U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

76–498 2012

USER FEES IN THE AVIATION INDUSTRY: 

TURBULENCE AHEAD 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

UNITED STATES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 

Small Business Committee Document Number 112–085 

Available via the GPO Website: www.fdsys.gov 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with E:\Seals\Congress.#13

erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Hon. Sam Graves ..................................................................................................... 1 

Hon. Nydia Vela ́zquez, ............................................................................................ 2 

WITNESSES 

Marian Epps, CFO, Epps Aviation, DeKalb-Peachtree Airport, Atlanta, GA .... 3 

Martha King, Co-Owner, Co-Chairman, King Schools, Inc., San Diego, CA ...... 5 

Kenneth J. Button, George Mason University, University Professor, Director, 

Center for Transportation, Policy, Operations and Logistics; and, Director, 

Aerospace Policy Research Center, Arlington, VA ............................................ 7 

Brad Pierce, President, Restaurant Equipment World, Orlando, FL .................. 9 

APPENDIX 

Prepared Statements: 

Marian Epps, CFO, Epps Aviation, DeKalb-Peachtree Airport, Atlanta, 

GA .................................................................................................................. 22 

Martha King, Co-Owner, Co-Chairman, King Schools, Inc., San Diego, 

CA ................................................................................................................... 26 

Kenneth J. Button, George Mason University, University Professor, Director, Center for Transportation, Policy, Operations and Logistics; and, 

Director, Aerospace Policy Research Center, Arlington, VA ..................... 30 

Brad Pierce, President, Restaurant Equipment World, Orlando, FL .......... 39 

Questions for the Record: 

None 

Answers for the Record: 

None 

Additional Materials for the Record: 

Ed Oberholtzer Letter for the Record ............................................................. 45 

Letter to President Obama Opposing Aviation User Fees ............................ 46 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 

erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
(1) 

USER FEES IN THE AVIATION INDUSTRY: 

TURBULENCE AHEAD 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 1:00 p.m., in room 2360, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sam Graves (Chairman of 

the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Graves, Mulvaney, West, Hanna, Schilling, Vela ́zquez, and Schrader. 

Chairman GRAVES. Good afternoon, everyone. I want to call the 

hearing to order and welcome everybody for joining us. 

We have an excellent panel here today to examine President 

Obama’s proposal to impose per flight user fees on aviation operators. Unfortunately, this isn’t a new proposal. Previous Presidents 

have suggested a user fee system for aviation in addition to the 

current taxes and fees that are already levied as a way to bolster 

the Airport and Airways Trust Fund. 

Fortunately, these proposals have never been enacted. And today 

we are going to discuss how important it is that they are never enacted. 

In the fiscal year 2013 budget, President Obama proposed a $100 

per flight user fee on general aviation operators. Imposing such a 

plan has the very real potential to stifle the general aviation industry as a whole and harm job creation. The general aviation industry is predominantly made up of small businesses. Annually, it accounts for 27 million flight hours, carries 166 million passengers to 

around 5,000 communities. And according to the National Air 

Transportation Association, more than two-thirds of general aviation flights are for business purposes. 

Overall, general aviation both operations and manufacturing em- ploys about 1.2 million people and contributes approximately $150 

billion to our gross domestic product. The bottom line is, general 

aviation is a very significant part of our national economy. 

The general aviation community has always contributed financially to the national air transportation infrastructure. And since 

the inception of the Airport and Airways Trust Fund, the general 

aviation community has paid its share through a 21.9 cent per gallon tax on jet fuel and a 19.4 cent per gallon tax on aviation gasoline, all without the need for a large bureaucracy to collect these 

taxes from hundreds of thousands of individual pilots and aircraft 

owners. This is a far more equitable and efficient way to address 

our aviation and infrastructure needs. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
2 

Imposing a $100 per flight user fee on operators is simply the 

wrong approach, and the President offered very few details as to 

how such a system would be established and even less analysis on 

how it would impact the aviation industry. I believe this is very 

bad policy, and there is little doubt it would stifle job creation and 

economic growth in the United States. I would also like to remind 

my colleagues on the Committee of the broad and bipartisan opposition from Congress to the President’s proposal. And I would ask 

unanimous consent that a letter that was sent and signed by 195 

Members of Congress expressing concerns be submitted into the 

record. 

Without objection, we will do that. It is so ordered. And again I 

want to thank our witnesses for taking the time to be with us 

today, and I look forward to hearing all of the testimony that we 

are going to hear today. 

I would now yield to Ranking Member Vela ́zquez for her opening 

statement. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good afternoon. 

The U.S. economy is as complex as it is vibrant, requiring frequent travel throughout the Nation. For small businesswomen and 

men, this may mean traveling at the last minute or to remote 

areas that are not served regularly by commercial airlines. As a result, general aviation and the flexibility it provides plays a key role 

in our Nation’s growth. In fact, general aviation directly generated 

$22.1 billion in 2009 and has an overall impact of $76.5 billion, employing nearly half a million workers. This contribution will no 

doubt grow as the economy continues to recover. 

With this important role in mind, it is critical that we carefully 

examine any potential policy that could impact this industry and 

the workers it employs. One such policy is the administration’s proposal to levy a $100 fee on takeoffs and landings for commercial 

airplanes and corporate jets. While all piston and emergency aircraft will be exempt, this new fee structure could create new burdens for the aviation community while requiring a new bureaucracy to monitor compliance. It is important to carefully consider 

whether the benefits of the new user fee system outweighs the cost 

of its implementation. 

While it is sensible to talk about this user fee proposal, doing so 

really misses the elephant in the room today. And that elephant is 

sequestration and the across-the-board cuts on all Federal spending 

that will take effect in January. Estimates show that the FAA 

stands to lose $1 billion through funding as a result. According to 

a study by the Aerospace Industry Association, this could force the 

layoff of almost 1,500 air traffic controllers, nearly 10 percent of 

the total, and the closing of more than 240 airport control towers 

around the country. Many of these closings will likely occur at 

smaller airports that handle less traffic, those that are most used 

by the general aviation community. 

Additionally, passenger traffic could drop by 10 percent, causing 

aircraft manufacturing to fall, costing the economy another 11,000 

to 22,000 jobs. So while it is important to discuss the imposition 

of user fees, it is equally if not more important to talk about the 

effects of fiscal belt tightening on the general aviation industry. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
3 

This issue is not unique to the FAA or aviation, but it will have 

to be addressed jointly by the government and the private citizens 

that rely on those specific services. 

Whether it is crop insurance for farmers, loans for small businesses, entrance fees at national parks, or traffic control services 

for pilots and their passengers, reduced Federal funding creates 

difficult choices. Tough decisions will have to be made, and hearings like the one that we are having today can help us determine 

what the best solution is. 

Ensuring that the general aviation industry remains strong in 

light of these current fiscal challenges is a priority for this Committee. It plays an important role in the U.S. economy particularly 

for areas that lack other transportation infrastructure, and it is 

poised to grow stronger over the next 20 years. Through its presence, it not only creates jobs but also serves as an economic anchor 

for many rural communities. 

I would like to thank the distinguished panel of witnesses for 

traveling here today. And I look forward to their testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman GRAVES. Thanks, Nydia. 

Our witnesses today. 

STATEMENTS OF MARIAN EPPS, CFO, EPPS AVIATION, 

DEKALB-PEACHTREE AIRPORT, ATLANTA, GEORGIA, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL AIR TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION; MARTHA KING, CO-OWNER, COCHAIRMAN, KING SCHOOLS, INC., SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, 

TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL BUSINESS AVIATION ASSOCIATION; KENNETH J. BUTTON, GEORGE MASON 

UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR, DIRECTOR, CENTER 

FOR TRANSPORTATION, POLICY, OPERATIONS AND LOGISTICS; AND DIRECTOR, AEROSPACE POLICY RESEARCH CENTER, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA; AND BRAD PIERCE, PRESIDENT, 

RESTAURANT EQUIPMENT WORLD, ORLANDO, FLORIDA, 

TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION 

Chairman GRAVES. Our first witness is Marian Epps, CFO of 

Epps Aviation, which is a fixed base operator based in DeKalbPeachtree Airport in Atlanta, Georgia. Marian joined the family 

business in 1993 in a marketing role. And in 1995, she was promoted to the position of CFO and elected to the board of directors 

in 2007. She manages accounting operations, information technology. She oversees charter and aircraft management, and Pilatus 

aircraft sales. 

Ms. Epps is testifying on behalf of the National Air Transportation Association. 

Thank you for taking the time to be here, Marian. We appreciate 

it. 

STATEMENT OF MARIAN EPPS 

Ms. EPPS. Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Vela ́zquez, and 

members of the Committee, the National Air Transportation Association appreciates the opportunity to appear before the Committee 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
4 

to discuss the detrimental impact user fees would have on the general aviation industry. 

My name is Marian Epps. I am the CFO of Epps Aviation in Atlanta, Georgia. Epps is one of NATA’s member companies and is 

located at the second busiest airport in Georgia. Our owner and 

founder, Pat Epps, my father, has come a long way since his father, 

Ben Epps, built and flew Georgia’s first aircraft at the age of 19 

in 1907. 

Pat was the youngest boy of 10 children, eight of whom became 

pilots. Let’s fast forward to 1965, when my father bought a small 

fixed base operation at the DeKalb-Peachtree Airport. For 47 years 

now, Epps Aviation has served the business and public aviation 

communities. We started with 19 employees, two hangars, on 21 

acres of leased land. Today we have 145 employees, down from our 

pre-recession high of over 200. Our workforce includes line technicians, A&P mechanics, avionic technicians, client service representatives, and pilots. They serve U.S. and international customers 24/ 

7, 365 days a year. 

We have made improvements on our 21 acres of leased space, not 

with government funds but with company profits. We built a terminal lobby, maintenance facilities, five 10,000 square foot corporate hangars, 40 T-hangars, and a fuel farm. Today these facilities are home base to over 100 aircraft owners. Many of these aircraft owners are small businesses themselves that use aviation to 

grow their business, such as a seafood wholesaler, a lighting manufacturer, an industrial packaging company, and a chicken farmer. 

These small businesses rely on aviation, just like ours, and they 

have felt the effects of a slower economy. They are struggling to 

build back to prerecession levels. 

So why am I here? The administration has included a tax proposal in the deficit reduction plan that would require all air transportation providers to pay a $100 per flight departure fee. This departure fee would kill small businesses like ours and hurt organizations around the country that depend on general aviation. Imposing a user fee would also be detrimental to the many States with 

little or no commercial airline service. They need general aviation 

for economic job growth. 

Let me give you some more data on why aviation is so critically 

important to our economy. The industry employs 1.2 million workers and generates $150 billion annually in economic activity. And 

let me tell you why user fees would negatively impact general aviation in the U.S. No doubt many operators would fly less due to the 

increased cost of using the National Airspace System. Less activity 

will have a ripple effect throughout the industry with many businesses such as ours suffering due to the lower fuel sales, maintenance, and other services. And it would be an enormous administrative burden for both the government and the aircraft operators. 

Just look at the countries that have a user fee system. None of 

these countries have the level of aviation activity of the United 

States. Most bill after flights are conducted for the air traffic services, and their delayed billing systems are error-prone, and they 

cost more to administer than what they collect. 

Why build a new system when we have one that works? The current fuel tax ensures that the aviation trust fund will receive the 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
5 

appropriate contribution the minute fuel is purchased, without having to wait weeks or even months for payments. 

Let me wrap up by saying that Congress and the aviation industry have been in opposition to any user fee proposals on aviation. 

Over the past 5 years, numerous letters from the House and Senate Members of Congress, industry coalitions, and aviation associations have reiterated that per flight user fees will cripple the aviation industry and the small businesses it represents. We have seen 

this happen in other countries. The government’s first priority 

should be to create an environment in which businesses can grow 

and make more important contributions to the national economy. 

A user fee is little more than a punitive tax that would have a lasting negative effect on aviation. 

We all agree that fuel taxes represent the best way for the aviation industry to contribute revenue to the Federal Government and 

support efforts to enhance the National Air Transportation System. 

We look forward to working with the Committee in resolving this 

issue, and we are eager to serve as a valuable resource for aviation 

businesses during this debate. 

Thank you for your time, and I really appreciate being here. 

Chairman GRAVES. Thank you Ms. Epps. 

Our next witness is Martha King, who is the co-owner and cochairman of King Schools, which is a flight training school based 

in San Diego, California. In business for over 36 years, King 

Schools focuses on innovative technologies to help train pilots over 

a wide range of certifications. Martha is the first and only woman 

to hold every category and class of FAA rating on her pilot and instructor certificates. 

Ms. King is testifying on behalf of the National Business Aviation Association. 

Welcome to the Committee, Martha. 

STATEMENT OF MARTHA KING 

Ms. KING. Thank you very much. 

My name is Martha King, and I am honored to be here today to 

represent the National Business Aviation Association, NBAA. 

NBAA has over 9,000 members, and all have one thing in common: 

they rely on business aviation to meet some of their companies’ 

travel challenges. 

Mr. Chairman, as you say, I am co-owner and co-chairman of 

King Schools, a flight training company that my husband and I 

started in 1975. King Schools is a member of NBAA, and I serve 

on the association’s Associate Member Advisory Council. King 

Schools grew from its original two employees, my husband and myself, in 1975 to a high of 90 employees in 2007. 

Like thousands of startup companies all over the U.S., we found 

that using a general aviation airplane made our company more efficient and more productive. It allowed us to do more in less time. 

It helped us survive, compete, and grow; 37 years later, we still depend on our general aviation airplane. 

Mr. Chairman, as you know, general aviation is one of our Nation’s most significant industries. It is one of the few U.S. industries that contributes positively to our Nation’s balance of trade. It 

is fundamental to our Nation’s manufacturing base. It employs 1.2 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
6 

million Americans at a time when our country urgently needs jobs. 

It is an economic lifeline to thousands of small- and mid-sized 

American communities with little or no scheduled airline service. 

It helps companies of all sizes be more efficient, more productive, 

and more competitive. And it is vital to our Nation’s humanitarian 

efforts. 

The great recession has been devastating to the general aviation 

industry. By virtually any measure, our industry shrank by 30 to 

60 percent. My company is down from 90 employees to 50. It is difficult to imagine how at a time when the critical American industry 

is struggling the way that general aviation is, people in Washington could be contemplating an onerous, regressive, and administratively burdensome new per flight tax, euphemistically called a 

‘‘user fee.’’ 

A $100 per flight tax on all turbine-powered aircraft would be 

devastating for thousands of small businesses like mine. And I 

hope that this important Committee will put an end to this nonsensical proposal once and for all. 

Here are some valuable facts: Most of the business airplanes and 

component parts flying in the world today were built in the U.S.; 

85 percent of companies that use business aviation are small- and 

mid-sized businesses. Most business aviation flights fly to or from 

airports with no scheduled airline service. And the average age of 

the U.S. general aviation turbine airplane fleet is over 25 years old. 

Mr. Chairman, I know that there are those who try to promote 

a caricature of business aviation that is at odds with these facts. 

But the reality is that my small business is very representative of 

business aviation in the U.S. Our employees are instructors, technicians, sales people, and customer service representatives. And 

these are the people that fly on our airplanes. We do not have an 

army of accountants standing by to process a bunch of $100 per 

flight invoices from some new Federal bureaucracy. And quite 

frankly, our country does not need some new ‘‘Sky-R-S,’’ complete 

with auditors, billing agents, and collectors. Today business aviation pays at the pump through a per gallon fuel tax. It is simple. 

It is fair. It is efficient, progressive, and environmentally friendly. 

And it is adjustable. Congress can raise or lower the fuel tax. We 

do not need to establish a foreign-style system of user fees in the 

U.S. We have a better way. We have fuel taxes. 

Make no mistake: A new $100 per flight fee on all turbine airplane flights is a bad idea. It will hurt our economy, our transportation system, and small towns. And it will hurt small businesses 

like mine. We are counting on this Committee to make sure that 

does not happen. We are counting on you to spread the word that 

aviation fuel taxes work, and per flight fees destroy. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. And I will be 

happy to answer your questions. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to introduce 

our witness, Kenneth Button. 

Welcome, sir. 

Let me properly introduce you to the Committee. He is a university professor of public policy at George Mason University, where 

he is the director of the Center For Transportation Policy, Operations, and Logistics as well as the director of the Aerospace Policy 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
7 

Research Center. He has published or has in press some 80 books 

and over 400 academic papers in the field of transportation economics aviation policy and related subjects. 

Professor Button is the editor of numerous academic journals in 

the fields of aviation and aerospace policy, tourism and transportation. Prior to coming to George Mason University in 1997, he 

served as a transportation expert for the OECD and taught at several universities around the world. 

Welcome, sir. 

STATEMENT OF KENNETH J. BUTTON 

Mr. BUTTON. Thank you very much. 

I am very grateful for you inviting me to talk. Let me give my 

conclusions first. There seems to be two separate issues here. First 

of all, whether user charges are a good thing. I actually disagree 

with the chairman on this. I think there should be a move towards 

user charges in aviation. I believe they should be genuine user 

charges, which I would call a price. Basically user charges are a 

price for doing something. 

Secondly, on the issue of whether one wants to simply add an 

extra charge to the existing fuel charges, on whether this particular charge is an ideal way of doing it, I must confess, I do have 

some reservations. 

The first point: Pricing is very effective for three reasons. It allocates out the facilities you have got to the people who make the 

best use of them. It allocates out these facilities to the people who 

are willing to pay and thus presumably make the largest financial 

return from using them. In other words, the business people are 

the most efficient. 

Secondly, you collect revenue from this which is directly related 

to use. Fuel charges are not directly related to the use of the system. And this direct relationship allows the FAA and other bodies 

to decide where new investments are required or where certain 

types of facilities may be truncated. 

And thirdly, it provides a stream of revenue which is independent of any form of taxation which allows the body—the FAA 

in this case—to actually provide additional capacity and to finance 

it. That is why a lot of countries have moved toward user charges. 

The user charges have had some problems where they have been 

introduced. The reasons for this are partly the nature of the 

charges. They have not been imposed particularly well. There has 

been a certain experimentation involved. And of course, the United 

States has an advantage here. It can learn the lessons from elsewhere. 

So I am very much in favor of user charges. I don’t think they 

pose the problems which we sometimes hear. 

These particular charges which are being proposed here I think 

one has to look at them fairly carefully. I think there is a need to 

remember that general aviation does use the infrastructure in the 

same way as commercial aviation. It does not pay as much for 

using that infrastructure. But on the other hand, it doesn’t necessarily use all of that infrastructure. It doesn’t need everything 

large commercial aircraft do. There are some issues about a flat 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
8 

charge across everything because users of the system use different 

amounts of it. 

This particular charge I think has got some issues that need to 

be looked at. I do agree we do have to raise some additional revenue. The air transport system does need additional money. I do 

believe this small debt which has been accumulated in the United 

States getting on for $17 trillion has to somehow be paid down. It 

has to be paid down I think so it is not a burden on future generations, but also so we don’t have the burden, as the economy recovers, of higher interest payments on it. Inevitably, interest rates will 

go up as the economy recovers. Somehow that has to be paid for. 

My concern about this particular charge is, it has been floated 

as a form of trying to help pay off some of the national deficit. According to my calculations, if this is the sole source of money, it 

would take something over 13,000 years to actually pay off the national deficit, assuming there is no interest on that deficit. So I 

think putting it forward as a method of paying off the deficit is inappropriate. 

Secondly, it has been put forward as a method of getting to 

greater equality. My view is, we should have equality as much between generations as between groups at the moment. Therefore, I 

think we need user charges which ensure the aviation industry in 

this country—be it large commercial undertakings, general aviation, business aviation, flying schools, or whatever—are efficient at 

what they do, that they have the appropriate facilities provided to 

them. They pay the appropriate—I will use the word again, the 

‘‘appropriate’’ price for that infrastructure and that infrastructure 

has a viable method of funding. 

I have some reservations therefore about this particular proposal. 

Although I do have considerable sympathy with the underlying 

idea; we have much more efficient user charges on aviation, or pricing aviation, as I like to say. I have provided some written testimony, and clearly, I have provided a very short summary of it. 

Thank you. 

Chairman GRAVES. Rounding out our panel today is Brad Pierce, 

who is the president of Restaurant Equipment World, REW, in Orlando, Florida. Started by Brad’s father Jerry in 1976, REW remains a family owned and operated company that sells professional 

grade kitchen equipment from both their showroom in Orlando and 

across the world online. The company currently employs approximately 50 individuals. 

He is testifying on behalf of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. 

I want to thank you for being here today, Mr. Pierce. We appreciate it. 

STATEMENT OF BRAD PIERCE 

Mr. PIERCE. Thank you. Well, it is certainly an honor to be 

speaking with you here today. I am here today representing the 

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, also known as the AOPA. 

We have been an AOPA member since 1997 and are also proud to 

be a member of the National Business Aviation Association. 

Restaurant Equipment World was founded more than 35 years 

ago by my father, Jerry Pierce. We provide restaurant and food 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
9 

service equipment throughout the Southeast and beyond from our 

headquarters in Orlando, Florida. We are proud to have approximately 48 employees. And through our efficiencies, we have sold 

products to more than 100,000 customers in all 50 States and more 

than 110 countries internationally. 

My testimony today will make three points: Number one, general 

aviation has been a critical factor for the growth of our business 

and has given us important competitive advantages. Number two, 

general aviation users pay to fund the aviation system through excise taxes on fuels. This system is effective. It is proven and should 

continue to be the means by which users pay into the system. 

Number three, user fees would be devastating to businesses like 

myself that depend on general aviation. 

General aviation grows businesses. Restaurant Equipment World 

depends on it each and every day to conduct business. We currently 

fly a Turbo Cirrus SR 22 aircraft, and we have a deposit placed on 

a Cirrus Vision Jet, which will be the fourth business aircraft for 

our company. I consider my airplane to be one of my best employees. It has consistently allowed me to expand our boundaries and 

our service area because it allows me to reach our potential clients 

fast, even when they are located hundreds of miles away. I have 

personally flown our business aircraft to 49 States in an effort to 

maintain existing relationships, attend industry events and pursue 

new business for our company. 

Our airplanes allows us to control our own travel schedule so we 

are able to stay onsite with our customers to make sure that our 

interactions are complete and that they are satisfied with the services that we have provided, all the while not needing to worry 

about cutting things short, catching a commercial flight. 

As recently as 2 weeks ago, our aircraft allowed me to shift my 

travel schedule in order to meet a new client as well as being able 

to make an impromptu visit to a manufacturing partner on a way 

to an industry event. On more than one occasion, our planes provided us a competitive advantage of allowing us to move very, very 

quickly. We had a call from a potential client up in North Carolina. 

I was able to arrange a meeting in a matter of hours, something 

that would have taken me 2 full days back and forth on a commercial airliner. We arrived faster than even their local competition, 

and we got the contract. 

Our airplane allows us to meet multiple customers in multiple 

cities and multiple States in a matter of a single day. We can respond quickly to our customer needs. We can build relationships 

with them. And we can help our customers grow their businesses. 

And many of our customers are small businesses themselves. 

Both senior management and my rank-and-file staff members 

utilize our aircraft as an important tool to serving our customers’ 

needs. And I am not alone. In my home State of Florida, for example, general aviation is associated with more than 7 million jobs 

and has an estimated economic impact of $7.5 billion. That is because thousands of other business owners just like myself use general aviation to grow their companies. 

The current recession has been a challenge for Restaurant Equipment World. In order to survive and thrive, we have had to be 

laser-focused with efficiency. We can’t just throw money wildly at 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
10 

problems and opportunities. We need to be there for our customers 

now more than ever. At a time when we have seen multiple competitors failing, we have been able to grow our business and have 

been able to continue hiring employees. 

General aviation pays at the pump. Every general aviation operator pays to support the aviation infrastructure every time we fly 

through an excise tax on fuel. This tax has been an effective way 

of paying into the system since the earliest days of powered flight. 

It directly reflects how much we fly because we are taxed on the 

amount of fuel that we use. 

The current system requires no additional bureaucracy or administrative costs for either the system users or the Federal Government, and Congress sets the tax rate. It is within your ability to 

adjust the rate as needed. The $100 per flight fee would require a 

new system just to administer and collect this tax. And once the 

bureaucracy was in place, that fee could be changed at any time 

without congressional input or oversight. For business owners like 

myself, there would be an additional cost just to reconcile and pay 

these results and invoices. 

Today’s system of excise taxes works. Creating a new type of tax 

would increase costs and decrease efficiency for everyone involved. 

The proposed $100 per flight fee would be devastating to small 

businesses like my own. Adding an additional $100 to cover every 

flight would impact how many clients we could go and see, especially in rural areas where it just simply would not be worth stopping for that extra $100 fee that is imposed. 

Our business depends on being responsive to our clients’ needs 

and building relationships in person. This fee would absolutely devastate that, and our value proposition would change dramatically. 

In conclusion, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to 

testify here before you today. And I urge you to reject new taxes 

in the form of user fees for general aviation. General aviation has 

made it possible for us to grow Restaurant Equipment World from 

a five-person company to one with approximately 48 employees 

today. We want to continue to create jobs but we need general aviation to be able to do it. Allow us to continue to pay at the pump 

so we can focus our energy on making our business stronger instead of paying new fees. Thank you for your time. 

Chairman GRAVES. Thanks, Mr. Pierce. 

I will now go with questions. And I am going to turn to Mr. West 

to start us off. 

Mr. WEST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and ranking member. 

And in full disclosure, I want to say that the wings on my lapel 

are representative of the fact that I failed the Army aviation test. 

So I got into the line to be a paratrooper. That was a lot simpler. 

Now, with that being said, Dr. Button, you said something in 

your oral testimony. You said that fuel charges are not directly related to use. So, I mean, to me, you have got to have fuel for an 

aircraft to take off. So fuel charges have to be directly related to 

use. So, in a way, we are already talking about a user fee that is 

being paid by these users of the aviation assets. Why do we need 

to go to a $100 user fee? 

And you just debunked the whole thing about the debt and deficit. So can you explain to us, is there something wrong with the 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
11 

Airport and Airway Trust Fund where we need to change the system by which we are supposed to be replenishing it? 

Mr. BUTTON. Yes. Thank you for the question. I think there is 

an issue here about what pricing does. And I think the American 

economy is built upon market principles and pricing. The importance of direct pricing is that it basically, as I said, it allocates 

what you have got. It indicates where you need more or less. And 

it provides resources for doing so. The fuel tax is a tax. There is 

no direct link between the fuel charge and the actual use of the 

system. In a sense, depending on how far you fly, where you fly 

and so on, that is not directly linked to the actual cost of providing 

air traffic control services at airports. There is a linkage. I agree 

with you. But the linkage is a little bit akin to the fuel tax on 

roads. The fuel tax on roads is the same per gallon irrespective of 

whether you are driving in the sense of congested Washington or 

out in the middle of West Virginia. The charge is the same. It does 

not reflect the cost of the system you are using. And by affecting 

the cost of what you are using, you are making sure resources are 

properly deployed. 

My view on the charging is the whole thing needs to be looked 

at, so we move forward to a system where you have direct charging 

for what you use. This is gradually taking place in the road services where we have tolls and so on which are beginning to actually 

reflect the use made of the system and the quality of the system. 

You are going to pay more to go on the Beltway at 70 miles an 

hour and possibly even in Texas, you can drive at 85 miles an hour 

if you pay enough. That may be a little extreme. But the fact is, 

you have got the people using it—— 

Mr. WEST. Well, that is State, like the Florida Turnpike, the New 

Jersey Turnpike, Pennsylvania. You are talking about something 

that is Federal now. 

Mr. BUTTON. May I ask you a question then, sir, what is the difference economically between a federally supplied facility and a 

State supplied facility? 

Mr. WEST. Well, what I am trying to ascertain is, what is broken 

with this trust fund system that we need to go from what we have 

with a fuel based system, where we can initiate legislation. I am 

sure that we can raise the taxes on the fuel in to this $100. And 

I would also like to know, who came up with $100? 

Mr. BUTTON. The answer to your second question is actually also 

posed in my written evidence. I mean, it is a number. It could be 

$95, $250. There doesn’t seem to be any rhyme or reason to go with 

that particular number. 

Mr. WEST. That is my problem. There is no rhyme or reason. 

Someone in the Federal bureaucracy just came up with a dollar 

amount. I don’t—did they consult with any of the users out there? 

I think that is what we are talking about. We are talking about 

a problem going around looking for a solution. 

Mr. BUTTON. But what you do have I think is a need for additional revenue for the FAA. And perhaps you do need some form 

of an additional charge. I would personally remove the fuel charge 

and in some way have a direct user charge, which may amount to 

a combination of the two sums of money. It may not. But different 

types of aviation use the system in different ways. And that should 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
12 

be reflected. It should be reflected in the price they pay. I take the 

point that general aviation and business aviation is important. I 

have done work on the small airports in Virginia and it is quite 

clear they contribute significantly to the local economy. So I don’t 

disagree at all with any of my colleagues here. It is very, very important. But it is also important to use it wisely and sensibly. 

You have got to remember small businesses use general aviation 

and business aviation, but they also use commercial aviation. I 

imagine the bulk of small businesses in this country actually use 

commercial aviation. And you have to have the appropriate balance 

between the two to benefit small business in its entirety in this 

country and not simply look at the suppliers of aviation services. 

Mr. WEST. Real quickly, what would this do to your profit margins if we went to this $100—— 

Ms. EPPS. Our profit margins would just diminish. It really 

would kill the general aviation community. Pilots already shop 

around for the cheapest fuel price they can get because it is a commodity. And when you whop a $100 departure tax—it is just going 

to add incrementally to your cost and drive people away from using 

aviation. And once people are driven away from using aviation, jobs 

are lost and revenues for example, at our county airport—are going 

to just fall off a cliff. 

Mr. WEST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I yield back because I am over time. 

Chairman GRAVES. Ms. Vela ́zquez. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Button, clearly, there is a large difference in prices that commercial airlines and corporate jets pay for using the same level of 

air traffic services. Do you believe that this is—that this difference 

is too great and should be reduced whether through fuel taxes, user 

fees, or some other mechanism? 

Mr. BUTTON. I believe it should be reduced. I don’t think they 

necessarily should pay the same because I think that commercial 

aircraft demand additional facilities not required by general aviation or business planes. So I don’t think they necessarily pay the 

same, but I think the differential is extremely large. I think one 

reason for this is the commercial air business in a sense generates 

more revenue and, therefore, is seen as a mechanism for raising 

more money, which is not necessarily the most efficient way of allocating resources. So I certainly think they should be closed. By how 

much I think requires a serious study. But there should be some 

closing of that gap in some way or the other. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you. It appears that both the current system of fuel taxes and the proposed user fees do not result in accurate prices. If you were to design a pricing system from the beginning and did not have any constraint in doing so, would you build 

off the current fuel tax system or start fresh based on a user fee 

approach? 

Mr. BUTTON. I would go to a user fee approach. I think there 

may be reasons for taxation on aviation to do with the environmental implications, which we are not talking about here, I don’t 

think. But for using the system, I think people should pay for what 

they use. That is quite common in virtually every other part of the 

economy. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
13 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Given the concerns that were raised by the witnesses here regarding a user fee that is too onerous, that it creates 

another bureaucracy, that compliance will create a problem for 

them, what is your reaction to that? 

Mr. BUTTON. Well, the reaction to the latter one on the administration is, I would get rid of the fuel surcharge and the takeoff fee 

and have one simple charging mechanism, which could be meted on 

the aircraft and you get a bill like your telephone bill. I think that 

is not beyond the wisdom of man, and we do it on the tollways anyway. This mechanism is there. So the actual administrative charge 

is once and for all and a not very large change in the mechanism 

in my view. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Let’s talk about sequestration for a moment. 

You know, it is slated to begin in January, and the FAA stands to 

lose $1 billion from its budget. It has been estimated that air traffic 

services will have to be curtailed significantly. If this does occur, 

how would you recommend the FAA go about determining where 

it should reduce air traffic control services? 

Mr. BUTTON. Well, my problem is with the current system of 

charging; we have got no indicator of where the best parts of the 

system are. The charging system doesn’t actually tell you where 

the largest demands are. So you have got no mechanism. I could 

sit down and do some econometric work. I am by training an 

econometrician. But I imagine my results would be far off the 

mark. These analyses are. They have a major problem finding $1 

billion. And I think how you actually cut it back, I think that probably the best way would simply be to ask the guys at the FAA who 

have every day contact with the industry, and you get a rough and 

ready answer. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you. 

Ms. Epps, I gathered from your testimony that you support raising fuel taxes instead of user fees, given the fact that it hasn’t been 

raised for quite a while. 

Ms. EPPS. Ranking Member Vela ́zquez, they have not been raised 

in over 20 years. And the current system of collecting the tax in 

the fuel is the most efficient system. It would eliminate any additional administrative costs. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Okay. If we have a shortfall and sequestration 

takes effect, would you support raising fuel taxes? 

Ms. EPPS. That would be the preference over a new user fee. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you. 

Ms. KING. Yes, absolutely that would be the preference. 

And I disagree with Dr. Button that fuel charges are not related 

directly to the use of the system because the more an aircraft flies 

and the more sophisticated it is, and the more it needs the airline 

type airports, the more fuel it is going to use and the more tax it 

will pay. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Dr. Button, would you like to respond? 

Mr. BUTTON. I don’t disagree with that. But I would like to have 

a much closer correlation between the two. It is absolutely true, as 

I said, that there is some correlation. The correlation I think is not 

particularly clear. And I think that needs clarifying. And I think 

the charges should be closer to the costs. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
14 

Mr. Pierce, what is your position regarding, if we face a shortfall, 

how would we be able to make it up? 

Mr. PIERCE. If there is a shortfall and Congress votes to raise 

these fees and the fees are coming in some form or another, then 

I would prefer it to be in a fuel tax. In our case, we pay quite a 

bit of taxes into the system. I fly, as I mentioned, into 49 States. 

I fly extensively. Therefore, I am paying a lot more than the people 

who would fly locally. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. What you are stating is that you would support 

raising the fuel tax? 

Mr. PIERCE. I would support the—if a tax is voted on and is approved by Congress, that then, at that point, I would prefer the 

tax—— 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. So that is a ‘‘yes’’ to my question? 

Mr. PIERCE. I do not specifically advocate that we—without 

knowing the facts and knowing what this amount is, I can’t blanket 

say that we should or should not raise a specific tax. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. My question was a simple one. If we are out of 

money, how are we going to make up for the shortfall? Either we 

impose a user fee, or we raise fuel taxes. 

Mr. PIERCE. I think that it is more complex in looking at how 

people use the system. When the system is built for the airline industry, we may need to raise their taxes at a different rate than 

we raise general aviation taxes is my personal opinion. But I think 

that it is more complex. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Chairman GRAVES. For the record, I think all of the organizations here were in full agreement with an increase in aviation fuel 

taxes when we went through the last round of taking a look at that 

in the Transportation Committee. 

Mr. Hanna. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In the interest of disclosure I am an AOP member, a pilot. I have 

watched your videos. Ms. King, you are actually good on videos but 

great here today. Thank you for being here, everyone. 

If the assumption is—and that doesn’t bias me. I think it gives 

me certain input and insights. Although it may bias me, I am also 

an airport owner. It is kind of the law of the bigger fool theory. I 

bought one, lost a lot of money, and sold it to another guy who had 

more money than me. And I am happy about it. 

But what possible reason, Dr. Button, do you have to think that money collected nationally, $100 at one airport or another, will 

make it distributed more fairly or more properly, as you put it? 

There is not a lot of evidence——I mean, if you take, for example, 

the transportation bill, which is very much underfunded, we have 

a formula. The formula doesn’t necessarily go. So I question your 

major premise that that would be an outcome. 

Mr. BUTTON. First of all, I agree with you entirely about the allocation of the transportation bill. It is not an ideal mechanism. In 

this case, I am very much in favor of assuming—and this is a 

strong assumption—the FAA acts sensibly and rationally. And the 

FAA is a public agency, which is to serve the public. It is getting 

revenue in. It knows where the revenue is coming from. Therefore, 

it should direct its investments to areas where there is a large 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
15 

amount of revenue. And there is clearly a demand for the services 

in that area. That is a rather strong assumption I would agree 

with. 

But if I am treating it as a private business, a private business— 

many air traffic control systems in the world in airports now are 

corporatized or, in the British case, are semi-privatized, they have 

signals from the fees they get where the investment is needed, required—— 

Mr. HANNA. Professor, I appreciate that. But let’s be honest—it 

is subjective. And there is very little evidence about—throughout 

this country that every dollar we collect from the States we send 

back, if they are lucky, some much smaller percentage of it. This 

won’t change this. We have a mechanism that works perfectly well 

that is, as Ms. King said, bigger planes that require more runway, 

more everything, they burn a hell of a lot more fuel. There is not 

necessarily a relationship between the number of times you take off 

and land and the amount you actually use. But there is a much 

more direct correlation with the fuel in that regard. 

Mr. BUTTON. Well, it is true. But you may expend more fuel taking off and landing, but are you incurring the same proportional 

change in infrastructure which is needed? That is the question. 

Mr. HANNA. But that is a question that that doesn’t necessarily 

answer. I mean, you can still—the fuel tax can still take that, can 

still account for that. And we know where fuel is collected. So we 

also have a system to do exactly what you want to do, which is recognize how much money was collected at what airport, and they 

can allocate it already without this additional bureaucracy. I can 

tell you within—give me a day, and I can tell you how much fuel 

is burned at every airport in America. 

Mr. BUTTON. Yes. I can do that as well. 

Mr. HANNA. But the point is that you have the ability to allocate 

it now. 

Mr. BUTTON. We do have. But you have also got to link this to 

cost. At the moment, the allocations are not done that way. If you 

take a large jet into an airport, you sure as heck burn a lot more 

fuel and collect more revenue. But the costs of that jet landing are 

not the same as a smaller jet coming in which burns less fuel. You 

collect less money from the smaller jet, it takes up the same length 

of runway. It takes up basically the same amount of air traffic control time. 

Mr. HANNA. You are actually wrong about that. It doesn’t take 

up the same length of runway. 

Mr. BUTTON. You are right. It is a shorter amount. But that is 

my point, by the way, in response to the earlier question. You 

would have a differential rate for different types of aircraft. They 

would not be bought together. There would be a gap. 

Mr. HANNA. I am listening carefully to you. And I believe you believe this. Having flown a lot in my life, I frankly find no benefit 

to adding this additional bureaucracy and no added ability to allocate differently or more thoughtfully. And just the opportunity, 

though, to eat up a bigger piece of revenue through bureaucracy 

that we don’t have yet. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
16 

Mr. BUTTON. Well, I would simply substitute—I would simply get 

rid of the existing charges and have a direct user charge with one 

bureaucracy—— 

Mr. HANNA. So you want to eliminate the gas tax? 

Mr. BUTTON. Eliminate it, I think you should pay for what you 

use in a society. And in that sense, you tend not to get overspending too often. You don’t run up large deficits too often. 

Mr. HANNA. I yield back. 

Thank you, sir. 

Chairman GRAVES. Mr. Schrader. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It seems like we are off into academic exercises and thoughtfulness, and that is excellent. I guess one thing I would take from this 

is that at some point—hopefully sooner rather than later—it will 

be interesting to have general aviation and the FAA and others 

participate in some sort of thoughtful discussion and/or study of, is 

there a better way to allocate the costs of general aviation? And I 

think that would be fine. I don’t know enough about—I am a pilot, 

but I am a four- to six-seater plane, so I am not even going to pay 

any of these things at the end of the day. So maybe I should be 

favor of the new fee. 

But general aviation, obviously, has come out in favor of not 

doing this. And based on the ranking member’s questions, they are 

inclined—if there has to be a fee, that they prefer to do the fuel 

tax. And so I guess I am just a country doctor from western Oregon, and if that is what the industry wants and they are willing 

to pay for it, regardless of perceived inequities, in order to balance 

our budget and help things go forward—we have a problem right 

now. A sequester would be horrible. But we have a debt and deficit 

problem right now. 

And while I think Dr. Button has good points, we are not going 

to balance the budget on the aviation industry. If everyone pays a 

teeny little bit, which I think Americans are willing to do their fair 

share, I think we would come a long way to fixing our country’s 

problems. 

So that is just a comment more than a question, Mr. Chairman. 

I think the industry itself has come up with a reasonable solution. 

It seems like most of the panel is moderately interested in that solution. I think most of us are interested in that solution. Maybe 

that is a suggestion we can make to the administration to not 

cause a problem, but let’s help the industry do what it does best, 

which is fly people around, create jobs, and be market and job 

builders for our great country and just have it where we do some 

adjustment of a gas fee and the jet fuel fee for right now. And then 

let’s study the problem and figure out if we have a better long-term 

solution. 

So just a comment, Mr. Chairman. 

I yield back. 

Chairman GRAVES. Mr. Schilling. 

Mr. SCHILLING. Thank you, Chairman. 

A couple of things. I don’t fly at all. I have a few friends that 

fly. I do make a pretty mean pizza—at least that is what they tell 

me. But one of my concerns is the fact that this will create another 

government agency when we already have a system in place. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
17 

And I guess this question is to Dr. Button. The analogy of the 

bigger plane—or just the statement on the bigger plane landing on 

the runway versus the smaller plane. The bigger is going to use a 

lot more fuel; therefore, it will pay more in taxes. I don’t believe 

that they do make the same impact on the airports when they are 

landing or taking off—specifically, I guess, it would be taking off. 

It would be like saying the Ford Escort versus the semitruck using 

the road. It is kind of that idea. 

But the one thing that I look at is, you know, we have got pretty 

much everybody here agreeing that they are willing to pay more in 

the fuel tax, just like Mr. Schrader said. So one of my concerns, 

again, also is the fact that you were going to start out with a number out of the hat, $100. Where does it go? And I do have a young 

man that—and I guess, what do I tell the 18-year-old kid that is 

trying to get his, as he is starting to fly, and that every time he 

is going to take off or land, it is going to cost him a couple hundred 

bucks? I think we are discouraging new pilots for long term down 

the road. That gets pretty expensive, especially for some young 

folks that are out there. But when I go back home this weekend, 

what do I tell this 18-year-old pilot with the $100 fee? How do I 

sell that to him? 

Mr. BUTTON. Me? Well, first of all, we would need him to tell him 

to enroll in a new degree we are going to have at George Mason, 

where you can get credits for acquiring a pilot’s license, so you can 

get a plus from that. I think the point is very much—I am the academic here. Therefore, I am putting forward the academic perspective because I think we have sort of a consensus without me here. 

But I also do believe, though, in user charges. From a pragmatic 

short-term point of view, you may want to raise fuel taxes. The administration is saying that is easy. That does not avoid the arbitrariness of the system, though. You are talking about $100 being 

arbitrary. How much are you going to raise the fuel tax by? What 

amount? That is equally arbitrary. 

Mr. SCHILLING. No, it is not. 

Mr. BUTTON. But why isn’t it? If you want to raise a certain sum 

of money, then you can—— 

It is arbitrary in the sense, if you push up the fuel tax, you are 

going to raise a sum of money. You have a target sum of money 

you want to raise, you raise the fuel tax to get that target sum of 

money. So you have got to have the target sum of money. Ditto 

when you have $100, you have got a target sum of money, $1.2 billion, I believe. That is a target. So the target is there whichever 

way you go. Both are arbitrary. 

As for your son, I think you ought to say he has a great future 

in aviation, that the aviation industry is growing. And in the longer 

term, if the economy picks up, there will be a lot of opportunities 

for flying, and he will be earning a large salary, perhaps producing 

pizzas and flying them around. I don’t know. 

Mr. SCHILLING. Next question. 

Mr. Pierce, the small business you are in, being a small business, 

the one thing that is very frustrating is we work on fractions. You 

are running this business, you are paying utilities, rent, what have 

you. The government continues to come in and wants to take another piece of that fraction. Between the regulations and everyVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:01 Dec 11, 2012 Jkt 076498 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A498.XXX A498

erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
18 

thing going on, I mean, do you find that that is a big problem within your business? 

Mr. PIERCE. Absolutely. The social cost of doing business is perhaps one of our largest challenges. The economy has obviously hurt 

our industry and a lot of my competitors, as I have mentioned. And 

you are so focused on trying to just to work to serve your customers 

and to do what you need to do to take care of your employees and 

allow them to have good places to come to work and grow as individuals and care for their families. And more and more regulations 

just tend to keep kind of poking their nose in where more and more 

time is spent, not only looking at the regulations but also determining what costs to allocate in terms of budgetary items for accountants and lawyers and everybody else to make it so that a 

small businessperson, like myself, can understand all of these new 

charges and regulations and how to properly comply with them. 

And I think that when we look at things like the administrative 

cost of this new proposal, this would add to that burden in addition 

to the other social costs we are already incurring. 

Mr. SCHILLING. Does your food service company absorb that cost? 

Or do you pass it on to your customers? 

Mr. PIERCE. We have absorbed to some degree as much as we 

can. You take part of the pain, and eventually you figure out that 

if you take all the pain, you are going to go out of business yourself. So that has been passed along to our end user customers and 

has increased, obviously, their costs for equipment and their cost 

for services, which is then revenue that they can’t use to pay to 

grow their own companies. 

Mr. SCHILLING. That they pass on to their customers also. 

Mr. PIERCE. Absolutely. 

Mr. SCHILLING. So the bottom line is, all of these fees go down 

to the hardworking people of the United States of America. 

With that, I yield back. 

Mr. PIERCE. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman GRAVES. A couple points of clarification. 

In the hearings about the proposed user fee, the $100 user fee 

that the administration is putting forth, what it is is revenue mining, plain and simple. There is no indication whatsoever that this 

money is going to go to the airport trust fund. There is none. It 

goes into general revenue. An increase in fuel taxes however or fuel 

taxes going into the general aviation trust fund to pay for infrastructure that we use on our airports. What this is is revenue mining on the administration’s part. And it would cripple aviation. 

But I do have a question for Dr. Button. In terms of paying for 

what you use or making it equitable, how you are going to do it. 

And you would have a different fee structure for different aircraft. 

But if you take two different daily operations and you take a crop 

duster out there that is flying an air tractor, which is a turbine, 

and he makes 50 takeoffs and 50 landings in one day but never exceeds 200 feet above ground level, and you have got a King Air that 

takes off from point A to point B, and he pays that $100 fee, whatever it is, and that crop-duster pays that $100 fee for all 50 of 

those operations, how is that equitable when that crop duster never 

accesses the system nor does he use the air traffic control system? 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
19 

And how can you argue that that is an equitable system but a fuel 

charge is not? 

Mr. BUTTON. I entirely agree with you. I don’t think that is equitable. I think the issue is that there should be a charging system 

to reflect the fact one chap is doing 50-odd trips. The charge would 

probably not be that large because he is not using air traffic control 

facilities in that sense. Those that fly higher do; therefore, their 

fees would be higher. 

And that would be, you know, based on the actual cost of using 

the system. The problem with any fixed charge is that it is largely 

arbitrary, and this is true of the $100. It is an arbitrary number. 

The cut-off point for what aviation types pay and don’t pay is also 

arbitrary. So there is a certain arbitrariness about that. 

I am very much in favor of a general user charge. How much 

does it cost for that plane in terms of the costs imposed on the FAA 

and the other providers in the air transport infrastructure? The 

airports, it may be zilch in the case of a crop-duster taking off from 

a field, or it may be large in the case of a large commercial aircraft. 

They should pay for the appropriate cost of using the airport and 

the air traffic control system. Just like if we go and purchase anything else, we pay the cost of producing it and if we—a lot of us 

want it, the price goes up, and the supplier supplies more. There 

are signals in the pricing mechanism. That is the way the American system works. Apple uses it pretty well, and they are the most 

successful company in the world. 

Chairman GRAVES. Then how do you account for the rest of the 

general aviation out there, the non-turbine aircraft, the piston-tire 

aircraft, the weekend flyers. 

Mr. BUTTON. I think it is like anything else, there should be an 

appropriate charge for them if they use any publicly provided facilities. If they use a private air field, that is their own cost. If they 

don’t use any form of an air traffic control facility, that is not a cost 

to the Nation. But if they do, they should pay. 

Chairman GRAVES. Well, my question, you mentioned, you know, 

that you just meter this by that takeoff and you get a bill in the 

mail for that takeoff. How on earth are you ever going to police 

something like this, and put a bureaucracy in place to try to account for that and decide who is taking off from the private field, 

who is not taking off from a private field, when you have aviation 

fuel taxes that pretty much account for that? 

Mr. BUTTON. Well, the aviation fuel taxes. If you take—why are 

you paying an aviation fuel tax if you are taking off from your own 

field? You are not using up any controlled air space. I mean, why 

should you pay the government for that facility which you are not 

using. I have got some sympathy, I think you know, in the case of 

general aviation taking off from a private field, landing and flying 

through uncontrolled air space. You are not using any national resources. I would sympathize there should be no payment for that. 

Chairman GRAVES. Okay, let’s take out private air fields and just 

talk about smaller air fields. 

Mr. BUTTON. Small air fields if they are privately owned, the private company owning them presumably would pay an appropriate 

take-off landing fee. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
20 

Chairman GRAVES. Very, very, very few—I am talking about municipal airports. The vast majority of airports in this country, municipal county-owned. 

Mr. BUTTON. Well, presumably the airport, which someone has to 

pay for that airport somewhere along the line. Why not pay directly 

for the facilities used? We do this in virtually every other thing we 

do in society. Certainly, we don’t do it perfectly. Let’s. You know 

I am not—— 

Chairman GRAVES. It is effective. But isn’t that exactly what fuel 

charges do is pay directly for the use of that—— 

Mr. BUTTON. It is paid directly for the fuel you use, but you may 

have a runway of a certain length, which two aircraft of slightly 

different sizes use, one burning more fuel than the other; therefore, 

one pays more tax than the other one, but they are using exactly 

the same facility. 

Chairman GRAVES. Well, see, then you get right back into the situation in which you are going to have to put a bureaucracy in place 

which is going to cost money just to be able to determine if, you 

know, how much a Stinson 108 uses as opposed to a Gulfstream, 

how much runway they are going to use. 

Mr. BUTTON. I accept there is a bureaucratic cost. I think I would 

get rid of the existing charges, which would reduce the burden of 

that. But the other charges do not involve actually the Federal systems, the point and factor over here, because a lot of the airports 

are owned by States or municipal authorities, and the airport 

themselves, presumably, should act commercially in the way they 

set their fees. The air traffic control, which is, as far as I can see, 

is the primary issue, which is the FAA—— 

Chairman GRAVES. Before we have a vote—we have a series of 

votes coming up and I would like to ask you if you would like to 

weigh in at all, anyone else on what I have asked? 

Ms. King. 

Ms. KING. Yes, I would like to address the fact, Dr. Button’s position was taken by the head of the FAA equivalent in Australia, and 

what they did is pursue exactly that philosophy that if you are out 

in the outback and you are not coming into town, why should you 

be paying fuel taxes? We will get rid of the fuel taxes, and we will 

put in user fees at all of the towered airports. They did that. It has 

been devastating. The airports—the philosophy was that with the 

user fees, the pilots using the airport will have an incentive to control the costs that are being charged to them. But the power is so 

unequal between the government and an individual pilot, that that 

is not an effective mechanism. It did not work. And I don’t believe 

that it will work. And it has been devastating to flight training organizations in areas like Sydney and many other places up and 

down the east coast where they did flight training. What is left in 

Australia has moved inland, away from the air traffic system. 

The point is that air traffic is a national transportation resource 

and even the air tractor that is flying out of a crop-duster field and 

not taking off and landing from an airport with a tower, that pilot 

trained somewhere. The aircraft was built and certified by the 

FAA. There is a whole lot of FAA cost and national cost involved 

in it. And I think that the national fuel system is the best way to 

pay for it. The issue of the runway and, a big airplane versus a 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
21 

small airplane landing on it, the runway is the length that it is, 

the longer length in smaller towns, because they want the bigger 

business aircraft there. And so they pay more to essentially compensate the municipality for being willing to finance that big of a 

runway. 

Chairman GRAVES. I apologize to Mr. Mulvaney for not getting 

to your questions. I want to apologize for the vote series that we 

have. It is going to probably take, because we have got a motion 

to recommit in there. It is probably going to take about an hour, 

so unfortunately, I am probably going to go ahead and adjourn the 

hearing so you all don’t have to sit around and wait on us to do 

our job. 

But I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today. 

It is very evident to me, and 195 of my colleagues which signed 

the letter opposing the per flight user fee on operations in the aviation industry, is a very bad policy. It is going to add to an already 

massive federal bureaucracy, and it is going to create a lot of unnecessary financial and regulatory burdens on small businesses. 

My job and the job of this Committee is going to be watched very 

carefully what happens when we do an omnibus spending bill at 

the end of the year, to make sure that user fees are not in that 

particular piece of legislation, and to watch when it comes to sequestration, which we will have a hearing in this Committee on sequestration this week, in fact tomorrow, and we will have another 

hearing next week, and another hearing on the financial cliff that 

is coming. 

But we are going to do everything we can to make sure that user 

fees are not included in any end-of-the-year spending measures. 

And with that, I would ask unanimous consent that members 

have 5 legislative days to submit statements and supportive materials for the record. 

Without objection, that is so ordered. And with that, the hearing 

is adjourned. I appreciate very much all of the witnesses for coming 

today. 

[Whereupon, at 2:09 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
22 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 55 here 76498A.001

Statement Marian Epps, CFO 

Epps Aviation 

for the 

National Air Transportation Association 

before the 

Committee on Small Business 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Hearing on 

User Fees in the Aviation Industry: Turbulence Ahead 

September 12, 2012 

2360 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 
23 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 56 here 76498A.002

Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Velazquez and members of the Committee, the 

National Air Transportation Association (NATA) appreciates the opportunity to appear 

before the Committee to discuss the detrimental impact user fees would have on the 

general aviation industry. 

My name is Marian Epps, and I am chief financial officer of Epps Aviation in Atlanta, 

Georgia. I am here today to speak on behalf of the National Air Transportation 

Association (NATA). NATA the voice of aviation business, is the public policy group 

representing the interests of aviation businesses before the Congress, federal agencies 

and state governments. l NATA's 2,000 member companies own, operate and service 

aircraft. These companies provide for the needs of the traveling public by offering 

services and products to aircraft operators and others such as fuel sales, aircraft 

maintenance, parts sales, storage, rental, airline servicing, flight training, Part 135 ondemand air charter, fractional aircraft program management and scheduled commuter 

operations in smaller aircraft. NATA members are a vital link in the aviation industry 

providing services to the general public, airlines, general aviation and the military. 

Epps Aviation is the south's premier corporate and general aviation facility. Owner and 

founder Pat Epps has come a long way since the aviation pioneer days when his father, 

Ben T. Epps, the first pilot in Georgia, built and flew his first aircraft in 1907. Ben's six 

sons and two of his three daughters all became pilots. In 1965, Pat bought a small fixed 

base operation at DeKalb-Peachtree Airport (PDK) and began Epps Aviation. Through 

the years, Epps Aviation continued to grow. Today, more than four decades later, Epps 

Aviation employs more than 160 team members and operates on a total of 21 acres at 

Georgia's second busiest airport. The facility consists of the original main hangar, a 

terminal lobby, two maintenance/avionics hangars totaling 54,000 square feet five 

corporate aircraft hangars, 40 T-hangars, and its own fuel farm. The breadth of Epps' 

aviation sales and services include fueling, storage, maintenance, avionics, new and 

used aircraft sales, and charter. 

Epps Aviation, like many small businesses supporting the aviation community, has felt 

the effects of a slower economy and is working to build business back to pre-recession 

1 NATA is the leading national trade association representing the legislative, regulatory and business 

interests of general aviation service companies and provides education services and benefits to our 

members to help ensure their long-term economic success. 
24 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 57 here 76498A.003

levels. However, the administration included a tax proposal in their deficit reduction 

plan that would require all air transportation providers (commercial airlines and 

general aviation operators) to pay a $100 per-flight departure fee. This departure fee 

would decimate small businesses and organizations around the country that depend on 

general aviation. In a time when general aviation businesses are looking to spur 

economic and job growth, the imposition of a user fee would also be detrimental to the 

many states with little or no commercial airline service where general aviation plays an 

integral economic role. 

Background 

The general aviation industry is critically important to the economy. The industry 

employs 1.2 million workers and generates $150 billion annually in economic activity. 

General aviation, small airports and related businesses provide access to a host of 

important services and resources, including medical care, law enforcement, disaster 

relief, mail delivery, fire fighting and flight training. We believe that the current system 

of aviation excise taxes is the most stable, efficient and equitable source of funding for 

the Airport and Airways Trust Fund. 

User fees, on the other hand, would significantly impede general aviation in the United 

States for a variety of reasons including: 

". Reduction in general aviation activity: User fees would undoubtedly result in many 

operators flying on a much less frequent basis due to the increased costs of using the 

national airspace system. Less activity will have a large ripple effect throughout the 

industry. with many businesses suffering due to fewer fuel sales, maintenance 

projects, and other services. 

". Imposition of an administrative burden: Virtually all countries that utilize a user 

fee system have adopted a method of billing users of the system after their flight for 

the air traffic services used. None of these countries, however, have the level of 

general aviation activity of the United States. A system of "after the fact" bills would 

result in a massive administrative burden for all general aviation pilots. Companies 

would have to employ significant resources for verifying the bills and ensuring their 

accuracy. With thousands of bills being generated daily, there is a great likelihood 

that a significant number of these bills will be erroneous, leading to endless red tape 

to correct errors. The current fuel tax ensures that the aviation trust fund will receive 

the appropriate contribution the minute the fuel is purchased, without having to 

wait weeks or even months for payment. 
25 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 58 here 76498A.004

Unified Message to the White House 

Congress and the aviation industry have been unanimously opposed to the imposition 

of aviation user fees. Over the past five years, numerous letters from Members of 

Congress in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, industry coalitions, 

and aviation associations have been sent to the administration to reiterate that per-flight 

user fees will cripple the aviation industry and the small businesses it represents. The 

government's first priority should be to create an environment in which business can 

grow and make important contributions to the national economy. A user fee is little 

more than a punitive tax that would have a lasting negative effect on an industry that 

contributes significantly to the nation's economy and its exports. Moreover, imposition 

of a user fee would create a federal collection bureaucracy that would require 

significant funding and manpower. 

Conclusion 

Concerns are high about the ramifications the proposed user fee would have on the 

aviation industry and the small businesses that form our core. All those impacted by 

this fee recognize that fuel taxes for general aviation have not been raised in more than 

20 years and that some increase is warranted. We all agree that fuel taxes represent the 

best way for the aviation industry to contribute revenue to the federal government and 

support efforts to enhance the national air transportation system. However, the costs 

associated with user fees far outweigh any benefit to deficit reduction. 

We look forward to working with the committee in resolving this onerous issue and are 

eager to serve as a valuable resource for aviation businesses during this critical debate. 
26 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 59 here 76498A.005

STATEMENT OF 

MARTHA KING 

KING SCHOOLS, INC. 

REPRESENTING THE 

e::NBAA 

-

NATIONAL BUSINESS AVIATION ASSOCIATION 

BEFORE 

THE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

REGARDING 

USER FEES IN THE AVIATION INDUSTRY: 

TURBULANCE AHEAD 

SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 
27 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 60 here 76498A.006

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Velazquez and members of the Committee, thank you 

for the invitation to appear before you today. 

My name is Martha King, and I am honored to be here today to represent the National 

Business Aviation Association (NBAA). NBAA has over 9,000 members. I am proud 

that my company is one of them, and I'm equally proud to serve on NBAA's Associate 

Member Advisory Council. All NBAA Members have one thing in common: they rely 

on business aviation to meet some of their company's travel challenges. I am also a proud 

member of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA). 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am a co-founder, co-owner and cochairman of King Schools, a Hight-training company my husband and I started in 1975. 

Our company produces, CD-ROM, DVD and web-based training courses for pilots. We 

launched our business out of our home nearly forty years ago. Today, I say with some 

pride that it has been estimated that nearly every pilot has taken one of our courses during 

his or her flying career. 

In addition to being type rated in our eompany airplane, a Dassault Falcon 10, I also hold 

every category and class of FAA rating on my pilot and instructor certificates. I regularly 

fly everything tram jet and piston airplanes and helicopters to powered parachutes. I also 

pilot blimps from time to time. 

King Schools has grown from its original two employees-myself and my husband-and 

general aviation has been critieal to that growth. Like thousands of small start-up 

companies all over the United States, we found that utilizing a general aviation airplane 

made our company, King Schools, more efficient and more productive. It allowed us to 

do more in less time. It helped us survive. It helped us compete. It helped us grow. 

Thirty-seven years later, we are still working to survive. We are still working to compete. 

We are still working to grow. And, we still depend on our general aviation airplane. 

Mr. Chairman and members ofthe Committee, as you know, general aviation is one of 

our nation's most significant industries. It is one of the few U.S. industries that 

contributes positively to our nation's balance of trade. It is fundamental to our nation's 

manufacturing base. It employs 1.2 million Americans, at a time when our country 

urgently needs jobs. It is an economic lifeline to thousands of small and mid-size 

American communities with little or no scheduled airline service. It helps companies of 

all sizes be more efficient, productive and competitive. And, it is vital to our nation's 

humanitarian efforts. 

The great recession has been devastating to the general aviation industry. By virtually any 

measure, our industry shrank by 30 to 60 percent, and while things have stabilized 
28 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 61 here 76498A.007

somewhat, we have yet to approach anything near our 2007 or 2008 levels. King Schools 

has not been spared from the impact of the recession: our business, which reached a high 

of90 employees in 2007, is today down to 50 employees. 

It is difficult to imagine how, at a time when a critical American industry is struggling the 

way general aviation is, people in Washington could be contemplating an onerous, 

regressive and administratively burdensome new per-flight tax euphemistically called a 

"user fee." 

A $100 per-flight (ax on all turbine powered aircraft would be devastating for thousands 

of small businesses like mine. I hope this important committee will put an end to this 

nonsensical proposal once and for all. 

Mr. Chairman, you and your colleagues on this Committee are very familiar with 

business aviation. But for anyone who isn't, here are a few informative facts, in addition 

to those I've previously shared with you: 

• Business aviation is a U.S. industry. Most of the planes and component parts 

flying in the world today were built in the United States. 

• Eighty-five percent of the U.S. companies that utilize business aviation are small 

and mid-size businesses. 

• Most business aviation flights fly to or from airports with no scheduled airline 

service. 

• The average age of the U.S. general aviation turbine airplane fleet is over 25 years 

old. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I know there are those who try to promote 

a caricature of business aviation that is at odds with these facts. But the reality is that my 

small business, King Schools, is very representative of business aviation in the United 

States. 

We fly a business jet that was built in 1974. Our 50 employees at King Schools depend 

on us to be strategic, efficient and productive. Our employees are instructors, technicians, 

sales people and customer service representatives. 

We don't have an army of accountants standing by to process a deluge of new $100 perflight invoices from some new federal bureaucracy. And quite frankly, our country 

doesn't need some new "Sky-R-S," complete with auditors, billing agents and collectors. 

Today, business aviation pays at the pump through a per-gallon fuel tax. It is simple. It is 

fair. It is efficient. It is progressive. It is environmentally friendly. And .... it is adjustable. 
29 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 62 here 76498A.008

Congress can always raise or lower the fuel tax. We never need to establish a foreignstyle system of user fees in the United States. We have a bcttcr way. We have fuel taxes. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, over the past year, Republican and 

Democratic Governors have written letters in opposition to the $100 per-flight user fee. 

Over 100 mayors, Republicans and Democrats, from virtually every state in the Union, 

have written in opposition to the $100 per-flight fee. As you know, a bipartisan group of 

195 House members have written in opposition to aviation user fees. Mr. Chairman, we 

thank you and the Committee members who signed that letter. 

In addition, local news networks in towns in from Arkansas, to New Hampshire, to 

Indiana, to South Dakota and Idaho have reported on the danger a $100 per-flight fee 

represents to their communities and their local airports. 

Make no mistake about it. A new $100 per-flight fee on all turbine airplane flights is a 

bad idea. It will hurt our economy. It will hurt our transportation system. It will hurt 

small towns. And it will hurt small businesses like mine. We are counting on this 

committee to make sure that doesn't happen. We are counting on you to spread the word: 

aviation fuel taxes work. Per-flight fees destroy. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I'll be happy to answer your questions. 
30 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 63 here 76498A.009

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

User Fees in the Aviation Industry: Turbulence Ahead 

Evidence to the House of Representative's Committee on Small Business 

Kenneth J. Button PhD, AcSS, FClL T, FCIHT 

University Professor 

School of Public Policy 

George Mason University 

Room 2360 of the Rayburn House Office Building 

September 12,2012 

14 In my comments I would like to address two related, but separate issues; (I) the 

15 desirability of aviation user chargcs and (b) whether the proposed mandatory $100 flight 

16 fee is likely to prove a good user fee. The broad conclusion is that in principle user 

17 charging has merit in terms of ensuring better use of existing infrastructure and in 

18 facilitating bettcr decisions regarding its capacity, but that a $100 surcharge per flight on 

19 users is confusing and probably not helpful in moving towards genuine economic user 

20 fees. 

21 

22 USER FEES 

23 There have been important changes taking place around the world in terms of the ways 

24 that air transportation infrastructure is organized, financed and regulated. In general, and 

25 although the details vary considerably, there has been a greater emphasis on using market 

26 mechanisms to finance and manage airports and air navigation services (ANS)!. This 

! K . .J. Button, 'The Implications of the commercialization of air transport infrastructure'. in D. Lee (eds). 

The Economics of Airline Institutions. Operations and Marketing 2. Elsevier. Oxford, 2007. pp. 171-192. 

1 
31 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 64 here 76498A.010

27 brings aviation infrastructure more in line with the institutional structures under which 

28 users and suppliers of other forms air transportation hardware (e.g. air frame and engine 

29 manufactures) and software (e.g. global distribution systems) function, as well as the 

30 commercial airline industry. 

31 The US economy has traditional grown because of its reliance on the Anglo-Saxon 

32 economic philosophy that one leaves things to market forces and market pricing unless it 

33 can clearly demonstrated that government intervention provides a superior outcome. The 

34 market may not be perfect, but it has to be shown that government supply or its exercise 

35 of controls over prices is actually better than a broad reliance on the market. The Airline 

36 Deregulation Act of 1978, and the liberalization for air cargo markets the preceding year 

37 provided evidence, not only of the benefits to air transportation users of adopting market 

38 principles2

, but acted as a catalyst to other sectors, including the railroads and trucking, 

39 that followed suit with considerable economic gains accruing. 

40 While user fees have limitations, no system is perfect, some of the particular criticisms 

41 that have been voiced regarding their application in air transportation infrastructure 

42 provision are misguided. A common one is that in times of economic recession the air 

43 navigation service providers (ANSPs) will suffer from diminished revenue flow as 

44 eommercial airline traffic declines. This in turn, because ANSPs have high fixed costs, 

45 would force the providers to push up fees, and thus depress air traffic further. Exactly 

46 what is not required. At the extreme, as they build up debt, airlines may apply for Chapter 

47 11 bankruptcy protection leaving other carriers and users to bear the financial burden of 

48 the infrastructure.3 While this superficially has some validity, and particularly so in the 

49 context of a badly structured institutional situation, the type of circumstances outlined is 

50 common to many other forms of business that have well tried mechanisms for handling it. 

51 Businesses confronted with high fixed costs, for example, tend to carry more financial 

52 reserves and ensure that they have lines of credit to carry them over periods of reduced 

2 See for example, Bailey, E.E. (2010) Air-transportation deregulation, in J.J. Seigtried (ed) Better Living 

Ihrough /'conomics. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA. 

1 See for example, D. Jenkins, 71"'bulence Ahead: How li,er Fees Could Ground the FAA, 2005. 

2 
32 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 65 here 76498A.011

53 revenue; they are not totally myopic but are well cognizant of the situation. In the 

54 extreme, companies with high fixed costs in the private sector file for Chapler 11 

55 bankruptcy and essentially have their costs (de/acto debt) written down. The risks of the 

56 undertaking are borne by those owning it and not but taxpayers4. In the event of default, 

57 the infrastructure remains but is taken over and operated under a new financial structure. 

58 In other words, owners take measures that provide insurance against what they consider 

59 the worst downturns in cash flow, and there are institutional structures that ensure smooth 

60 transitions to new business forms in the extreme cases where this is not adequate5

• 

61 There have been admitted problems with user fees in air transportation in other countries, 

62 but these have been largely the result of the poor institutional arrangements in which they 

63 were established, combined with extreme events. For example, NA V CANADA, the non64 profit corporatized Canadian ANSP had liquidity issues after the happenings of 911 I but 

65 this was seriously exasperated because of the legal requirement to match costs and 

66 revenues in the very short tcrm; essentially annuaIll. This is not a good business model. 

67 Capital-intensive suppliers need to be able to hold adequate reservcs, and to use them to 

68 tide them over periods of reduced revenue. TIle UK "privatized" its ANSP as NATS in 

69 2001, also just in time to be hit a major downturn in traffic. It did require injections of 

70 public and private money, but this was into a business that many had feared was 

71 undercapitalized in the first place7

• 

72 The main advantages of having a more commercial approach to managing ANSs, with a 

73 move to prices closer to those found in markets, and the opportunity to have access to a 

"This is not the case. however. when government bailouts are provided. This. because of moral hazard 

considerations. puts the risk. or part of it. at the door of the taxpayer. 

5 American Airlines is still operating at the time of writing under Chapter II bankruptcy with no significant 

impact on its customers. 

6 Air Canada went bankrupt in 2003 owning $44 million to NA V CANADA and its chairman complained 

that high user fees had harmed the airline (CBC News (Canada) report, December 4,2003, 

www.cbc.ca/slorics/2003/0 I/mBlon 03041)). but this should be taken in the context of the number of US 

carriers that received post 2001 aid from the government or themselves went bankrupt despite the publicly 

funded, non-user fee regime in place. 

7 A wider discussion of the various approaches to making ANSPs more commercially oriented is found in, 

K.!. Button and O. McDougall. Institutional and structural changes in air navigation service-providing 

organizations, Journal olAfr li'unsport Management. 12.2006.236-252 

3 
33 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 66 here 76498A.012

74 more diverse range of funding sources, is the stimulus this gives to efIicient decision75 making. Market prices based user fees do three main things8

: 

76 They allocate what is available to those who benefit most from using them the 

77 most. They rise when there is shortage of any good or service thus giving priority 

78 to those who will pay most and fall when there is a surplus. The classic short term 

79 advantage is that they make more efficient use of infrastructure by differentiating 

80 between periods when there is heavy demand for facilities and when demand is 

81 lighter, by allocate capacity in the former to those most willing to pay for it, and 

82 encourage other potential users to switch their activities to the latter. 

83 They provide indicators of where additional or modified capacity is needed, or 

84 conversely where capacity should be reduced. If prices continually rise, this is an 

85 indication that more should be provided; people arc basically voting with their 

86 wallets to have more or more useful infrastructure available. 

87 They provide funds to finance new capacity. Revenues from user fees provide a 

88 direct source of funds for investment, and provide an incentive for financial 

89 markets to invest. There is also a degree of accountability in terms of the returns 

90 earned to help ensure efficiency in how the investment is used. 

91 There are many forms of market failures, just as there are many forms of government 

92 failures, that may make user fees much less efficient, or impractical9

• In particular, is 

93 often cited that ANS are pubic goods and thus not suited to user feesID• This confuses 

94 public ownership or financing that may occur for many reasons, with the nature of a 

95 public good. A public good was initially defined 50 years or so ago by the Economics 

, These features, together with, a discussion of the taxation approach to financing the FAA's activities are 

discussed in more detail in KJ. Button. Taxing the US Airline Industry, A IInle/or Change. 2005. 

ww\v.aerlines.nl. 

9 For a wider discussion see, C. Winston, Government Failure versus .'darket Failure. Brookings Institution. 

Washington DC. 2006 

10 This seems to be the explicit rationale behind Australia's subsidizes service to some regional areas under 

the Location-Specific Tower Subsidy Program, see US Government Accountability Office. Air I)'a/Jie 

Control- Character;,'ies and Per:formance a/Selecled International Air Navigation Service Providers and 

Lessons Learnedfrom Their Commercialization. GAO-05-769, 2005. 

4 
34 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 67 here 76498A.013

96 Nobel Laureate Paul Samuelson11 as being a good or service that is non-excludable (i.e. 

97 you cannot prevent people from having or using it) and non-rival (i.e. one's person's 

98 consumption of it does not affect that of others; basically you do not get congestion.). 

99 The existence of these conditions prevent user fees being charged, people would simply 

100 not pay them, why should they ifuse cannot be prevented, and thus public financing and 

101 other forms of funding are required. Since it is possible to both exclude people from 

102 using ANS services, and the system periodically suffers from manifest congestion, they 

103 are private goods in the economic sense and thus case for user fees can he made. 

104 This is not to say that there are not problems in applying the user charge approach to 

105 many types of goods and services, although user charges are by far the most common 

106 approach to allocating and financing goods and services in the US. In the context of ANS 

107 several practical issues involving user charges seem of particular relevance: 

108 There are indivisibilities and considerable 'jointness" in the provision of many air 

109 navigation services. In particular, largc commercial aircraft generally require, and 

11 0 also make use of more facilities than do non-commercial aircraft, i.e. general and 

111 business aviation. Under the current structure of non-user bascd charging, for 

112 example, a large commercial aircraft would pay between $1,300 to $2,000 in 

113 taxes for a flight from Los Angeles to San Francisco while a corporate jet flying 

114 the same route and using the same FAA ANS would pay about $60 in taxes. The 

115 "distortion" however, is likely to be less than these crude figures imply. Whether 

116 the corporate jets uses or need to use the same ANS services is the point at issue; 

117 the system is largely designed for the larger, commercial aircraft and executive 

118 jets may well elect not use them if they had to pay the full costs. 

119 This is an undeniable practical problem and one that is unlikely to produce any 

120 ideal outcome; but in the words of the Scottish philosopher, Carveth Read, 

121 "Better to be vaguely right than precisely wrong." The current system is 

122 wrong and fees more attuned to costs would provide better signals to users 

" P.A. Samuelson, The pure theory of public expenditure, Review ofE.Conomics and Statistics. 36.1954, 

387-389. 

5 
35 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 68 here 76498A.014

123 of the economic implications of their flights. While the exact calculation and 

124 collection of user fees may be difficult, they would seem better than the 

125 current regime that is some way from offering signals to ANS users about the 

126 economic costs of their actions or indicating where new systems capacity 

127 may be required. 

128 • There arc problems in collecting user fees. The administrative costs of collecting 

129 fees or taxes are no small consideration in terms of business efficiency. The 

130 current approach of partially funding aviation infrastructure from fuel excise 

131 duties and other taxes, such as the international arrival and departure tax, has 

132 relatively low administrative costs and is easy to collect. There are arguments that 

133 user fees would pose more serious administrative challenges. This ignores two 

134 considerations; first, fuel duties, while crudely related to flight distance, are not 

135 closely tied to the ANS that are used and thus are costly in terms of providing no 

136 incentive for efficient usc of ANS services, and second, since flight plans have to 

137 be filed and controlled airspace is just that, mechanisms for levying user fees 

138 should not prove too intractable. 

139 Other countries that have user fees adopt a variety of methods of collection, many 

140 levy fees on the number of l1ights airlines make and the types of plane that are 

141 flown. This is far from perfect, although cheap to operate, but is more kin to costs 

142 than the almost ad hoc US system of taxes and duties. Given modern information 

143 systcms, there is an incentive to develop better collection mechanisms that 

144 combine economy in fee collection and a linking of fees more closely to the 

145 market. 

146 

147 THE SUGGESTED $100 TAKE-OFF FEE. 

6 
36 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 69 here 76498A.015

148 In 2011 proposals emerged to establish a mandatory additional fee of $100 per flight to 

149 be paid by aviation operators who fly in controlled air space 12. There are some 

150 exemptions to the proposal, notably Canada-to-Canada flights, aircraft flying outside of 

151 controlled air space, air ambulances, military aircraft, public aircraft, recreational piston 

152 aircraft, and air ambulances. The revenue generated, estimated at $1.2 to $1.3 billion, 

153 much would depend on the elasticity of demand for use of controlled air space and the 

154 general state of the economy, would go to the Federal Aviation Administration, and 

155 would, according to US Treasury Department's Bureau of Pubic Debt calculations, 

156 increase air traffic service fees above current structure levels by about 13%.13 

157 The objective of the charge would be to assist in reducing the national deficit (the US 

158 National Debt in September 2012 was $16.02 trillion; an annual revenue of$1.2 billion is 

159 about 11l3,333th of the current Debt) and to make equitable the share of costs borne 

160 across the aviation user community. There has, not surprisingly been some opposition, 

161 not least from those who would have to pay the surcharge, to the proposal. 

162 This approach misses a vital element in pricing; namely the efficiency with which 

163 services, such as ANS, are used. There are opportunity costs of all sorts in making 

164 aviation space, some clearly financial as in thc case of the FAA hard and software 

165 involved, but some involving the congestion caused to other uscrs (or potential user) of 

166 air space. Efficiency in the usc of a system is not the same as fairness in charging or 

167 using revenues from fees as a contribution to payoff national deficits. 

168 In terms of efficiency the proposed surcharge has a number of limitations: 

169 It is an arbitrary, admittedly round, sum that seems unrelated to any notion of the 

170 actual user costs imposed by the various groups making use of ANS. There has 

171 been no firm articulation of why the sum was arrived at, the administrative costs 

172 of its collection, or the likely impact on consumption of ANS. 

11 US Office of Management and Budget. Uving fVithin Our Means and Investing in the Future, 

Washington DC, 2011. 

13 An alternative ofa fee of$115 to $125 per flight would raise $1.5 billion annually. 

7 
37 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 70 here 76498A.016

173 The underlying rationale behind the charge is confusing. If it is simply a 

174 sumptuary sales tax imposed on grounds of fairness or equity then this should be 

175 made transparent and the reasons behind it. There are also differences between 

176 lIser fees that are meant to foster better use of a system, and taxes that are 

177 intended for macroeconomic purposes of handling the costs of public 

178 expenditures more generally. 

179 A takeoff fee is a poor indicator of the actual costs imposed by users of ANS 

180 services, just as a fuel tax is. Flights are of different lengths and make use of a 

181 variety of ANS, of which the terminal costs are only part. It may be a better proxy 

182 to the economic costs of a flight, and thus have some attributes of a genuine user 

183 fee, but it is a long way from ideal. 

184 What the exact impact of takeoff surcharge will be on the various users of ANS is 

185 difficult to say; in particular, evidence on the relevant elasticities of demand is lacking. 

186 We have little information on the effects of such a proportionately large fixed cost 

187 increase on air travel. Indeed, there is limited rigorous analysis of a technical kind of the 

188 demand elasticities for many aspects of air transportation outside of the large commercial 

189 sector. 

190 Arguments certainly have been raised that a $100 fee would be prohibitive and limit 

191 many forms of general and business aviation activity, and possible commercial services 

192 on very thin routes. In this context, comparisons with Europe, and in particular, the UK, 

193 where many airports currently have higher takeoff fees for general aviation than the US, 

194 have been made 14. It is observed that there is much less general aviation in Europe, but 

195 this sort of comparison is not really that useful. There are major physical and human 

196 geography differences between the US and Europe, and there are other institutional 

197 difference between them in terms of such things accesses to airports and competing 

198 surface modes, that limit the validity of such international comparisons 

199 Overall, in terms of the $100 takeoff surcharge, the emphasis when it was initially 

200 mooted was in terms of its potential role in enhancing the fairness of the way ANS is 

14 T. A. Horne, FAA Funding debate: Euro-fees fears, ,1OP,1 Pilot Magazine, 50. 2007 

8 
38 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 71 here 76498A.017

201 financed and helping to reduce the national deficit, but this seems somewhat misguided. 

202 Given the scale of the Nations' overall deficit, lind that from experience we can expect 

203 the annual fiscal burden will increase as interest rates rise in the future if the economy 

204 moves from recession, the aggregate sums involved in the surcharge are miniscule. 

205 Regarding fairness, there is insufficient consideration of the efficiency effects in the 

206 detail of the charge. In the long-term, small and large businesses are only likely to 

207 prosper if the US economy is globally efficient, and resources used productively; user 

208 charges are designed to do this rather than be focused fairness that has many dimensions 

209 including that between generations. 

9 
39 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 72 here 76498A.018

Statement of 

Brad Pierce, President of Restaurant Equipment World 

Before the 

Committee on Small Business 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Concerning 

User Fees in the Aviation Industry: Turbulence Ahead 

September 12, 2012 
40 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 73 here 76498A.019

My name is Brad Pierce, and I appreciate the opportunity to be here today 

and to represent the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA). I 

have been a member of AOPA since 1997. The company I lead, 

Restaurant Equipment World is also a member of the National Business 

Aviation Association (NBAA). 

Restaurant Equipment World (A Pierce Sales Company, Inc.) was founded 

more than 35 years ago by my father, Jerry Pierce. We provide equipment 

to restaurants and food service establishments throughout the Southeast 

and beyond from our headquarters in Orlando, Florida. Today we are proud 

to have approximately 48 employees and offer top quality food service 

equipment, layout services, and installation to clients that includes 

independent and chain restaurants, hospitals, corporate cafeterias, 

correctional facilities, and exports to establishments in foreign countries. 

We currently have sold products to over 100,000 customers in all 50 states 

and more than 110 countries internationally. 

My testimony today will make the following key points: 

1. General aviation has been a critical factor in the growth of our 

business and gives us an important competitive advantage. 

2. General aviation users pay to fund the aviation system through excise 

taxes on fuel. This system is effective, proven, and should continue to 

be the means for users to pay into the system. 

3. User fees would be devastating to my business and others like it that 

depend on general aviation daily. 

General aviation grows business 

Restaurant Equipment World depends on general aviation to conduct 

business. We currently fly a Turbo Cirrus SR-22 and have placed a deposit 

on a Cirrus Vision Jet. Our current aircraft is the third airplane that we have 

utilized to grow our business. 

I consider my airplane to be one of my best employees. It has consistently 

allowed me to expand the boundaries of our service area because we can 
41 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 74 here 76498A.020

reach potential clients fast, even when they are located hundreds or 

thousands of miles from our Orlando headquarters. I have personally flown 

our aircraft to 49 states. We utilize our aircraft to maintain existing 

relationships, attend industry events, and pursue new business for our 

company. And because the airplane allows us to set our own travel 

schedule, we can stay on site to make sure our business interactions are 

complete and our clients are satisfied; we don't have to worry about 

catching a flight. As recently as two weeks ago, our aircraft allowed me to 

shift my schedule in order to meet with a new client as well as being able to 

make an impromptu site visit with our manufacturing partner on my way to 

an industry event. 

On more than one occasion, our airplane has provided the competitive 

advantage we needed to secure a contract. When we had a call from a 

potential client in North Carolina, I was able to arrange a meeting less in a 

matter of a few hours, something that would have taken a full day of travel 

each way utilizing a commercial airliner, not to mention the added hotel, 

rental car, meals and other expenses which would have been incurred. We 

got there even before the local restaurant supplier, and Restaurant 

Equipment World got the business. The client was impressed with our 

ability to respond to their needs quickly which gave them the confidence we 

were the best choice to complete their project on time without excuses. 

The airplane allows me to meet with multiple customers in multiple cities 

and multiple states in a single day. It allows me to respond quickly to 

customer needs. And it allows me to build personal relationships with 

clients I might otherwise never be able to meet face to face. These things 

are critical for growing and maintaining my business. Our airplane has also 

allowed our staff members and managers to accompany me on trips in 

order to meet their counterparts at client locations. This has helped to build 

stronger bonds throughout our organization with our customers. 

And I am not alone. In my home state of Florida, for example, general 

aviation is associated with more than 7 million jobs and it has an estimated 

economic impact of $7.5 billion. That's because thousands of business 

owners like me use general aviation to support and grow their companies. 
42 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 75 here 76498A.021

The current recession has been a challenge for all businesses, Restaurant 

Equipment World included. In order to survive and thrive, we have had to 

have a laser focus on efficiency. We are a small company. We can't throw 

unlimited resources at challenges and opportunities. But we need to be 

there for our customers, now more than ever. At a time when we've seen 

multiple competitors failing, we've been able to grow our business and 

continue hiring employees. 

Current System of Excise Taxes Work 

The United States has the largest, safest, most efficient air transportation 

system in the world-a system developed and funded by simple, efficient 

taxes on aviation fuel, passenger tickets, and air cargo. 

About two-thirds of the funding for the FAA's Aviation Trust Fund comes 

from a variety of excise taxes. Currently, avgas users pay 19.3 cents/gallon 

in fuel tax, while noncommercial Jet A users pay 21.8 cents/gallon. GA 

users have agreed to an increase in the fuel taxes in lieu of user fees, 

ensuring that GA pays its "fair share" of costs. Because fuel taxes are 

included in the amount charged for fuel they are directly remitted to the 

federal government. These taxes are easy to collect and provide an 

equitable distribution of costs-if you fly farther, you use more fuel and pay 

more in taxes. Similarly, the Highway Trust Fund is collected at the pump. 

Other parts of the world have user fee systems that are far more complex 

and require a large bureaucracy to manage. Take for instance Australia. In 

order to fly general aviation, you'll need to know your deemed max takeoff 

weight, how far you'll fly, how many full-stop landings and instrument 

approaches you'll make, the rate per ton assessed at your planned 

destination-and if you'll be arriving during normal business hours. Plus, 

take a guess at whether you'll fly more or less than last year, because the 

government could give you an option to estimate your charges. If it's less 

than $500, you might be off the hook. If not, pay up. 
43 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 76 here 76498A.022

(http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wpcontent/uploads/standard contract oct2011. pdf) 

Of course, this elaborate pay scheme requires people to measure your 

flights, count your landings, check your math, and collect your money. So a 

lot of the money you pay into the system won't even go toward providing 

ATC services or keeping the airspace system safe. 

The burden of similar fees in the United States would destroy flight schools, 

decimate the pilot population, put manufacturers and FBOs out of business, 

and kill off some of the 1.2 million jobs that now depend on GA 

General aviation pays at the pump 

Every general aviation operator pays to support the aviation infrastructure 

every time we fly through an excise tax on fuel. This tax has been an 

effective way of paying into the system since the earliest days of powered 

flight. It directly reflects how much we fly because we are taxed on the 

amount of fuel we use. Currently, Avgas users pay 19.3 cents/ gallon in fuel 

tax while non-commercial Jet A users pay 21.8 cents/gallon. 

Our current system requires no additional bureaucracy or administrative 

costs either for system users or for the federal government. 

And Congress sets the tax rate. It is within your purview to adjust the rate 

as needed. 

A $100 per flight fee would require a new system just to administer and 

collect this new tax. And once the bureaucracy was in place, the fee could 

change at any time without Congressional input or oversight. For business 

owners like myself, there would be additional costs just to reconcile and 

pay the resulting invoices, making the added burden of this new tax even 

greater. 

Today's system of excise taxes works. Creating a new type of tax, with the 

necessary administrative bureaucracy, would increase costs and decrease 

efficiency for everyone concerned. 

User fees would devastate small businesses 
44 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 77 here 76498A.023

Without question, a $100 per flight user fee would be catastrophic to 

general aviation, will not create jobs, will depress economic prosperity for 

the hundreds of thousands of businesses that rely on general aviation to 

move their goods and is nothing more than an additional regulatory burden 

and harassment to our nation's small businesses and communities that rely 

on general aviation as a means of livelihood. 

Such a proposal, if enacted, would be devastating to small businesses like 

mine. Adding an additional $100 to the cost of every flight would have an 

impact on how many clients we could reach. Shorter flights would make 

less economic sense, and we would not be able to visit multiple cities in a 

day if every stop meant an additional $100 fee. 

For a business like mine that depends on being responsive to client needs 

and building relationships in person, the proposed fee would be 

devastating. Our travel costs would rise and the value proposition would 

change. The administrative burden of tracking and reconciling invoices and 

paying them would also add to our expenses. 

Conclusion 

I thank you for the opportunity to testify here today and I urge you to reject 

new taxes in the form of user fees for general aviation. General aviation 

helped to make it possible for us to grow Restaurant Equipment World from 

a five-person operation to a company with approximately 48 employees. 

We want to continue to create jobs, and we need general aviation to do it. 

Allow us to continue to pay at the pump so we can focus our energy on 

making our businesses stronger instead of on paying new fees. 
45 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 78 here 76498A.024

09/1412012 12:45 

TO: 

PROM: 

MEMBERS OF TIiE HOUSE COMMlTI'ElB ON SMALL BUSINESS 

EDOBBRHOLTZER 

SUBJECT. PROPOSED GENERAL AVIATION USER PEE 

DATE. 

CO 

,-/'14/2012 

To the honorobJe membets of the House conunittee on smlll1 business: 

PAGE 111 

This message is to deliver my objection of the proposed $100 pet flight user fee on general Aviation flights. 

My objection however, is not focused on the user Ike itself. 

As a group, your committee boasts an impressive level of experience with small businesses. POt that, I am 

grateful and thl1llk MCh of you for your public service. BeCAuse of that experience~ I expect the committee to 

have an :tCUte understanding of govemment"s imwililJ to operate any sort of adrninisttative function efficiently 

am! effectivelyl Accotdingly, proposals th .. include the need to ""Pam! 4!\ existing go""mment ag<ney 

administratively or create a new one should be met by an objection from the committee. I understand that it is 

not that simple but I hope the point is made. 

In the cue of the ploposed USet fee, implementation would requite an administrative agency of 

extmo,dina'l' complexity when an existing mechani.m fo, coDecting revenue alteady exists ---fedeml tax on 

I1vi1ltion fuel The /hD"iPt ~s that lead to a rewnue increase idea that tequite5 11 new administrative sorubon 

when ~ existing revenue collection meclutnj,m already exists concems me greatly. I feat that is endemic of an 

ideology that belie"". that more govemment jobs is • desirable outcome. I could not disagtee mote sttonglyt 

Ideology aside, as a busmC$S man and a pmgmati$~ thete is simply no evidence supporting the notion that 

an expanding govemment produces swtained positive economic impact. Quite to the contrary) govenunentll 

are "overhead" that ol»od> capital and should be kept as small .. possible. 

As smaU business owners, operators and advocates) you should undemtand weB my position. Which of 

you could hove SUC<:e$SfuUy opemted.JIII" bu.ine" if you tan it like the go""mment would?! 

It is my opinion that so many of your congressional coUea.gues ate either fiu: removed from life in the 

private sector or have. never wolked in the private sector, that your smaD band, this committee, is the group 

that 300+ million people in the U.S. depend on to belp .hape am! maintain congu:ssional per:<pecti"" on what 

the fcdem1 govemment is and is notl Pethaps it is iromc that a. single, not ps.ttieularly earth shaking itJue 

involving A proposed met fee $0 effectively lmCapsulates an issue that I believe is seminal to the "cu1tute" of 

OUt fedeml govemment but I believe that it does just that! 

J ho~ that I have made It cogent point that resonate's with this committee and that you will promote the 

point with YOUI coneagun. The: current economic and political u:ajtctory of the country is not positive. 

Adjusting the "user fe<" mindset of Congress will help make adjustmenlS. 

Cotdially, 

Ed Obemoltze[ 

Notwaik,CT 
46 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 79 here 76498A.025

(ll:OU!,lfl'SS of tIll' lluitl'O §tl.ttl'S 

Ulu5Jlingtoll. D<£ 2U5lJ 

March 1,2012 

The Honorable Baraek H. Obama 

President of the United States of America 

The White House 

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 

Washington, DC 20500 

Dear President Obama: 

We are writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed $100 per flight fee on 

commercial and general aviation in your fiscal year 2013 budget proposal. 

Aviation user fees have been proposed several times by different Administrations, both 

Republican and Democrat. Congress has repeatedly and overwhelmingly rejected them. 

Commercial and general aviation, including aviation manufacturing, are vital industries 

in our nation, providing millions of jobs and making important contributions to our economy. 

We should work together to support policies that encourage job growth and strengthen U.S. 

economic activity. Imposing a $100 per flight fee on commercial and general aviation is the 

wrong approach, and we respectfully request that you abandon this idea once and for all. 

We appreciate your consideration of our strong concems. 

Sincerely, 

I /1" 

",/ 

~---.---.. --.-,------""~ 
47 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 80 here 76498A.026

The Honorable Baraek H. Obama 

March 1, 2012 

Page Two 

Q t 

~MJ 

~1~&4if 
48 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 81 here 76498A.027

The Hono rable Baraek H. Obama 

M 

~ 

•• hI,"" 7'/ J ~ I /It 

)ZtJlk;--

// ~ ~~-~ 

~ t/ 

£&~~-

~t/d 

{lLtkf1 
49 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 82 here 76498A.028

The Honorable Saraek H. Obama 

March 1. 2012 

Page Four 

(Qa jj.y1 

~ H-()L~~ 
50 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 83 here 76498A.029

The Honorable Barack H. Obama 

March 1,2012 

Page Five 
51 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 84 here 76498A.030

The Honorable Baraek H. Obama 

March 1,2012 

Page Six 

~t~ 

t77r.£,,"/~Z L, U .' 

/ 
52 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 85 here 76498A.031

The Honorable Barack H. Obama 

March 1,2012 

Page Seven 
53 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 86 here 76498A.032

The Honorable Baraek H. Obama 

March 1,2012 

Page Eight 
54 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 87 here 76498A.033

The Honorable Barack H. Obama 

March 1,2012 

Page Nine 
55 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 88 here 76498A.034

The Honorable Barack H. Obama 

March L 2012 

Page Ten 

::=2~~ 

iLd~j , 
56 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 89 here 76498A.035

The Honorable Barack H. Obama 

March J, 2012 

Page Eleven 
57 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 90 here 76498A.036

The Honorable Baraek H. Obama 

March 1,2012 

Page Twelve 

?:/tdk~ 

5~ 

AUG S D 11\~ 

~~ 

dl.cG2--·; 

~Jc#-

;3'7 ~~ A~ 

~~ 
58 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 91 here 76498A.037

The Honorable Sarack H. Obama 

March 1,2012 

Page Thirteen 

1($!11.~ 

o.,W.J.L ~ 

Cc/.IkIr£~ ~ 

." &;i<.~tfka - 2fAe.~ 

~ 
59 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 92 here 76498A.038

Letter to President Opposing Aviation User Fees 

March 1, 2012 

Rep. Todd Akin 

Rep. Jason Altmire 

Rep. Mark Amodei 

Rep. Spencer Bachus 

Rep. Lou Barletta 

Rep. John Barrow 

Rep. Charles F. Bass 

Rep. Dan Benishek 

Rep. Rick Berg 

Rep. Shelley Berkley 

Rep. Sanford Bishop 

Rep. Tim Bishop 

Rep. Diane Black 

Rep. Marsha Blackburn 

Rep. Jo Bonner 

Rep. Mary Bono Mack 

Rep. Madeleine Bordallo 

Rep. Leonard Boswell 

Rep. Kevin Brady 

Rep. Robert A. Brady 

Rep. Mo Brooks 

Rep. Paul C. Broun, M.D. 

Rep. Corrine Brown 

Rep. Vern Buchanan 

Rep. Larry Bucshon, M.D. 

Rep. Michael Burgess, M.D. 

Rep. Dan Burton 

Rep. Shelley Moore Capito 

Rep. Russ Carnahan 

Rep. John Carter 

Rep. William Lacy Clay 

Rep. Howard Coble 

Rep. Mike Coffman 

Rep. Steve Cohen 

Rep. Mike Conaway 

Rep. Jerry F. Costello 

Rep. Joe Courtney 

Rep. Chip Cravaack 

Rep. Ander Crenshaw 

Rep. Mark S. Critz 

Rep. Joseph Crowley 

Rep. Geoff Davis 

Rep. Peter DeFazio 

Rep. Charles W. Dent 

Rep. Mario Diaz·Balart 

Rep. Robert Dold 

Rep. Mike Doyle 

Rep. Sean Duffy 

Rep. John J. Duncan, Jr. 

Rep. Blake Farenthold 

Rep. Bob Filner 

Rep. Stephen Fincher 

Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick 

Rep. Bill Flores 

Rep. Virginia Foxx 

Rep. Jim Gerlach 

Rep. Bob Gibbs 

Rep. Christopher P. Gibson 

Rep. Bob Goocllatte 

Rep. Paul A. Gosar 

Rep. Kay Granger 

Rep. Sam Graves 

Rep. Tom Graves 

Rep. Gene Green 

Rep. Tim Griffin 

Rep. Frank Guinta 

Rep. Brett Guthrie 

Rep. Ralph M. Hall 

Rep. Colleen Hanabusa 

Rep. Richard Hanna 

Rep. Gregg Harper 

Rep. Andy Harris, M.D. 

Rep. Vicky Hartzler 

Rep. Alcee L. Hastings 

Rep. Martin Heinrich 

Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler 

Rep. Mazie K. Hirono 

Rep. Tim Holden 

Rep. Rush Holt 

Rep. Tim Huelskamp 
60 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 93 here 76498A.039

Members signing letter (cont.) 

Rep. Bill Huizenga 

Rep. Randy Hultgren 

Rep. Duncan Hunter 

Rep. Robert Hurt 

Rep. Darrell Issa 

Rep. Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. 

Rep. Lynn Jenkins 

Rep. Bill Johnson 

Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson 

Rep. Hank Johnson 

Rep. Tim Johnson 

Rep. Walter B. Jones 

Rep. Ron Kind 

Rep. Peter King 

Rep. Jack Kingston 

Rep. Adam Kinzinger 

Rep. Larry Kissell 

Rep. John Kline 

Rep. Jeff Landry 

Rep. James Lankford 

Rep. Rick Larsen 

Rep. Tom Latham 

Rep. Steve LaTourette 

Rep. John Lewis 

Rep. Daniel Lipinski 

Rep. Frank LoBiondo 

Rep. Dave Loebsack 

Rep. Billy Long 

Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer 

Rep. Cynthia M. Lummis 

Rep. Connie Mack 

Rep. Donald Manzullo 

Rep. Kenny Marchant 

Rep. Tom Marino 

Rep. Doris O. Matsui 

Rep. Michael T. McCaul 

Rep. Thaddeus G. McCotter 

Rep. James P. McGovern 

Rep. David McKinley 

Rep. Gregory Meeks 

Rep. John L. Mica 

Rep. Mike Michaud 

- 2 -

Rep. Candice Miller 

Rep. Mick Mulvaney 

Rep. Sue Myrick 

Rep. Richard Neal 

Rep. Randy Neugebauer 

Rep. Kristi Noem 

Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton 

Rep. Pete Olson 

Rep. John Olver 

Rep. Bill Pascrell 

Rep. Ed Pastor 

Rep. Ron Paul (Dr.) 

Rep. Stevan Pearce 

Rep. Mike Pence 

Rep. Collin Peterson 

Rep. Tom Petri 

Rep. Chellie Pingree 

Rep. Ted Poe 

Rep. Mike Pompeo 

Rep. Bill Posey 

Rep. David Price 

Rep. Nick Rahall 

Rep. Charles B. Rangel 

Rep. Tom Reed 

Rep. Denny Rehberg 

Rep. Jim 'Renacci 

Rep. Reid Ribble 

Rep. Laura Richm'dson 

Rep. Phil Roe, M.D, 

Rep. Mike Rogers (AL) 

Rep. Todd Rokita 

Rep. Tom Rooney 

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen 

Rep. Dennis Ross 

Rep. Mike Ross 

Rep. C.A. Dutch Rupp-ersberger 

Rep. Tim Ryan 

Rep. Loretta Sanchez 

Rep. Robert T. Schilling 

Rep. Jean Schmidt 

Rep. Aaron Schock 

Rep. Kurt Schrader 
61 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 94 here 76498A.040

Members signing letter (cont.) 

Rep. Austin Scott 

Rep. David Scott 

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner 

Rep. Pete Sessions 

Rep. John Shimkus 

Rep. Bill Shuster 

Rep. Albio Sires 

Rep. Adrian Smith 

Rep. Lamar Smith 

Rep. Steve Southerland 

Rep. Pete Stark 

Rep. Lee Terry 

Rep. Bennie G. Thompson 

Rep. Mike Thompson 

Rep. Mac Thornberry 

Rep. Patrick J. Tiberi 

Rep. John F. Tierney 

Rep. Scott Tipton 

Rep. Paul Tonko 

Rep. Edolphus Towns 

Rep. Tim Walberg 

Rep. Greg Walden 

Rep. Joe Walsh 

Rep. Mel Watt 

Rep. Allen West 

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland 

Rep. Frederica Wilson 

Rep. Joe Wilson 

Rep. Frank Wolf 

Rep. Kevin Yoder 

Rep. Don Young 

- 3 -