on the surface. I think, as you mentioned, lack of resources. I personally have a hard time with the Agency talking about other priorities getting in the way and then the money is then diverted for something, whether it has been earmarked by a Member or whatever. The fact is if they need $350 million and they ask for $60, you can't take something away that they never got. So I think the whole idea of that is just to me, ludicrous. I think they need to be a little more forthcoming about why. Frankly, I don't care why, but they need to start asking for what they need. That is very important. Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes the distinguished Chairman of the Full Committee, Chairman Oberstar. Mr. Oberstar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank our panel for their thoughtful observations and for the factual presentation. We do not allow earmarks in the FAA authorization bill. Sometimes they creep into appropriations bills for one or another facility but usually in Committee report language and not in bill legislative language. Over all my service in Congress, we have trusted the FAA to make good decisions within the scope of the NAIP, the National Aviation Investment Plan, for what is in the best interest of aviation nationwide, for investment in runways and taxiways, the hard side of airports to create the greatest opportunity for capacity enhancement. We have trusted the FAA to make its decisions on installation of new technologies at air traffic control facilities. When the DSR was installed, we didn't say put it in this place or in that facility. When the STARS was installed, we didn't tell them which facilities to start with. When the VSCS, Voice Switching and Control System, was put in place, we didn't tell FAA which facility to start with. We trusted to their judgment. We are not proposing--I am not proposing at least--in asking for a listing of facilities to categorize those in a bill but to give FAA specific direction to deal with their health of their workers in the workplace. When flight attendants said smoking is damaging our health, it is causing us increased expense to maintain our work uniforms, this aluminum tube is our workplace, this Committee held 10 hours of hearings, 10 hours of markup to fix the problem. Eventually, we had to take it to the House Floor and impose, through an amendment impose first a limitation and then elimination of smoking in that workplace. Well, we need to address the workplace of air traffic controllers. I don't care if NextGen comes in next week. They need to fix those facilities now. There is no excuse to have mold, rain dripping in your workplace, snow blowing into the windows, flies in the wintertime asbestos circulating through the workplace. That is intolerable. The FAA cannot hide behind modernization of air traffic control and say, oh, by the way, we can't fix these facilities because we want to consolidate them. That consolidation is going to take five or ten years. It is nonsense. I am sorry I missed the FAA panel. I wanted to tell them that firsthand. But they are following this. They will hear it, and they are going to hear it from me directly. I hope that by the time we get to the House Floor, we will be able to fix it in the authorization bill. Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks Chairman Oberstar and thanks our panel of witnesses. Let me not only thank you for being here today to present your testimony but also to let you know that we intend to continue to provide oversight over the Agency and this will not be the last time that we visit this issue. I assure you we will revisit the issue and make certain that the FAA proceeds with a plan to address these facilities. We thank you, and the Committee stands adjourned. [Whereupon, at 12:42 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.149 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.150 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.151 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.152 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.153 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.154 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.155 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.156 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.090 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.091 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.092 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.093 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.094 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.095 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.096 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.097 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.098 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.099 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.100 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.101 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.102 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.103 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.104 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.105 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.106 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.107 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.108 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.109 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.110 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.111 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.112 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.113 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.114 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.115 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.116 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.117 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.118 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.119 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.120 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.121 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.122 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.123 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.124 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.125 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.126 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.127 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.128 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.129 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.130 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.131 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.132 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.133 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.134 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.135 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.136 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.137 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.138 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.139 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.140 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.141 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.142 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.143 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.144 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.145 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.146 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.147 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6964.148