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

36–964 PDF 2007

THE FEDERAL AVIATION

ADMINISTRATION’S

AGING ATC FACILITIES:

INVESTIGATING THE

NEED TO IMPROVE FACILITIES AND WORKER

CONDITIONS

(110–63)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

AVIATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JULY 24, 2007

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

(

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

VACANCY 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

(II)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois, Chairman 

BOB FILNER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

VACANCY 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

(Ex Officio) 

(III)

(V)

CONTENTS Page

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

Brantley, Tom, President, Professional Airways Services Specialists, AFLCIO ........................................................................................................................ 30

Forrey, Patrick, President, National Air Traffic Controllers Association ........... 30

Gilbert, Patricia, Chair, National Legislative Committee, National Air Traffic 

Controllers Association ........................................................................................ 30

Johnson, David B., Vice President for Terminal Services, Air Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation Administration ............................................................ 10

Zaidman, Steven B., Vice President of Technical Operations Services, Air 

Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation Administration .................................... 10

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois .......................................................................... 49

Matsui, Hon. Doris O., of California ...................................................................... 57

Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona ....................................................................... 59

Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota ................................................................. 62

Salazar, Hon. John T., of Colorado ........................................................................ 66

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Brantley, Tom .......................................................................................................... 69

Forrey, Patrick ......................................................................................................... 80

Johnson, Bruce ......................................................................................................... 96

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Federal Aviation Administration, response to questions from the Subcommittee .............................................................................................................. 104

FAA Aging Facilities Conditions, chart ................................................................. 107

FY-2007 Ops Funded Sustain Projects—by Service Area/District, chart ........... 109

Asbestos Survey Report Form ................................................................................ 137

Eastern Service Area Prioritized List FY-07 Ops Funded Projects, chart .......... 138

Eastern Service Area Prioritized List FY-07 Facilities and Equipment 

Projects, chart ....................................................................................................... 172

vi


36964.001
vii


36964.002
viii


36964.003
ix


36964.004
x


36964.005
xi


36964.006
xii


36964.007
xiii


36964.008
(1)

HEARING ON FAA’S AGING ATC FACILITIES: 

INVESTIGATING THE NEED TO IMPROVE 

FACILITIES AND WORKER CONDITIONS 

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Jerry F. 

Costello [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Subcommittee will come to order. 

The Chair will ask all Members, staff and everyone to turn electronic devices off or on vibrate. 

The Subcommittee is meeting here today to hear testimony on 

the FAA’s Aging Air Traffic Control Facilities: Investigating the 

Need to Improve Facilities and Worker Conditions. 

I will give a brief opening statement and then call on the Ranking Member to give an opening statement as well. 

I want to welcome everyone here to our hearing today on the 

FAA’s aging ATC facilities and the need to improve facilities and 

conditions for the FAA workers. 

The FAA provides air traffic control services at over 400 Agencyoperated air traffic control facilities throughout the Nation. Many 

of these facilities are over 40 years old, exceeding their useful life 

expectancy and not meeting current operational requirements. This 

has resulted in a General Services Administration Facility Condition Index rating of fair to poor. 

Further, this Subcommittee and other interested stakeholders 

like NATCA and PASS have expressed concerns as to whether the 

FAA has adequately funded the much needed facility repairs and 

improvements, given the Agency’s capital account has remained 

flat over the past several years. The Administration consistently 

proposes a level of F&E funding well below the authorized level. 

In 2003, the FAA requested and received from the Congress an authorization of approximately $3 billion per year for its capital 

program. Yet, for the past three years, the Administration has requested roughly $2.2 billion per year for its F&E capital program, 

well below the authorized level. 

The fiscal year 2008 budget is no exception. The Administration 

is once again requesting $2.46 billion for capital spending. 

According to the capital investment plan estimates, approximately half of the F&E budget is set aside for equipment and modVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:42 Feb 27, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\36964 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
2

ernization. Yet, the FAA has not requested additional F&E funding 

for routine maintenance and repair of aging FAA facilities. 

I have said before that we cannot put the cart before the horse 

when it comes to modernization. While the FAA continues to lay 

the groundwork for modernization, it must also ensure that the 

current system can continue to operate in a safe and reliable way 

by properly investing in the maintenance and upkeep of existing 

infrastructure. The FAA must also provide safe, healthy working 

conditions for its employees. 

That is why in H.R. 2881, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007, 

we provide historic funding levels for the FAA’s capital programs 

including nearly $13 billion for F&E, over $1 billion more than the 

Administration requested. 

I am disturbed by the employee reports of excessive unhealthy 

levels of mold and asbestos, leaking roofs and other infrastructure 

issues, insufficient ventilation, and improperly housed conditions 

and equipment. 

Both PASS and NATCA report, the FAA is in direct violation of 

safety regulations including those mandated by OSHA. To illustrate the point, we are going to show a very brief video clip from 

the Grand Rapids tower at this time. This clip was actually filmed 

in the Fall of 2005. 

I would ask at this time to show the clip. 

[Video shown.] 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks Mr. Miller for showing the clip. 

Obviously, again that was taken in the fall of 2005 at the Grand 

Rapids facility. It is alarming to see the water coming through the 

roof and actually on the counter of the control tower. This is just 

one facility. I believe that there are others that could have been 

filmed then or today. 

Again, it is alarming and disturbing that we allow our facilities 

to deteriorate to this extent. No one should have to work in these 

conditions, and it is unacceptable. 

I am interested in hearing our FAA witnesses’ response to this 

clip and some of the other facilities that we will be discussing 

today. 

I question whether the FAA has a comprehensive strategy to effectively manage the replacement, repair and modernization of its 

air traffic control facilities and equipment and whether sufficient 

funds are being used to carry out these important health and safety functions. 

Finally, in the Administration’s FAA reauthorization proposal, 

they provide for a BRAC-like process to consolidate and relocate facilities. A BRAC process is an abdication of responsibility on the 

part of the Congress. Congress has always made decisions and provided oversight based on recommendations and analysis from Federal agencies. In consolidating and realigning the FAA facilities, 

that process should be no different. 

The FAA should not only engage with Congress but with the 

stakeholders affected. If the FAA identifies facilities that are truly 

not needed, then the FAA should identify those facilities, put them 

in their budget and come here and explain to the Congress where 

the facilities are located and why they should be consolidated or 

closed. 

3

In our reauthorization bill that passed the Full Committee and 

is on its way to the Floor of the House, we created an open continuous and defined process, something which the FAA should have 

done from the start. Contrary to statements that may be made here 

today, the bill does not—and I repeat—the bill does not impose a 

moratorium. 

Instead, our bill allows affected stakeholders to work together 

with the FAA to develop criteria and make recommendations that 

will be submitted to the Congress and published in the Federal 

Register for proper review and oversight. Any objections or changes 

made to those recommendations must again be submitted to the 

Congress. Congress does not relinquish its role but instead can provide thorough review, oversight and input. 

With that, at this time, I welcome our witnesses here today and 

look forward to hearing their testimony. 

Before I recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Petri, for his opening statement, I ask unanimous consent to allow for two weeks for 

all Members to revise and extend their remarks and to permit the 

submission of additional statements and materials by Members 

and witnesses. Without objection, so ordered. 

At this time, the Chair recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr. 

Petri, for his opening statement. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

We are meeting to discuss the current condition of our Nation’s 

air traffic control facilities and equipment. 

While the FAA is ultimately responsible for the upkeep of its facilities, it is not alone in the responsibility for the current condition. Over the past years, Congress has authorized funding for the 

FAA to maintain and improved their facilities, yet it has continually been under-appropriated and earmarked by Congress. By the 

time the money reaches the FAA, the Agency ofttimes does not 

have the adequate discretion it needs on how to spend it. 

The FAA has over 400 air traffic control facilities for which they 

are partly or wholly responsible for maintenance. 

Clearly, no one here today is in denial that FAA tower facilities 

are in need of constant upkeep and repair. In fact, there are some 

that actually need immediate attention. However, their average facility condition level as determined by the scorekeeper, the General 

Services Administration, is 93.2 percent which earns a fair condition rating under the GSA’s scorecard. 

For comparison purposes, many other Government facilities earn 

lower grades. According to the GSA, the FAA headquarters building itself, where two of our witnesses are located, has a rating not 

of 93.2 percent as the average facility condition level but rather of 

76 percent. The average Government family housing earns a rating 

of roughly 77 percent, and the average Federal office space has a 

rating of roughly 63 percent, fully a third lower than the facility 

rating for the average air traffic control facilities. 

These numbers demonstrate that less than desirable facility conditions are not FAA-specific. Rather, they are government-wide, 

and we have a bigger problem than just this one. 

According to the FAA, it receives a $100 million to $150 million 

annually for replacement costs. While it sounds like an ample 

amount of money, I understand that it is only enough funding to 

4

complete just one-third of the replacements every 10 years. At this 

rate, a facility commissioned in 2006 would not be replaced until 

2093, 87 years later. 

Even if the FAA received $200 million a year, double what it is 

currently receiving for maintenance, the replacement schedule 

would still take more than 40 years per facility. 

In an environment where resources are scarce, integrated planning and budgeting are needed, and so I am looking forward to 

hearing about FAA’s plans going forward. 

The fact remains that FAA’s maintenance backlog for terminal 

facilities is not declining. Rather, it is growing. In 2006, it was 

$124 million, and it will reach $182 million backlogged by 2020. 

The FAA needs the authorized funding levels made available to 

it and more in the future. It is unrealistic to think that the FAA 

can keep all of its facilities in excellent condition if they are not 

provided the money to do it. 

Perhaps the most important factor in the state of our air traffic 

control facilities is the relation to the modernization effort. As we 

progress into the NextGen system, it will be vital that we update 

our facilities and keep them in the best possible condition and continue to update them with a mindful eye toward future needs. We 

cannot put our brand new and costly systems into buildings that 

are simply unfit to house them. Delaying the replacement and renovation of our air traffic control facilities will delay NextGen’s implementation, and we all know that that is a cost that the Nation 

and the traveling public cannot afford. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing. I 

look forward to hearing from our witnesses and yield back any time 

remaining. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the Ranking Member and now 

recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Lampson. 

Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be quite brief. I 

do appreciate you all holding this hearing. 

The fact that we have such a significant need for maintenance 

in our Nation’s air traffic control system and facilities is obviously 

critical. 

I have been fighting these battles with TRACON for a number 

of years in southeast Texas and was opposed to much of the consolidation that has been going on. We have lost one facility in one 

of the districts that I represented at one time and now in another 

district. I think that there is continuing aging and disrepair of any 

of these facilities in the area where there is such significant 

growth. 

The Hobby Airport which is in my district, Houston Hobby Airport, and the Bush Intercontinental Airport which is nearby, is the 

eighth largest passenger airport in terms of enplaned passengers, 

and they are showing a 67 percent increase of the past 10 years. 

Considering the vast amount of traffic at these airports, we truly 

have to make certain that every piece of equipment used to control 

these airplanes is maintained and in working order at all times. 

Again, part of the reason why I opposed that consolidation is we 

have to take the responsibility to make sure that the equipment is 

working and that our passengers who are flying are safe. 

5

I appreciate your holding the hearing, Mr. Chairman, and look 

forward to hearing from this distinguished panel. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman from Texas and 

now recognizes the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr. 

Mica. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Costello. I appreciate your hosting and 

conducting this hearing today. 

I think that it is important that the working conditions for our 

air traffic controllers, problems we have experienced, are addressed. It has been a concern of mine. The professionals that keep 

our airways safe and all FAA employees should have a safe, comfortable and modern equipped workplace. 

However, it is important to recognize that aging physical infrastructure is a government-wide problem that we face. The problem 

has accelerated in recent years because most Federal buildings 

were built over 50 years ago and are reaching the end of their useful lives. Other Government agencies including the State Department, NASA and GSA have maintenance backlogs totaling over 

$16 billion which is $6 billion more than we saw in the year 2005. 

I put up a little chart to show you, and this is my chart. GSA 

did a review of FAA’s air traffic control facilities, the first bar we 

see there. This is an index of facility conditions, and it shows that 

the average condition on a scale I guess to 100 is 93.2 for FAA air 

traffic control towers. For the FAA headquarters, it shows a 76 

which is a lot lower in the quality of the conditions. 

For hospitals, including our Veterans’ hospitals which are Government facilities, air traffic control working conditions, tower conditions are actually better. If you skip over one to family housing 

which includes our military family housing, 77.59 percent. Unfortunately, we see a problem. 

Our Committee deals with GSA and government housing in a 

number of areas and government facilities in a number of areas. 

As the authorizing Committee, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has consistently authorized funding levels consistent with the demands of the system. 

Unfortunately, we have seen the funding levels reduced or earmarked in the appropriations process. This has made it difficult for 

the FAA to adequately perform the mandates sometimes issued by 

Congress and has created a lengthy backlog of repairs and replacement needs. I have a list of appropriator earmarks that reprioritize 

facilities and equipment. Replacement earmarked items that were 

relatively low on the FAA’s attention list were moved to the top 

and ahead of higher priority facility needs. 

Unfortunately, by Congress’ constant meddling with the FAA repair priority list, it is no wonder we are having maintenance and 

we hear about some of these repair problems. Equally problematic 

as Congress’ overriding repair assessments is Congress’ interference in FAA’s decision regarding airspace design and facility 

management and consolidation or closure. 

Where is today’s paper that I gave you earlier? 

Here is a great example: FAA is Targeting Airline Delays. This 

is today’s headline. It talks about how the FAA wants to deal with 

this. 

6

Unfortunately, we see that even today on the House Floor, we 

will have measures that end up trying to close down some of the 

efforts for airspace redesign and we will also, I think, see an effort, 

at least I saw one amendment crafted, to thwart some of the consolidation. 

Critical to the success of Next Generation and the day solvency 

of the FAA’s facilities and equipment budget is the ability to realize 

the cost savings that consolidation and relocation can provide. We 

can provide new centrally located modernly equipped facilities that 

enable FAA to take advantage of new technologies and also take 

great steps towards the Next Generation air traffic control system. 

It does not make sense for FAA to continue to maintain old, obsolete facilities or the equipment housed there. 

However, in a fit of parochial politics, again some Members are 

against seeking to put a moratorium on consolidations even today. 

I urge my colleagues to refrain from such actions and continue to 

allow FAA to manage the Agency’s resources properly. 

It also applies to FAA’s attempts, as I said, to redesign our Nation’s air space system. We have an air space system in the northeast that was designed, what, in 1987. Here, today, we are going 

to see another attempt to thwart a long process that we have tried 

to do in bringing in folks from around that region to come up with 

a new air space redesign. 

One way to eliminate this sort of protectionism in dealing with 

the situation that I have proposed is a BRAC-like vote on a comprehensive plan for consolidation. I proposed that legislation similar to the one proposed by the Administration that would establish 

a realignment and consolidation board and a process for aviation 

experts to recommend to the President and Congress how best to 

align FAA’s facilities and personnel in a manner that most effectively advances the capabilities of our Nation’s air system and best 

serves the traveling public. 

I would like to continue to work with my colleagues in the future 

on that provision. I hope we can adopt something. 

Another option to create efficiencies under a tight Federal budget 

without risking safety is utilizing the private sector where and 

when deemed appropriate. Since 1982, the FAA has been contracting out air traffic control jobs to the private sector at VFR airports, visual flight rule airports. These airports that would not otherwise have a tower have service. Currently, 235 air traffic control 

towers are staffed by contract controllers, each of whom is certified 

by the FAA. 

The FAA’s contract tower program provides cost effective services—these aren’t my words—‘‘cost effective services that are comparable to the quality and safety of FAA-operated towers’’ according to then Inspector of the DOT, Ken Mead. 

We found in another study before I became Chair of the Subcommittee that validated this and then one that I asked for validated these findings that the operational air deviation rate at contract towers is 2.5 times better than at similar all FAA-operated 

VFR towers. 

In addition, in that September, 2003 report, the IG compared the 

cost to operate the 12 FAA towers to the cost of 12 contract private 

sector operated towers of similar size and operations and found 

7

that each and every contract tower would save about a million dollars in operational costs than the all Federal towers. That is an average of $992,000 less per tower annually. These savings could be 

freed up and use the resources towards making certain that those 

facilities and all our facilities are in adequate repair. 

I defy anybody here to walk into the halls, in fact, of Congress 

or walk into the halls of any public building, government-run public building, and just look at the maintenance and the repair and 

the conditions and then go downtown and walk into almost any private sector building. You can immediately tell the difference in the 

repair. 

Finally, I am not sure who does all of the maintenance and repair at these facilities, but if they aren’t keeping it up, they should 

be fired or if it is a contractor that is doing this, a private contractor, their contract should be terminated because our facilities, 

when we are paying taxpayer money to keep them up and repaired, 

they need to be in the best repair. 

I did visit at NAV CANADA—we don’t have a witness here 

today—which privatized their entire system which I am not advocating, but I saw some of the best working conditions. I think we 

have some photos. You showed leaks and repairs. I don’t know if 

we have these, but I have got plenty that I will be glad to show 

you about awesome facilities that the private sector provides their 

air traffic controllers in Canada. 

Our air traffic controllers, our professionals, should have no less 

in facilities, accommodation or working equipment than these folks 

to the north of us. 

Thank you. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the Ranking Member and recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Salazar. 

Mr. SALAZAR. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this important hearing. 

You know, Mr. Chairman, I find it disturbing that the FAA has 

substantial maintenance backlog for repairs of many of their facilities. The current system I think, should be able to operate in a reliable manner while providing a safe and productive working environment for FAA employees. We simply cannot afford to wait on 

the current system as it deteriorates, and I agree that the 401 

TRACON facilities need immediate detention. 

I have been talking to my constituents back in Pueblo and different parts of Colorado, and they also believe that we need to 

focus on the 9,000 smaller buildings and the 13,000 tower structures that need attention because that is where the user is going 

to see the biggest impact. It is those 22,000 structures. In my district, for example, the flying public has raised many concerns with 

the decommissioned VORs, with the ILS shutdowns and numerous 

maintenance issues which directly affect the Colorado aviation system. 

Transitioning to NextGen will require significant investment by 

every user in order to save taxpayer dollars to maintain legacy 

equipment. Users will be able to effectively budget the investment 

necessary to have access to the NAS if the FAA will clearly articulate and publicize the plan. 

8

This was not the case when I approached the FAA about the concerns I had with a rumored co-location of the Pueblo TRACON. It 

took numerous letters, meetings and phone conversations before 

the FAA reluctantly provided me with rough details about their 

proposed plan. 

The FAA’s initial efforts to decommission Nav-Aids and consolidate facilities suggest that the Agency is aware of current and future budget problems they face, but I firmly believe the solution 

lies in working with the stakeholders instead of surprising them 

with emergencies. 

I don’t think it is too much to ask that every state has a clear 

idea of what the FAA plan is to decommission or consolidate facilities as a way to modernize the system. The key lies in communication. The FAA needs to work with the State and users instead of 

delivering a plan at the end of a long process that becomes the only 

available option. 

I would also like to stress how vital the F&E program is to the 

users of the system in maintaining the existing infrastructure. It 

is critically important to being able to successfully move to 

NextGen. 

I can’t emphasize the point enough: When changes need to be 

made, communications with stakeholders is critical. 

I look forward to the testimony today, and I thank the panel and 

the Members for being here. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Mr. Salazar. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, 

Mr. Hayes. 

Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding 

the hearing today and our witnesses for being here. We need to 

hurry up and get to the witnesses, don’t we? 

I think this is a unique opportunity for the FAA and NextGen, 

the controllers, the stakeholders, the users to get themselves together. As Mr. Salazar said, communication will be critical. 

The FAA has assured me, and I have no reason to disbelieve 

them, that this is a new generation of cooperation, coordination 

and communication between themselves and the controllers and 

other folks. That is a great thing and I am convinced that they are 

going to do that, and I am going to enthusiastically encourage them 

to do that. 

Having said that, Next Generation holds tremendous promise for 

the aviation community, everybody involved. If we do this right, it 

will be the FAA doing something for the aviation community instead of the FAA doing something to the community. As we move 

forward with that and making sure that facilities are appropriate 

whether it be combination, and communication with the folks who 

may be affected in a reasonable time to do that will assure that. 

So, having said all that, Mr. Costello, I think this again is a 

unique opportunity to bring all the players to the table in the right 

frame of mind and come up with something that at the end of the 

day will be a tremendous improvement and a cost savings to everybody concerned. 

I thank you. 

9

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes 

the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Poe. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank both of you 

for being here today. 

I represent that area of Texas that has Beaumont, Texas with a 

TRACON, and we border Houston Intercontinental Airport. 

As you know, Mr. Johnson, people are very concerned in Beaumont, Texas. I want to thank you at the outset for your willingness 

to come to Texas in August and go into the lion’s den and explain 

to folks in Beaumont the FAA’s concerns. I don’t think it will be 

as vicious as maybe you are expecting, but I want to thank you for 

coming there. 

I am not convinced that fewer TRACONs will be safer or more 

efficient, and I am also not convinced that having more airplanes 

in the air and having fewer TRACONs will be safer. I am also concerned about consolidation and whether it is really going to save 

anybody any money. We heard all that with the BRAC closings. 

Now we are learning that maybe some of these closings of military 

bases didn’t save the taxpayers any money at all include Ellington 

Field in Houston, Texas. 

As a side note, we have air traffic controllers that are getting old, 

and I am very concerned about the future of that profession because I do think it is a profession. 

One other thing, just in my limited experience of being in Congress, FAA seems to have a reputation with me and my office and 

other offices, maybe Mr. Salazar’s, of not being quite as easy to 

deal with in communication. It is interesting that FAA, of all 

things, cannot seem to communicate very well about what their positions. I hope that that reputation does change with some action. 

I think one step, Mr. Johnson, is the fact that you are willing to 

come to Texas and state a position to the stakeholders down in 

southeast Texas who are very concerned about the loss of that facility in Beaumont. 

So thank you both for being here, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

Do other Members have opening statements? 

If not, the Chair will go to our first panel of witnesses. Let me 

introduce the witnesses on our first panel: Mr. David Johnson who 

is the Vice President for Terminal Services, Air Traffic Organization with the Federal Aviation Administration and Mr. Steven 

Zaidman who is the Vice President of Technical Operations Services of the Air Traffic Control Organization with the FAA. 

Gentlemen, I would ask you to summarize your statements. Your 

entire statement will be submitted for the record. 

I would like to follow up on Mr. Poe’s comment because I share 

his view concerning consolidation of some of the TRACONs, I think 

there has been a lack of communication on the part of the FAA 

communicating not only with Members of Congress but also the 

stakeholders as well to solicit their input. 

That is one of the reasons why in the reauthorization bill, the 

House bill, that we put a mechanism in place that, in fact, has the 

stakeholders involved in the process, solicits their opinions, and it 

is a process if, in fact, it becomes law that I believe that everyone, 

10

not only the stakeholders but everyone who is affected, will have 

the opportunity for their input. That is something that has been 

lacking. 

Let me also mention that the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr. Mica, made a couple of points that I agree with. One 

is that the amendments that will be on the Floor today, one dealing 

with both air space redesign and consolidation of facilities, I intend 

to go to the Floor to oppose both of those amendments. There is no 

question, as the headlines suggested, we have a major problem in 

the New York-Philadelphia-New Jersey area, and we should let the 

FAA move forward with the air space redesign and we shouldn’t 

stop the process in my judgment. 

Secondly, with the consolidation of the TRACONs, again there is 

a process that we would like to see in place in the base bill, and 

we need to move forward with that process. 

Finally, before I turn to you, Mr. Johnson, let me say that I am 

concerned. While there is no question we have heard from Members in their opening statements that there are Federal facilities 

outside of the FAA that are rated as poor, similar to many of the 

facilities that we will be discussing today, the fact is that the Federal Aviation Administration has an authorized level of $3 billion 

per year for the facilities and equipment account. The Congress 

saw fit at the request of the FAA to approve an authorization of 

$3 billion a year. 

I will be interested in hearing from you as to why the Administration has requested less than the authorized level every year, 

knowing that many of these facilities need to be upgraded. 

Finally, I would be interested in hearing from both of you. Everyone wants to see modernization as Mr. Mica and Mr. Hayes and 

everyone has commented on, but we all recognize that it is going 

to be a long process, that it may be as long as 10 years before it 

is implemented. The point that I made in my opening statement is 

that while we are focusing on NextGen and we all recognize that 

we need to move forward and we also know that it is going to take 

10 years or so in order to get the system up and running, we cannot continue to neglect our existing facilities. 

So what I would be interested in hearing from you is, one, why 

the Agency has not requested the full authorization level every 

year for the past three years and, two, my concern about all of the 

focus is on NextGen and neglecting the existing facilities that we 

are going to have to operate out of and from for the next 10 years. 

With that, Mr. Johnson, you are recognized under the five 

minute rule. 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID B. JOHNSON, VICE PRESIDENT FOR 

TERMINAL SERVICES, AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; STEVEN B. ZAIDMAN, 

VICE PRESIDENT OF TECHNICAL OPERATIONS SERVICES, 

AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Chairman Costello, Congressman 

Petri, Members of the Subcommittee. We are pleased to appear before you today to discuss the Federal Aviation Administration’s efVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:42 Feb 27, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\36964 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
11

forts to improve aging air traffic control facilities and the worker 

conditions at those facilities. 

Again, my name is Bruce Johnson, and I am the Vice President 

of Terminal Services in the ATO. I am responsible for all the towers, TRACONs and radar systems around the Country. 

With me today is Steve Zaidman, the ATO’s Vice President of 

Technical Operations, and Steve is responsible for the maintenance 

of the entire National Airspace System. 

As you know, the FAA faces some tough challenges with some of 

our aging facilities. We have hundreds of air traffic control facilities around the Country and over 22,000 unmanned facilities and 

structures, and we recognize that we have maintenance and repair 

backlogs at a number of those facilities. We are addressing those 

on a continual basis. 

We also have the challenge of making sure that the FAA will be 

able to reduce air travel delays by continuing on the path to a 

smooth transformation the Next Generation air traffic control system or NextGen. 

To achieve these goals, we have developed the multi-tiered approaches below. First, we have our sustainment program which 

covers all maintenance and repair work. We also have a replacement program where we assess our facilities and replace them with 

new facilities when needed. Last, but by no means least, we are 

continuing our transition to NextGen by updating our equipment 

and technology. 

As our facilities age, we strive to get the most mileage out of 

them. We complete hundreds of maintenance and repair projects at 

our staffed facilities every year. Maintenance and repairs impacting worker and operational safety, as always, are our first priority. 

Other high priority needs such as a leaking roof or an air conditioner outage during the summer are addressed immediately while 

lower priority needs such as new paint and carpet are planned 

through the normal budget cycle. 

Additionally, we are taking steps to reduce the large maintenance and repair backlog. We are continually doing building condition assessments for various type facilities to determine what repairs are needed and how to budget for them. 

Our transition to NextGen is also helping to address this backlog. As we move forward with NextGen, we are developing individual facility life cycle plans which will allow us to be more 

proactive in planning which of our facilities move forward. Additionally, we have facilities in our system that have so many issues 

that to repair and remediate them indefinitely would be financially 

unsound and, in some cases, completely at odds with NextGen. 

A central element of the FAA’s transformation into NextGen 

intersects with our work on replacement and consolidation of our 

facilities. Consolidation helps improve safety and efficiency by making new technologies available for controllers. These savings and 

improvements mean fewer air traffic delays and lower costs. 

The FAA has proven that we can safely and efficiently consolidate both air space and facilities. For example, in 2002, the FAA 

consolidated the air space that used to be managed by five separate 

facilities in the Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Area into one 

brand new facility called the Potomac Terminal Approach Control. 

12

The Baltimore-Washington air space consolidation has been extremely successful, saving millions of dollars in fuel, reducing carbon emissions, reducing noise exposure and reducing delays. 

However, we must note to the Subcommittee that H.R. 2881 as 

currently drafted would impose a moratorium on any FAA consolidation plans and prohibit FAA from managing our assets. This 

would halt our transition to NextGen at the time it is most needed. 

Additionally, it would affect numerous FAA programs including airport redevelopment and expansion. 

We recognize that consolidation is a highly emotional and sensitive issue which is why the Administration proposed a process 

whereby objective recommendations would be made regarding 

which facilities to consolidate. Then public input would be considered. Presidential review would be required, and ultimately Congressional action would be necessary. 

We believe this approach is the fairest way for FAA to make objective, informed decisions about facility consolidation. However, we 

must be able to continue forward with this initial group of consolidations while this process is being developed. 

We strongly urge the Subcommittee to reconsider the Administration proposal when H.R. 2881 goes to the Floor for consideration. We are keenly appreciative of the uncertainty and concern 

change can cause, but it is simply unrealistic to expect that a major 

overhaul of the Nation’s air traffic control system can result without it. 

FAA’s mission is to ensure aviation safety, and we want to do 

that in conjunction with minimizing delays as much as possible. As 

you all know, today’s aviation system is operating at full capacity, 

making our transition to NextGen an absolute necessity. 

At every phase, we are taking steps to minimize worker disruption and ensure smooth transitions. Wherever possible, we do not 

require anyone to relocate. In those cases where relocation is unavoidable, workers will be offered a fully paid move and notified 

well in advance of the transition. 

In fact, worker conditions are always a major concern. Maintenance and repairs, replacement of facilities and transitioning to 

NextGen are all conducted with worker conditions in mind. We 

have procedures in place to protect worker safety as construction 

projects get underway. 

FAA’s transition to NextGen is a lengthy phased process. Until 

we achieve our final goals, we are committed to working on remedies available to us, whether that entails further maintenance and 

repairs or replacement of a facility. Our multi-tiered approach to 

maintaining, improving and replacing our aging facilities is designed to get us NextGen without any compromise in safety and 

with maximum levels of efficiency. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes our testimony. We will be very 

happy to answer any questions the Subcommittee may have. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Zaidman, do you have an opening statement. 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. No, I don’t. 

Mr. COSTELLO. So you have no testimony to present. You are 

here to answer questions? 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. Yes. 

Mr. COSTELLO. You will take the difficult questions, right? 

13

Mr. ZAIDMAN. Absolutely. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Okay. 

Mr. Johnson, let me ask you. In your FCI, the Facility Condition 

Index, the assessment of the TRACONs and towers, it is my understanding that the FAA has only conducted and approved the FCI 

assessments on 89 of the 401 TRACONs and towers. Is that correct? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. You have really only done an assessment on 89 

of 401, so the vast majority of these TRACONs and towers have not 

been assessed. 

Mr. JOHNSON. That is correct. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I am wondering are you really in a good position 

to testify before this Subcommittee today or for the FAA to come 

here and talk about these facilities if you have only done an assessment on a small portion of that. Would you like to comment? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Absolutely. What we did with the FCI program is 

we took a representative group of facilities which included this 89. 

We took examples from every type of facility that we had in the 

system. So we actually went through the entire list. We pulled out 

these as examples and did the full assessment on these 89. 

We will continue to do 12 additional assessments every year, and 

again we will do different types and kinds of facilities as we do the 

assessment. 

We think that the 93.2 percent rating that came out through the 

FCI is pretty indicative of the entire system as it looks now. We 

know that there are going to be outliers on that. But, in fact, the 

cost of these assessments, we felt like the 90 that we did was a fair 

assessment without burdening the budget to do every facility. 

Mr. COSTELLO. When you say that you will do 12 a year, how do 

you determine which 12? How do you select those facilities? 

Is it based on complaints? What is it based on? 

Mr. JOHNSON. The planning group that we have will go through 

and, again, make sure that they take facilities from every group. 

It could be, in fact, that some of these are indicative of what may 

have happened during the case and in the case we had issues with 

some of the facilities, then we would put those on the list to be assessed. 

Mr. COSTELLO. If there are a number of complaints at a particular TRACON or air traffic control tower, you would definitely 

put them on the priority list, is that what you are saying, versus 

a facility where there are no complaints? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Right. We would want to look at those where we 

knew that we had issues. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Do you have a process for investigating complaints from controllers concerning health complaints? 

I think we will hear testimony in the next panel and I have read 

testimony about mold and other conditions and that these conditions are causing health problems with employees and with controllers. What is the process to make an assessment of a controller’s 

health based upon any complaint that may be made? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, there are, of course, always forms that are 

filled out by the controllers if they feel like that there was cause 

to do so, especially in the facility. At that time, the facility manVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:42 Feb 27, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\36964 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
14

ager would confer with the tech ops managers, and they would look 

at whatever condition it was that might have caused the complaint 

to be filed or the CA1 or CA2 forms that we call them if a controller is seeking medical attention or has an issue in facility. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Can you or Mr. Zaidman tell the Subcommittee 

today how many forms have been filled out and filed with the 

Agency from controllers or any employees that have complained 

about health problems that they believe are a result of these unsafe and unhealthy conditions in the last year? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I am sorry. I can get that for you, Mr. Chairman, 

but I don’t have that information with me today. 

Mr. COSTELLO. You must have some idea if there has been a 

complaint filed in the last six months. You have to have some idea. 

I don’t expect the exact number. 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. I can tell you specific to facilities but not a total 

at this time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Can you move your microphone a little closer? 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. Yes. For instance, we have had issues at Jacksonville. We have had issues at Dulles Tower, for example, and we 

have had between 5 and 15 controllers fill out this form, which is 

called in our parlance a CA1, indicating some health issues as a 

result of some unsatisfactory conditions in the facility. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Walk us through the process. Once the form is 

filled out by a controller or an employee who says that they believe 

that they have a health problem related to the unsafe, unhealthy 

conditions, what is the next step after they fill the form out? 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. Yes, and whether or not the form is filled out, it 

is the same process. 

We have trained people called environmental and safety officials. 

They are FAA employees. We bring them in. We do a visual inspection often times with the employees. We assess the condition. We 

typically bring in a third party to do air samples when required. 

We mitigate the issue right away to the best of our ability, but 

there is also an underlying issue, a structural issue, many times, 

for why this happens. 

We hire an engineering firm. We do an engineering assessment. 

Depending on the severity of the problem and the criticality of the 

issue, then we enter into what is called a corporate work plan to 

make the permanent repairs. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Johnson, two questions that I asked before 

your testimony: One, can you tell the Subcommittee why the Agency has only submitted a request for $2.5 billion a year, much less 

than the Agency requested the authorization level to be at $3 billion? 

The Congress approved a $3 billion authorization every year for 

the last 3 years in order to address these problems for the facilities 

and equipment, but then the Agency only requested less than what 

was authorized. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I can tell you about the process coming out of Terminal. We do our assessment of what we feel our needs are. That 

goes up through our Air Traffic Organization Financial Group, and 

then they work with the ATO Financial Group to come up with the 

request. Sometimes, as you know, the request was for more. It goes 

15

through the two financial groups and comes out at a different number. 

So we make the request based on the amount of money that we 

feel like we would need, say, in Terminal. I can’t speak for what 

En-Route or Tech Ops do, which obviously is considerably less than 

the total. I don’t know where or know how the cut line is made. 

Mr. COSTELLO. By the FAA’s own admission, I mean you recognize these facilities are old. Some of them are in need of repair. 

You recognize that and everyone admits that. 

It is your responsibility. This is your area of responsibility. Are 

you saying that you agree with the fact that you are receiving less 

than what the Congress has approved in order to carry out your 

duties and responsibilities? 

I am not asking you to answer for the higher-ups as it goes 

through the food chain. I am asking you your responsibility for 

these facilities. Is the $2.5 billion a year adequate or would it have 

been better for the $3 billion to be approved so that you could have 

spent additional money to repair these facilities much quicker than 

what has been done? 

Mr. JOHNSON. The $2.5 billion is adequate for the amount of 

work that we could get done in any given year to work on the facilities. 

Now, again, I don’t know. It is hard for me assess what comes 

out of Tech Ops and En-Route, reference the amount of money that 

comes out of Finance. 

Mr. COSTELLO. So your answer is that the $2.5 billion is adequate for your needs? 

Mr. JOHNSON. The 2.5 is the amount of money that we get to 

work with, and we will use that money to the best of our ability 

to make the repairs that are needed in the terminal. 

Mr. COSTELLO. But the additional money certainly would have 

helped. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Additional money would help, but the money that 

we get is the money that we use every year. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair at this time would recognize the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr. Mica. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. Just a few questions and I am going to 

have to go down to the Floor to try to protect our turf here in a 

second. 

Mr. Johnson, we have, what, about 400 and some towers total in 

the system? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Correct. 

Mr. MICA. I have 327 of those that FAA owns, correct? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Correct. 

Mr. MICA. Now there are also 74 airport-sponsored towers. Do 

they maintain them themselves or does FAA? 

Mr. JOHNSON. They maintain them to the extent they can. 

Mr. MICA. Were they part of your study or review? Did you review any of those? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, we did. 

Mr. MICA. You did. How were the conditions with those compared to the all FAA towers, about the same? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I would say they were representative from across. 

16

Mr. MICA. We have FAA in charge of, then the responsibility for 

what, about 250 towers, maintaining them? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Right. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MICA. Is that all done in house or is some of that contract, 

the maintenance? 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. Well, we have a responsibility for maintenance, 

and on occasion we do contract out. 

Mr. MICA. But I mean can you tell me is 90 percent of it maintained by FAA and then 10 percent contracted out? 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. The physical plants are virtually all maintained by 

FAA. We do contract out. 

Mr. MICA. Have you looked at contracting that out? 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. No, we haven’t. 

Mr. MICA. I will tell you one thing. I was the Chief of Staff for 

Senator Hawkins from 1981 to 1985. I used go to into the Federal 

building in Miami, and every day it was a depressing entry. 

In fact, I go into these halls there, the Congress. It is depressing. 

This is like a medieval event where people throw their trash out 

and leave things, garbage in the hall. The maintenance is done in 

house, and it is terrible. 

I will never forget going into the Miami courthouse one day in 

the early eighties. I looked in. You are from Miami. Everything 

glowed. It was clean. The elevator was clean. I walked in. I said, 

what happened? They said, we contracted out the maintenance, 

and we got a firm to do it. 

Now if that maintenance is bad, somebody should be responsible. 

Do you have trouble firing people in FAA that don’t conduct the 

maintenance? 

None of our professionals, whether they are in the FAA building, 

which again is not my favorite place to visit for viewing modern, 

well kept buildings, why can’t you get a handle on that? 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. Let me just say I may be a little biased being a 

Federal employee for most of my life, but I think we have the best 

workforce and I would match it—

Mr. MICA. The maintenance workforce? 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. I think they are terrific. I think they do a wonderful job. I think our challenge—

Mr. MICA. Well, that is not the report we are hearing here. 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. I think our challenge—

Mr. MICA. How about repairs? 

Okay, here is Grand Rapids. Was the leak in Grand Rapids? 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. Yes. 

Mr. MICA. What is the story with Grand Rapids? 

Now I am a former developer. Leaks in a roof will drive you 

batty. I have some that just have taken months and sometimes 

years to resolve. Is that problem here or is there a problem with 

the process of getting that repaired in a hurry? 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. We have, like was stated, 22,000 facilities. We 

have issues with less than 1 percent of those. Grand Rapids falls 

under that 1 percent. 

Mr. MICA. I heard that it is still not fixed. 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. It is an ongoing problem. We have just issued—

17

Mr. MICA. It is one of these chronic difficulties that sometimes 

we have. Florida is terrible because we get the heat and the expansion. It is very difficult to solve some leaks. 

Do you keep a repair list and is it prioritized? 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. Yes, we do. 

Mr. MICA. Do we have that? Does the Committee have a copy? 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. We can get you one. 

Mr. MICA. Okay, I would like to see a copy because I think we 

should know. 

Do you give that to the appropriators or do you just give them 

a total dollar figure? 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. Well, if it is in our budget, we give them the individual projects. 

Mr. MICA. I think it would be good for our Committee to look at 

how that is does. 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. Be glad to do it. 

Mr. MICA. Finally, replacement of buildings, you have a list of 

those and the order in which they would be replaced. I would imagine that also with TRACONs and others that we are looking at consolidation. We would look at where it makes sense to replace the 

buildings with new facilities and new equipment and also getting 

into Next Generation equipment. 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. MICA. You have that list and it is all prioritized. Do we have 

a copy? Can we get a copy? 

Mr. JOHNSON. You should have a copy, but we will make sure 

that you get another copy. 

Mr. MICA. I haven’t seen it, but I would like to see that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Mr. Mica. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. 

Salazar. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Johnson, does the FAA have a master plan as to how we get 

from where we are today in updating and doing the maintenance 

on these TRACONs and whatever until we get into the Next Generation air system? 

Part of the problem is that we are surprised by so many things 

that happen, and many times when we ask FAA what is going on, 

we don’t really get an answer. So could you maybe let us know if 

there is a master plan of some kind? 

Mr. JOHNSON. There is a facility master list that we have that, 

in fact, has rated all 534 facilities. There is no master plan per se 

for replacing those. What we do is up through 2014 we have a list 

of, I believe, 33 replacements that we are working on right now. 

As we do each and every one of those facilities, as they come up 

for replacement, we look and see what makes sense for those facilities around the new facility, whether it makes sense to consolidate 

at that time. So it is kind of an ongoing process as we work down 

the list, what is around there, what would fit, what are the operational conditions that would fit in the facility, and we try to make 

good judgments about what would make sense to put in there. 

18

We are always looking ahead to the NextGen. We know we have 

several operating systems in some of the smaller facilities that are 

not going to work with NextGen. So we are looking to try to get 

as many facilities into the STARS or IIIE platforms, which are our 

newer operating systems, because we know that will work with 

NextGen. 

A lot of the time, what we are doing is looking to bring those facilities into the newer facilities that have the operating system. So 

it is ongoing. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Wouldn’t it make sense to have some kind of master plan that all of us would be familiar with and maybe that you 

could submit to Members of Congress so that we could maybe make 

some comments? 

This picking and choosing just doesn’t seem to when you get to 

different facilities when they need repairs or whatever. I mean it 

just seems to me that most business plan ahead for the next 10 

years or next 5 years to figure out where they are going to be at 

and that way we have a better handle on what the costs are going 

to be. 

Excuse me. 

Mr. JOHNSON. No. It is a good question. 

Of course, out to 2014, we are pretty solid in what we are going 

to do. 

Now looking at each facility as we do them, what makes sense 

to consolidate, that is ongoing. That is what is contained or certainly what we would like to see in the bill, that we get a process 

that looks at, with the constituents, with the stakeholders, certainly with you about what makes sense, and I think that would 

fulfill that need as we move along. 

It would be very difficult to try to do some sort of entire master 

list because conditions change so often. Airlines change hubs. They 

move around. Things happen in the system. We have air space redesign. So we have to have agility and fluidity as we look at these 

plans. But we are trying to, again, as we build new, make smart 

decisions. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Also, could you explain a little bit about your objections to H.R. 2881? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I think for us, the key is that we need to be 

able to continue to do the consolidations that we have already announced that we need to do. The reason for that is that we are already in the funding process. So any change or stoppage to that 

would mean that we would have lapsing money in next year. 

If we had to stop, if we had a two year hold, we would lose about 

$110 million in lapsing funds out of that. This would also mean 

that any projects around the Country would be held up for a couple 

of years. 

A very good example of how this fits together is the new tower 

going in at Dayton. If we have to put that off at Dayton, the current tower at Dayton sits right on the terminal building. Well, the 

airport has plans to tear that terminal building down and do modernizations, and they have money invested in that. If we can’t move 

our tower off there because we can’t build new, that puts their 

plans back two years, so the snowball effect. 

19

We have a lot of projects on the book that if we had to stop now 

in what we were doing, it would delay all of those by a couple of 

years, maybe even up into four years, because we would have to 

do replanning. We would have to make decisions on whether we 

were going to put a TRACON with them or not. 

In cases where we hadn’t planned to put in a TRACON, if we 

had to go back, the siting would have to be redone, the planning. 

The entire process would have to be redone. As NextGen goes and 

for what it would do to the system, it would be not good. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I thank the gentleman. 

Let me clarify a point, Mr. Johnson. You are not testifying before 

the Subcommittee that the reauthorization bill stops the process, 

are you? 

Mr. JOHNSON. It was my understanding that that was the language. You had expressed earlier that was not the language. So as 

long as the language that goes through does not stop us, then that 

is what we would like to see. 

Mr. COSTELLO. For the record, let me clarify the point because 

we spent a great deal of time discussing how we should go forward 

in the reauthorization bill. It does not stop the process. It does not 

rescind the money. 

What it does is it requires the FAA to come up with a plan working with stakeholders, and it gives, I believe, a nine month period 

where they have to produce a plan, but it does not stop what is ongoing in the process. 

If we wanted to do that, we would not have Mr. Mica and Mr. 

Oberstar on the Floor of the House right now. They will be speaking against an amendment that would stop the consolidation of a 

particular TRACON. So it is not the intention of the Committee or 

the legislation to stop the process. 

It is to be more inclusive so that the stakeholders have a voice 

in this, all of the players including the American people through 

both public hearings and through the Federal Register, that they 

have an opportunity as well to voice their concerns and to have 

their opinions heard, but it certainly does not stop or rescind the 

money. 

At this time, the Chair recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr. 

Petri. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much. 

I wonder if you could discuss this issue of the adequacy of maintenance of facilities from the point of view of the traveling public. 

What concerns, if any, should they have? 

Is it at a point where it affects, in any way, service and safety 

and the timely operation of the system? If it is not, what would we 

need to look for as warning signs or how could it affect the traveling public? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Let me start off, and I will turn it over to Mr. 

Zaidman to finish up. 

In every case, on every day, in every situation, we will put safety 

first. So whether it is something that happens in a facility, if we 

would need to curtail operations, bring operations back, we are 

going to make sure that the system stays safe. Now, hopefully, anything that would happen would be a quick fix. 

20

We have examples in the past where the actions that we took, 

we thought were the best actions, and it turned out after reviewing 

that, we could have done better. We certainly publicly acknowledge 

that and we learn from those and we are going to get better. Hopefully, we won’t have very many occasions to get better, but history 

would tell us that is different. 

In every case, Congressman, we are going to make sure that we 

keep the system safe. The traveling public needs to know every 

time they get on an airplane that they are going to be in a very, 

very safe system, in fact, the safest system in the world. 

Mr. PETRI. As you know, we are very interested in the improvement of the system. It is called NextGen, the whole new technology 

that people are deploying around the world and we are hoping will 

be deployed in the United States. 

How does this issue of facility maintenance affect, if it does at 

all, our ability to move forward as rapidly as possible with the new 

technology and moving to the new system? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I think the key in that is that as we look 

and as we build new facilities and as we have new operating systems in the field. The reason we have so many facilities, the large 

number that we have, is when we put in a radar system, we had 

to put in a TRACON. So it was one for one. You put in a radar. 

You had to have a TRACON to receive it because one operating 

system would only take one radar system 

Now with STARS and the ARTS IIIE system, we can take 16 

feeds in there. We now have the ability to do consolidations and colocations. That is why we want to make sure as we build new facilities, and we are able as NextGen starts to come online. We want 

to have as many facilities as we can on an operating platform, either the STARS or the ARTS-IIIE so that it can hook into NextGen 

and we can utilize that tremendous technology that is coming. 

Certainly, with ADS-B, which will allow us one second updates 

and will allow us to decrease the separation standard, that is going 

to be huge for capacity. We want to make sure that we are ready 

on the facility side. We want to make sure that as we need to do 

air space redesign, that the facilities are ready to do that. That is 

a huge part of consolidation. 

It is looking at facilities where we can actually start to erase 

lines between facilities. Having one operating platform means that 

we don’t necessarily have to go from five miles down to three miles 

just because we crossed an imaginary line in space from an enroute facility to a terminal. 

So being able to consolidate facilities, we can start to rub out 

those lines. We can move three miles all over the system. That is 

going to be huge for capacity, for reducing delays, for increasing 

the safety in the system with one second update. We want to have 

as many facilities ready for that as we can as we move forward. 

Mr. PETRI. One last question: I know it is true in our family life, 

and I am sure it is true in business. If you are going to be making 

some changes in the next few years, the amount you are willing to 

do in serious restructuring or long term maintenance might go 

down. 

Is there an impact on maintenance of facilities from the prospect 

of this whole new system which may require a different array of 

21

facilities and so on? Is that affecting long term maintenance and 

so on of the facilities or not? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Steve can probably add to this. 

It is really almost mutually exclusive in that we can use our 

present facilities as long as they have the operating system that 

will merge with the NextGen technology. We know that as we more 

forward we are going to have this legacy system out there that we 

have to make sure stays in good working condition, and that is 

where we will be using our sustain and our modernization money 

as we forward. 

Hopefully, we will have this two-tiered effect going on where we 

will be building new. We will be bringing facilities together into 

common operating platforms, and then, again, we will be doing the 

rebuilds with the new facilities. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the Ranking Member and now 

recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member 

and thank you to both of our illustrious witnesses. 

I just wanted to make a point. First of all, if I understand the 

numbers correctly, Mr. Johnson, your concern about losing $110 

million due to H.R. 2881 could be looked at in light of the fact that 

the FAA has chosen not to request the full $3 billion that was authorized and chose to instead only ask for $2.5 billion. There is actually $500 million available to help out at any time should you 

feel yourself $100 million short. 

But I wanted to ask in particular about the New York TRACON 

and Washington Dulles towers which were evacuated recently due 

to high levels of carbon monoxide. Similar incidents have taken 

place in Jacksonville, San Jose and elsewhere. 

But being from New York, I am particularly aware of and concerned about the fact that at the New York TRACON, the operations manager would not allow the controllers to leave the room 

or permit first responders to enter despite the fact that several controllers were exhibiting symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning. 

Some of the controllers needed to be taken to the hospital for treatment. 

I guess the questions are: What are the early symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning before one becomes unconscious and would 

they affect the ability to take proper actions as air traffic controller? 

Is this consistent with your written and oral testimony that 

worker conditions are always a major concern? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Sir, I don’t have an answer to your first question 

on what would be the symptoms, and I wasn’t there during the 

event. 

I can tell you that during a review of especially the New York 

incident, we had some real good lessons learned there. I think having 20-20 hindsight, we certainly would have gone back and let the 

first responders in so that they could have taken immediate readings in the control room. In fact, we have put out guidance in the 

system that we make sure that we do that. 

The example at Dulles, as soon as we had the gentleman that 

was using the saw down at the base of the tower, by the way, 

which was not coordinated through Tech Ops or any of our folks, 

22

the first thing that they did was call the first responders to come 

in and take a reading. So we were happy about that. We are never 

happy when we have an incident or an issue. 

I really don’t have much to add to your statement other than I 

will certainly take your statement. There are a lot of different 

versions of the story, what happened at New York. We are certainly concerned any time we have an employee who think that 

they are unable to continue. 

I would certainly be happy to talk to you later about any or all 

of those issues. I would just say that we did learn from them, and 

our commitment is that we are going to try to do better each and 

every time. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

I am also curious if the manager’s decision-making process in 

New York to keep the staff in the tower and on the job was influenced in any way by lack of adequate backup staffing or staff capacity to cope with the temporary loss of operational personnel. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I don’t. Certainly, the information that we got in 

the aftermath, that did not occur. In fact, we were told that people 

were offered breaks and in fact took breaks. Again, not being there, 

I can only offer you third party information that I had. 

Mr. HALL. I appreciate that. 

Just one more question about an incident at Wilkes-Barre at the 

tower, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, which was reported under 

Chapter 5, Section 1, Paragraph 74 of FAA Order 6930.25 Maintenance of Structures and Buildings concerning the degeneration or 

deterioration of the tower, wind vibrations causing fatigue and 

members’ loose bolts and nuts, cracked members and welds, chafing of attached components, et cetera. 

You are probably familiar with this report. 

Members may deform under loads of ice and snow. Repairs that 

cannot be made immediately will be scheduled for priority action. 

Given this last statement in the above FAA order, can you explain why for over 10 years this structure at Wilkes-Barre has still 

not be corrected? 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. I will take that one. 

We did have some safety issues at Wilkes-Barre. We fixed them 

some 18 months ago. It is not a permanent solution. One of the 

challenges that we have is finding new real estate to relocate the 

tower on. We need to rebuild it and find some place to put it on. 

So, for the meantime, we are making repairs. We have made 

them. We are monitoring it, and are looking for real estate to relocate and build a new one. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, both of you. I just once again remind you 

that there is money available from Congress to deal with these 

things in a more timely fashion. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes 

the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Hayes. 

Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentlemen, one quick question, what independence and autonomy does an individual supervisor have at a facility when he has 

got a maintenance problem? 

23

How much independence does he have to advocate to his upper 

management, we have a problem, we need to get it fixed? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I know on the Operations side, they would 

immediately get in touch with the Tech Ops folks, report the problem and hopefully, typically, in a facility, get very quick results. 

I would just like to add to what Mr. Zaidman said earlier. From 

a technician side, I think we have one of the finest workforces on 

the Tech Ops side that I have ever seen, certainly demonstrating 

almost heroic efforts and achievements after Katrina to put the 

system back together. 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. I will just add to that. What we have done is we 

decentralized our internal budget. We don’t have a bureaucratic 

chain. If essential repairs are needed, it keeps on going up to my 

level. We have subdivided into districts. We have 46 districts. 

We give people the money, and we say, if you have a priority, you 

fix it. You don’t have to come to Washington to get permission. 

Mr. HAYES. I appreciate that. 

I think it is obvious to everyone the high level of interest in this 

Committee in safe, reliable working conditions and some of these 

issues. If you stop the leak, then the maintenance staff can take 

over before the tech staff has to come in. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 

North Carolina, Mr. Coble. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good to have you all with us. 

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I was talking to a couple 

constituents back in my district recently, and one constituent admitted he had never flown. He said, I have great fear of flying. The 

second constituent admitted he flies frequently. He says, my main 

regret is having to go through an airport to get on the plane. 

Airports are becoming more and more unpopular, and I am not 

blaming you all for that. I think it is just the era in which we live. 

I think you may have touched on this in response to Mr. Petri’s 

question, Mr. Johnson, but I assume that special consideration is 

extended for maintenance and/or improvements which are deemed 

necessary from a flight safety perspective. Is that correct? 

Mr. JOHNSON. In every instance, certainly if it has a safety aspect to it, it rises to the top of the list. Yes, sir. 

Mr. COBLE. I am encouraged to hear that because I think safety 

should never be compromised. 

Let me ask you this. Regarding sponsor/airport-owned facilities 

staffed with FAA controllers, how do you go about addressing the 

facility maintenance and construction under this scenario? 

I guess my specific question is who is responsible for funding 

maintenance and construction? 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. Within FAA, we have three directorates, if you 

will. One is Mr. Johnson’s, that is responsible for coming up with 

the budget requirements and the architectural studies for terminal 

facilities. 

We have a different vice president, Mr. Day, who does the 20 enroute air traffic control centers, and I do the remaining work for 

that. Within my area, I am responsible for the construction of facilities. 

24

The other vice presidents that I alluded to are responsible for 

setting the priorities, the requirements, and getting the budget to 

do that. 

Mr. COBLE. I got you. 

Mr. Johnson, you touched on consolidation earlier. Let me put a 

three-pronged question to you. 

Does the FAA terminate employees as a result of consolidation, 

a; b, how does the Agency look after its employees as the Agency 

moves forward toward efficient facility management; and finally, if 

you continue to consolidate will some employees be terminated? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

No, on the termination question. We need every air traffic controller that we have in the system right now, so we would not do 

anything that knowingly would cause us to lose air traffic controllers. 

When we do consolidations, we give longtime lead notice. There 

is coordination with the union on what is going to happen. We pay 

full PCS moves, which is permanent change of station, as you 

know, when we move the employees. 

Usually, during the lead time, some of the employees may bid on 

other positions to go to other places. Typically, on consolidations, 

if we are just moving the TRACON, the tower facility will stay. So 

some of the employees may decide to remain at the tower and work 

in the tower only. Some of the employees may decide to go to the 

consolidated facility and work in the TRACON. 

Mr. COBLE. I got you. 

Mr. JOHNSON. There is no difference. In fact, we are actually 

going to add controllers to the system from where we are now. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you, sir. 

Mr. Chairman, I want you to take note that I am yielding back 

my time before the red light appears. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman and would ask 

other Members to consider doing the same. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. 

Cohen. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Johnson, I don’t know if it would be you or your fellow there, 

but I believe it would be you. 

The numbers reviewed by our T&I Committee staff show the 

backlog of building maintenance repairs somewhere between 250 

and 350 million dollars. FAA appears to be spending less than $60 

million making those repairs. Why have we not requested or you 

not requested more money from Congress to make those necessary 

repairs? 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. Yes, thank you for the question. 

Well, back to the budget, we request what we need in terms of 

the F&E program. That was stated before. I am sure you aware 

that we have requirements on the Operations side as well, and so 

what we have to do is balance our day to day Operations budget, 

which does include the day to day maintenance and repair. It 

doesn’t come out of the F&E account, which handles major capital 

construction projects. 

So we look at both of these and try to balance the need for ongoing maintenance and emergency repairs with the need for new conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:42 Feb 27, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\36964 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
25

struction of major facilities, which comes out of a different account. 

We put that together and go back to the Congress with our request 

which includes both the Operations side and the capital side. 

Then, obviously, the third part of the budget is the grants program which is the Airport Improvement Development program, 

which also comes out of our budget. 

Mr. COHEN. I understand that, sir. Do you think that 50 to 60 

million dollars is inadequate to maintain the facilities that we 

have? 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. No. No. We need. Obviously, with 22,000 structures and buildings, we can only touch a portion of those each year, 

and we prioritize them. 

Mr. COHEN. Then why did you not request more monies from this 

Congress in the past? 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. Because we requested what we needed in the Operations budget, which handles the critical repair and infrastructure repair. That, in turn, competes, if you will, against the capital 

budget. So we are able to come up with a total budget amount and 

present it to you. 

Mr. COHEN. Could you not have requested more? 

I mean at Christmas, I make a list. I used to make a list as a 

kid. I didn’t stop with just a bicycle. I went for the basketball and 

the football. 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. Well, internally, we do have our deliberations, and 

that is compared to the rest of the Department’s needs and the 

Country’s needs. I am sure you are more aware of the budget process than we are. 

Mr. COHEN. Do you have any idea how much money we spend 

in Iraq for these types of facilities? 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. Well, I have read in the press what we spend. 

Mr. COHEN. Well, I haven’t. Would you help me? 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. I couldn’t tell you offhand. 

Mr. COHEN. Do you have a ballpark figure? 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. I focus on aviation. 

Mr. COHEN. But you have read the paper, so help me with what 

you have read. 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. No, I couldn’t cite a number today. 

Mr. COHEN. You don’t remember. 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. Correct. 

Mr. COHEN. Do you work at the Justice Department? They don’t 

remember anything either. 

Mr. Johnson, do you remember or have any idea? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Restate the question again? 

Mr. COHEN. How much money we are spending as a Government 

in Iraq and Afghanistan, for that matter, on their aviation. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I do not know what the aviation figure that we are 

spending in Iraq. I know we support them with people that we 

send over there, but I don’t know what the infrastructure costs? 

Mr. COHEN. How about their infrastructure? Do you think we are 

just operating on Saddam’s infrastructure? 

Mr. JOHNSON. No. 

Mr. COHEN. We destroyed it. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Right. I think a lot of the radars that we are setting up there are radars that we have sent over. 

26

Mr. COHEN. Can you get us that information? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I certainly can try, sir. 

Mr. COHEN. It is just, I think, another example of where we have 

inadequate monies here for our security and yet we are supplying 

it over there. 

Let me ask you this. Do you all have any knowledge of what the 

situation is with the Memphis air traffic control, what repairs need 

to be made, what problems there might be? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I don’t. I don’t, not in Memphis. 

Mr. COHEN. Are there no problems in Memphis? 

Mr. JOHNSON. That would probably be on the unsafe side to say 

there are no problems. I am just not sure or aware of any. 

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Zaidman? 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. No, not sitting here offhand. It hasn’t come to my 

attention. 

Mr. COHEN. So Memphis is in great shape. 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. Well, I am not saying that, but we could certainly 

look at it. In terms of the priorities that we see on a day to day 

basis, Memphis is in pretty good shape. 

Mr. COHEN. There was a report of a near crash the other day. 

Are you aware of that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Not at Memphis, I am not. I am sorry. 

Mr. COHEN. No, it wasn’t in Memphis. It was elsewhere. I think 

what I read—I did read that newspaper report—was that it might 

have had something to do with maybe inadequate training of the 

controllers or the inexperience of the controllers. Do you remember? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I don’t. I am sorry. 

Mr. COHEN. You are not aware of that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I don’t know. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield my time. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I thank the gentleman. 

Just a quick question and point. The question is you, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Zaidman, you really do not have the final say-so in what 

the level of your budget is for the F&E account, do you? 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. No, but we input our priorities, and that is correct. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I didn’t understand. Can you pull the microphone 

closer? 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. I am sorry. We don’t have the final say. We are 

part of the process but not the final decision-maker on that. 

Mr. COSTELLO. As part of the process, do you request a specific 

amount for the F&E account? 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. We request it by project. So when you add it up, 

it does come to a specific amount. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Do you recall for the current fiscal year what 

amount you requested within the Agency? 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. No, I don’t recall. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Do you have any idea? Do you know what you requested or spent the year before, the prior fiscal year? 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. Well, the capital account was about $2.5 billion. 

That has been consistent over the past several years. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Do you recall if you ever requested in the past 3 

years over $2.5 billion? 

27

Mr. ZAIDMAN. Well, in our total deliberations, and we rank the 

projects, they come above $2.5 billion. So yes, in terms of if we 

were able to do everything that our staffs ask us to do, it would 

exceed $2.5 billion. I don’t want to call it a wish list but a list of 

potential projects. 

Mr. COSTELLO. You are telling this Subcommittee that internally 

you received every dollar that you requested from within the Agency? 

In other words, you put a request in. This is what we are going 

to need to do everyday maintenance and repair of the TRACONs 

and the air traffic control towers. We need $2.5 billion and no 

more, and you got every dollar you requested. 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. We don’t get every dollar we request internally 

when we add it up. It would go far beyond. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Zaidman, that is my whole point. 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. Okay. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I mean the point is whether you requested more. 

This Congress authorized for the last 3 years $3 billion each year. 

The Agency requested $2.5 billion, $500 million less than the Congress authorized. 

My question to you is, and I know you do not make the final decisions, so we are not here to beat up on you. What we are here 

to point out is that there are needs in the field that are not being 

met. 

My question to you is this. You didn’t make the final decision, 

but did you request only $2.5 billion or did you request more and 

somewhere along the line in the Agency or OMB or in the White 

House, they ended up on a figure of 2.5 as opposed to what you requested? 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. Well, the Agency requested 2.5, and internally it 

would be higher if we had an unbounded budget process. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I know it would be higher. But my question is did 

you request more than the $2.5 billion? 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. Well, not me, personally. Not me, personally. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Did your Department request it? 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. No. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Let us quit dancing around the issue and answer 

the question. 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. I am trying. Internally, we have a committee 

which spans our Air Traffic Organization. The total requirements 

quoted will exceed $2.5 billion to do all the construction and capital 

projects that we think we need to do. 

Mr. COSTELLO. So, within the Agency, you made an assessment 

and said that we need more than $2.5 billion to meet our needs, 

to address the needs. In the end, you received $2.5 billion. 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. At the staff level, the assessment was higher. But 

let me, if I can, Mr. Chairman. We also have an Operations budget. 

The Operations budget is the budget that addresses the maintenance and repair of the system. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I understand. 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. In that, we have adequate money. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair now recognizes at one time a former 

Chairman of this Subcommittee, Mr. Duncan from Tennessee. 

28

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the 

great job you are doing as Chairman of this Subcommittee. 

Gentlemen, the testimony you have given so far and the answers 

have, I think, been very informative and helpful. There has not 

been anything yet that has really surprised me or shocked me, but 

there is one thing that I am very curious about. 

Every time we have a hearing, we are given very formal briefing 

papers about the hearing, and these are, I am told, joint efforts by 

the staffs on both sides. I am sure that most of this information 

in here originally came from the FAA, but it says the thing I am 

really curious about. It says the FAA manages over 22,000 facilities. 

You have an Agency with roughly 45,000 employees. I have been 

in many FAA facilities around the Country or quite a few anyway, 

and there are always many employees there. Now, surely this is 

wrong or there is a few thousand FAA facilities with just one employee or maybe thousands of FAA facilities with no employees. 

I am just wondering. Surely, you can tell me this is wrong. 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. Well, let me explain what those numbers are. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Explain it to me. 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. We have about 420, 450 facilities that are manned 

facilities, occupied by air traffic controllers. 

We have structures that house electronics that are unmanned. 

These put out electronic signals in space for navigation, for instance, and they are counted as part of those 22,000. 

We have radio towers that permit controllers to talk to airplanes 

and vice versa. That is counted as one of these 22,000. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I see. So most of those 22,000 are unmanned facilities. 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Have you done any estimates of what the costs of 

maintaining all these facilities as opposed to consolidation of some 

of these facilities? 

Have there been any preliminary studies or estimates made? Do 

we have any rough guess? 

Mr. JOHNSON. We can tell you that on average when we build a 

new facility, which could include consolidation, the average cost is 

around $30 million to build a new facility. 

Now we have a high end on that, which is that we will spend $90 million for a facility that may be constrained because of the 

siting. The new Phoenix tower TRACON was one of those. Because 

the siting was constrained where it was, we paid quite a bit of 

extra money for blast walls, and the cost of steel went up. The cost 

of concrete went up. 

So even though we try to set that level at what we think we are 

going to spend for a facility, we have noticed over the last few 

years that our costs are rising by about 30 percent. 

From a cost of facility, from a cost of consolidation, I don’t have 

a figure for that. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Do you have any idea how many new facilities you 

need at this time? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, we have 33 on the list. We have around 78 

facilities that are less than 10 years old that we have built, that 

are wonderful facilities that are out there. They get around 10 

29

years old, and of course they are starting to need maintenance and 

upkeep. 

Again, we have 33. Some of those are in various stages of completion in the system. 

Then the list, the master list where we look at the needs of the 

facilities and when we would replace them on a priority order, all 

524 facilities are on that list. That is reworked periodically when 

we get new information. 

Mr. DUNCAN. You don’t really have any estimate at this point 

about how much you could save by consolidation? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Not from a total figure, no, we don’t. 

That kind of gets rolled up. Again, as we look at new builds and 

we look at what we are going to bring in, then we certainly have 

a figure for what it didn’t cost us, cost savings, not to, say, build 

a TRACON onto a facility, usually four to five million dollars just 

for the structure itself. Then you start adding the electronics and 

the other gear, and the cost certainly climbs. 

Yes, we could put very specific figures to that. I couldn’t give you 

an exact figure because it depends on the size of the facility. 

Mr. DUNCAN. One last thing I am a little curious about since Mr. 

Coble asked about would any employees be terminated and earlier 

Mr. Mica talked or mentioned about how it is almost impossible to 

terminate an employee. Do you have a rough guess as to how many 

FAA employees are terminated or fired each year? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I would say it is a very small number. I don’t have 

an exact figure, but I would say it is a very small number. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you very much. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Graves. 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. I apologize for being late. I had a meeting with on CAFTA. 

But I am very curious. One of the facilities, one of the tower facilities in question with the mold issue is the Kansas City tower 

which is actually a fairly new tower. We do have some mold issues 

there. 

I sent a letter to Administrator Blakey with Senator Bond about 

a month ago and hadn’t received a response yet. I was just curious 

if that issue is being addressed and hopefully it is being addressed 

quickly. I would like to see that cleaned up. I visited the tower 

about three weeks ago and took a look at the problem, and it is 

definitely there. 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. Yes, sir, it is there. We just issued a contract to 

do an engineering analysis to determine what we need to fix. We 

anticipate issuing a contract award to clean up the mold and make 

repairs this September. 

Mr. GRAVES. I would like if you would keep me informed of that. 

The biggest thing is I want to make sure it is being addressed and 

being addressed quickly, and if you would please keep my office in 

the loop on how that is progressing and what is happening. 

Mr. ZAIDMAN. Be happy to. It is an issue for us. 

Mr. GRAVES. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

Let me at this time thank you, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Zaidman, 

for your testimony. At this point, we will dismiss you. 

30

Again thank you for being here this morning and presenting your 

testimony. We will have our staff follow up with the requests that 

Mr. Mica and others have made. I know that we have at least one 

list in our possession, and we may need to get another from you, 

but we thank you for being here today and for presenting your testimony. 

We would ask the second panel, as Mr. Johnson and Mr. 

Zaidman leave the witness table, if you will come forward, please. 

I will go ahead and make introductions as you are coming forward. In the second panel, we will hear from Mr. Patrick Forrey, 

the President of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association; 

Ms. Patricia Gilbert, Chair of the National Legislative Committee 

for the National Air Traffic Controllers Association; and Mr. Tom 

Brantley, President of the Professional Airways Services Specialists, if you will all three be seated. 

Mr. Forrey, you are recognized under the five minute rule if you 

are prepared to find the right page and take your time. Whenever 

you are ready, you are recognized under the five minute rule. 

TESTIMONY OF PATRICK FORREY, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL AIR 

TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATION; PATRICIA GILBERT, 

CHAIR, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, NATIONAL AIR 

TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATION; TOM BRANTLEY, 

PRESIDENT, PROFESSIONAL AIRWAYS SERVICES SPECIALISTS, AFL-CIO 

Mr. FORREY. Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity 

to come before your Committee. 

My name is Patrick Forrey. I am the President of the National 

Air Traffic Controllers Association. 

NATCA has been fortunate enough to enjoy a good working relationship with the Members of this Committee. As many of you 

know, our organization is the exclusive representative of over 

14,000 aviation safety-related professionals. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Petri, I would like to begin by 

expressing our sincere appreciation to both of you and the Members of this Committee for your interest in the conditions of the 

FAA’s air traffic control facilities around the Country. We are particularly grateful for your willingness to learn about the experience 

of the employees who are working for these facilities. NATCA members can help to provide unique perspective on the state of the towers, centers and TRACONs nationwide. 

NATCA recently conducted a field survey of over 200 facilities. 

The survey identified a wide variety of problems and needs. Conversely, there are also facilities that did not exhibit maintenance 

challenges. My colleague, Patricia Gilbert, who is sitting next to me 

on my left, will present on that survey’s findings after my testimony. 

The air traffic control system has made vast strides in safety and 

technology in its short existence. Unfortunately, many of the aging 

air traffic control facilities that house the systems and our controller workforce have gone unchanged or fallen into disrepair. 

More importantly, the facility maintenance has not kept pace with 

the weakening controllers’ ability to operate the largest and most 

congested air space system in the world. 

31

NATCA believe that with proper maintenance, many of these facilities can and should continue to be viable sites for air traffic control systems regardless of their age. In that respect, we strongly 

support the enactment of H.R. 2881, the FAA Reauthorization Act 

of 2007, which authorizes critically needed funding levels that will 

enable the FAA to make needed repairs and replacement of existing facilities and equipment. 

We commend you, Mr. Chairman, and the Members of your Committee for that effort. 

Simply stated, the maintenance and preservation of its aging air 

traffic control facilities has not been a priority for the FAA. On 

many occasions, we have been found FAA employees have been 

forced to work in conditions that are unsafe which, in turn, can create unsafe conditions for the flying public. 

But just as concerning to us has been the repeated mishandling 

of unhealthy situations by FAA management officials. While buildings do get old and sometimes accidents happen involving harmful 

materials and noxious fumes, and by the way mostly by contractors, quick and effective management actions can mitigate the 

short and long term damage. 

I have personally brought this to the attention of the FAA Administrator in the wake of many controllers still suffering debilitating serious health problems after exposure to harmful conditions. It is important for any employer to have the trust of its employees that they will have a safe working environment. 

Exposure to these harmful contaminants has resulted in unsafe 

working conditions in many facilities across the Nation. In the Detroit tower, for instance, over 6,000 feet of mold contamination, an 

identical tower to Kansas City, by the way, was contaminated with 

material identified as black mold or stachybotrys. 

Despite the obvious confirmation of a hazardous situation, the 

Agency consistently marginalized NATCA’s concerns and suggestions and would not work collaboratively to solve the problem. 

While the Agency has put resources into remediation of the mold 

problem discovered during a safety inspection in 2004, the problem 

still exists today. 

NATCA has also discovered that nearly half of all facilities have 

some sort of external leaks. Many of these leaks are into equipment 

rooms that jeopardize vital equipment. For example, controllers in 

the Atlanta ARTCC, which is a center down in Atlanta, have to 

guide aircraft while using an umbrella to protect them from water 

cascading into the roof on top of the equipment. 

As seen in the video clip earlier at the Grand Rapids facility, 

there really are no words necessary to express what is going on 

there. 

Additionally, significant chemical exposure incidents have results 

in respiratory injury. Three incidents recently at major facilities involving failed maintenance projects resulted in over a dozen employees being severely sickened. 

On February 28th, a contractor-botched roofing project and failed 

cleanup efforts at Jacksonville TRACON resulted in employees 

having to breath toxic odors. To date, five controllers are still out 

of work and being treated by the Mayo Clinic. 

32

In April, scheduled maintenance at an engine generator in the 

New York TRACON sent diesel exhaust fumes into the ventilation 

system of the building, resulting in a slow leak of deadly carbon 

monoxide gas. Six controllers were affected and showed the familiar signs of carbon monoxide poisoning, yet the facility’s operations 

manager refused to allow the fire department to respond and forced 

the controllers to remain on the job. 

On May 9th at the Dulles air traffic control tower, the FAA delayed evacuation of controllers from the tower for 45 minutes after 

noxious fumes from an airport construction project were circulated 

in the tower’s ventilation system, sending 5 employees to the hospital. 

Here is the key in all these instances. The Agency is slow to respond to the employees’ health concerns, and the Agency denied 

the attempts to work with the FAA to correct the problem. 

Talking about facility consolidations, some have made the argument that the best way to deal with aging facilities is to consolidate them. We disagree. Our position is that the FAA must first 

fulfill its 30 year obligation to meet a specific operational need as 

well as cost reduction before consolidation can be considered. Safety of the system, modernization, service to the users, the impact on 

the employees are all considerations that need to be considered 

above and beyond just a dollar value that may be saved in consolidations. 

With funding comes responsibility and oversight of the proper accounting of taxpayer dollars. NATCA believes that the FAA must 

be held accountable to make better maintenance investment of 

ATC facilities. 

Just this February, the U.S. Department of Transportation Inspector General issued an audit announcing in which the FAA 

could not account for $4.7 billion of their September 30th, 2006 end 

of year funds regarding for property, plant and equipment line 

items. We find that quite interesting since up to this date, the 

Agency does not spend the amount of funding that they have been 

given, and yet they can’t account for 4.7 billion over the last several years. 

In conclusion, we believe that the FAA must be held accountable 

to make better maintenance investments in ATC facilities. These 

are taxpayer-financed, and the taxpayers’ investment must be protected. 

We support enactment of 2881, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 

2007, which authorizes critically needed funding levels for the F&E 

accounts and will enable the FAA to make needed repairs and replacements of existing facilities and equipment. 

NATCA strongly supports participation in collaborative process 

with the FAA and the Agency’s air traffic control programs and initiatives. NATCA also calls on the FAA to improve its procedures 

for dealing with hazardous workplace conditions and install carbon 

monoxide detectors and other appropriate monitors in all occupied 

structures. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks you, Mr. Forrey, and recognizes 

Ms. Gilbert. 

33

Ms. GILBERT. Thank you, Chairman Costello and thank you, 

Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Petri for letting me appear before you today. 

My name is Patricia Gilbert. I am an air traffic controller at 

Houston Air Route Traffic Control Center and have been there for 

19 years. As well as being a full time air traffic controller, I serve 

as NATCA’s National Chairperson to the Legislative Committee. 

I would like to begin by expressing our deep appreciation for 

your interest in the condition of FAA facilities. The condition of the 

facilities, air traffic facilities, are a great concern to NATCA and 

its members especially in light of incidents that have jeopardized 

the employees’ ability to perform their job safely. 

For example, unacceptable working conditions came to light 

when controllers became ill after noxious fumes entered work areas 

at a number of FAA facilities. Mr. Forrey touched on how the controllers in New York TRACON and Washington Dulles tower were 

recently taken ill when suddenly exposed to carbon monoxide. 

Other employees at facilities in Jacksonville, Florida, San Jose, 

California and Eugene, Oregon, faced a similar scenario when unidentified fumes entered their work areas as well. In each of these 

instances, the employees felt the Agency response did not correspond with their concerns. 

The FAA has never, to our knowledge until we heard Mr. Johnson’s testimony, compiled an overall list of environmental, equipment, health or safety issues for its 314, and these are FAA air 

traffic facilities. His testimony said they talked to and got information from 89. 

Based on that lack of available data and the overwhelming volume of specific complaints from individual facilities, NATCA decided earlier this year to request individual facility reports from its 

field representatives for compiling into a national database. The 

survey gathered reports from air traffic control towers, FAA enroute traffic control centers and FAA terminal radar approach controls or TRACONs. 

When reviewing the results of our survey, we looked for any 

issues that potentially presented a safety concern. While information for some facilities was not received, over 220 facilities provided 

data in varying detail. This nationwide field survey identified a 

wide variety of problems and needs. 

In reviewing the research, we looked for trends as opposed to individual and routine maintenance issues. In this regard, the most 

commonly reported problems were mold and other harmful contaminants, external links and building ventilation and temperature 

control. 

The FAA’s disregard of facility maintenance has resulted in 

harmful contaminants in many of its facilities. Exposures to these 

dangerous contaminants has resulted in unsafe worker conditions 

at facilities across the Nation. 

In the Detroit air traffic control tower, two years ago, black toxic 

mold as well as several other toxic molds were found. Chicago 

O’Hare air traffic control tower had fire suppression pipes break 

and flood various parts of the facility in February, and initial 

NATCA test results show possible mold. 

34

Kansas City tower recently identified mold in various rooms. 

Contaminated insulation was found below the raised flooring which 

is located directly in front of the air supply discharge. 

It is my understanding that FAA’s approach to mold remediation 

is exactly the reverse of accepted practice. Their current intent is 

to remove and to treat mold first, then only at a later date, address 

the causes of the mold. Grand Rapids has had several environmental issues in the last 10 years relating to bacteria contamination, water leaks and possible mold contamination. 

The survey also revealed that air traffic control towers and radar 

rooms across the Nation have serious external leaks. Many of these 

leaks are into equipment rooms and jeopardize expensive and vital 

safety equipment. The Chicago Air Route Traffic Control Center, located in Aurora, had major leaks over the back wall of the building 

and in the basement. The extent of possible mold contamination is 

unknown at this point. 

Our research has found that in nearly every facility survey, the 

operators and occupants report poor heating and air conditioning 

and air quality. In several air traffic control towers, the poor environmental conditions represent potentially serious situations not 

just to the employees but to the flying public. 

A notable example is the recurrence of condensation accumulating on the window panes of tower cabs in San Juan in South 

Florida causing reducing visibility which in some cases can be extreme and unsafe. This picture on the monitor shows that due to 

condensation the San Juan tower cab windows, air traffic controllers are sometimes blind without the ability to scan the runways 

or taxiways. In this picture, you can barely make out an Airbus 

crossing in front of the tower. 

The following are some quick facts and statistics about the survey. Nearly 100 percent of the facilities responding reported declining environmental equipment, safety and/or health issues. Most facilities reported overall conditions of their facilities as merely fair 

with 62 reporting their condition as poor and an additional 18 reporting their condition as dangerous. 

Forty facilities report significant mold issues. Many are dealing 

with toxic mold and its associated health risk with the most extreme cases reporting employees already suffering long term and 

permanent injuries from exposure. 

Asbestos in buildings, other abatement issues and dangerous releases are still a serious concern at over 30 facilities. New York 

Center, Atlanta Center and Fargo, South Dakota tower, among others, are still awaiting years-long promised asbestos abatement. 

Seventy-five facilities report water leaks of which at least a half 

a dozen report frequent leaks directly on controllers or equipment. 

Adding to this are serious issues at many facilities with fumes 

leaking into the work areas from jet fuel, jet exhaust, insecticides, 

solvents and generator or other engine exhaust. Several facilities 

report employees still unable to return to work due to exposure 

side effects. 

Over 100 facilities report significant issues with heating and 

cooling, resulting in extreme seasonal temperature variations and 

inconsistent temperatures from area to area. Even brand new facilities such as Addison tower in Dallas, Texas, which was commisVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:42 Feb 27, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\36964 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
35

sioned in 2006, report temperature variations with lows in the fifties and highs over a hundred degrees in the operating quarters, 

resulting in obvious human discomfort as well as equipment risk. 

Of these facilities, over 50 report chronic air quality issues including cold and flu-like symptoms, respiratory and breathing problems, headaches and controllers’ routinely sickened from lack of 

ventilation. 

Northern California TRACON has recurring issues with snakes 

in the building during the summer and fall months while St. Louis 

tower deals with the challenge of bats. Both are relatively new facilities. Twenty-eight other facilities report invasive infestation 

issues with rats, mice, wasps, termites, ants and flies. 

Other issues of concern at numerous facilities including poorly 

placed equipment obstructing the operation or obscuring visibility, 

windows in tower cabs routinely fogging up on the inside as you 

saw with the San Juan tower cab, lead-heavy or malodorous or contaminated drinking water, excessive dust or other surface contaminants. 

We believe that it is clear that the FAA must be held accountable 

to make better maintenance investments in its air traffic control facilities. These are taxpayer-financed, and taxpayers’ investments 

must be protected. 

Thank you, Chairman Oberstar, Chairman Costello and Ranking 

Member Petri. 

Mr. COSTELLO. We thank you, Ms. Gilbert. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Brantley. 

Mr. BRANTLEY. Thank you. Chairman Costello, Congressman 

Petri and Chairman Oberstar and Members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for holding this important hearing today and thank you 

for inviting PASS to testify. 

The Professional Airways Systems Specialists represent more 

than 11,000 FAA employees including those in our Air Traffic Organization Technical Operations Unit who install, maintain and 

certify the radar, navigation and communication systems making 

up the National Airspace System. 

For too many years, the FAA has neglected its infrastructure, 

specifically the buildings and facilities that accommodate NAS 

equipment and the employees who operate and maintain those systems. The images displayed on the screen reveal a disturbing pattern of deteriorating buildings, leaking roofs and unstable infrastructure that places employees and equipment at risk. 

Technicians in the field have reported many instances in which 

employees fell through rotting floors or fell off unstable platforms. 

In addition, exposure to mold and asbestos is a serious issue at numerous facilities that has the potential to impact the health of employees for years to come. I believe that the examples provided by 

PASS and NATCA in our written testimonies along with the pictures being displayed clearly demonstrate the severity and scope of 

the problem. 

The FAA spent a lot of time over the last several years talking 

about how it is becoming more businesslike and how it carefully 

weighs its decisions regarding how it accomplishes its mission like 

a business. According to FAA leadership, modernization and operation of the NAS are now being pursued in the same manner as 

36

any successful business in the Country would follow. That may 

play well as a sound bite, but it clearly does not apply to the FAA’s 

management of its infrastructure. 

Would a successful business allow critical buildings and facilities 

to fall into such disrepair that they are not only a threat to the 

equipment they house and the users who rely on that equipment 

but also a very real threat to the safety of the employees who operate and maintain them? No. 

Would a successful business refuse to ask for the resources necessary to repair or replace these critical facilities? Again, the answer is no. 

Why then would FAA leadership allow these buildings and facilities to deteriorate so badly? 

Why would the FAA have a plan for completing inspections at its 

manned facilities that will take another 25 years to complete? 

Why would the FAA continue with a modernization plan that 

often includes placing new systems and equipment into facilities 

that are unacceptable for those systems and unsafe for the employees who use and maintain them? 

No successful business could be operated in such a hazardous 

way nor would a successful business allow facilities considered vital 

to its mission to exist in such conditions. However, I can assure 

you, as can our technicians in the field, that these facilities are 

critical to safe and efficient air travel. The FAA cannot continue to 

deny the importance of these facilities and employees by ignoring 

the infrastructure problems plaguing the NAS. 

The time for rhetoric from FAA leaders has passed. It is time for 

someone, anyone in FAA leadership to step up and deal with this 

crisis before it is too late. 

We have all seen and heard about the recent steam line explosion in New York City. I believe the similarities with the FAA’s infrastructure are striking and frightening. They are both considered 

part of the infrastructure and therefore not visible in a public way. 

When things are not clearly visible to the public, there is a reluctance to focus energy or resources on them, but following that logic 

will always lead to disaster, as we recently saw in New York. 

I believe the FAA must take the following actions to avoid the 

same type of crippling disaster: The FAA should immediately analyze all currently available information regarding its most critical 

infrastructure problems and request the resources to fix them. 

The FAA must complete inspections of its manned and unmanned facilities within two years. The information gathered from 

these inspections must be factored into the Agency’s budgeting 

from now on. It is clear that correcting problems in the early stage 

is more effective and much less costly than waiting until a complete failure happens. 

Last, but certainly not least, the FAA must begin to listen to the 

people who are the true experts on the state of the NAS and its 

infrastructure, the employees who operate and maintain it. 

Thank you and I look forward to any questions you may have. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks you, Mr. Brantley. 

The Chair now recognizes the distinguished Chairman of the Full 

Committee, Chairman Oberstar. 

37

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you and Mr. Petri for your good work in launching this hearing. 

Our Committee investigative staff were digging into the issues. 

I regret not being here at the outset, but I was on the Floor, defending Lake Michigan against predations of a similar nature by 

British Petroleum planning to dump toxics into Lake Michigan. 

To the rain at Grand Rapids, Michigan, the black mold in the 

Western Pacific tower, mold at Dallas-Fort Worth, O’Hare, Kansas 

City, Detroit, you can add snow in the tower at Duluth, Minnesota, 

snow and flies in the winter. The air traffic controllers plugged the 

holes in the windows to keep the snow out, but then they were batting flies that came out of the woodwork in the middle of January 

with zero degrees outside. 

Finally, the FAA came and replaced the windows and pronounced the tower in good shape. This is a tower that predates the 

jet age by about 20 years, and they haven’t seen fit to build a new 

one. 

It is, to me, just astonishing that we have the entire aviation industry, essentially both houses of Congress, the FAA, DOT, all focusing on capacity limitations of technology in the current system, 

the need to upgrade technology to NextGen, and they are not paying attention to the workplace within which this new technology is 

going to be located and the men and women who have to operate 

that equipment under these appalling conditions. 

Our investigative staff has documented the roof leaks, the mold, 

the pest infestation, the poor quality heating, ventilation, air condition, asbestos, space limitations, unsanitary conditions, broken or 

damaged office equipment that hasn’t been replaced or restored. 

You know if the headquarters folk of DOT or FAA had to operate 

under those conditions, there would be a really fast response. 

In fact, even this Committee, here you have the Department of 

Transportation headquarters with such bad and poorly functioning 

heating/air conditioning units that they had mold causing illnesses 

within similar to Legionnaire’s disease within the building. This 

Committee, seven, eight years ago approved a new structure for 

DOT costing nearly a billion dollars. It didn’t take them long to fix 

that. 

Maybe we should have shaved some of that money off the new 

DOT headquarters and put into the air traffic control facilities. We 

were counting on FAA to be not only good stewards of safety in the 

air but good stewards for the women and men who operate the air 

traffic control system to make sure that safety is maintained at its 

highest level. 

It is a great tribute, Mr. Forrey, Ms. Gilbert and Mr. Brantley, 

to your members that they operate under these deplorable conditions. I have been in those towers. I have been in the facilities that 

have the mold, that have the leaks, and in the case of Duluth in 

my district that have the snow coming in the windows. 

FAA needs to spend a little more time and pay a good deal more 

attention to the needs of the very system that they are trying to 

operate and to upgrade. 

What do you think is needed, Mr. Forrey, Ms. Gilbert? 

What are your thoughts about what kind of investments and 

what timetable and schedule and what needs to be fixed internally 

38

within FAA to get their attention, to address these problems and 

to do so in short order? 

Mr. FORREY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I believe probably the biggest thing that they could start with 

doing is to include their employees, the experts on all of these 

things, to what the solution should be. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I mean there are no surveys? There are no sort 

of air traffic controller town meetings held with the Administrator 

to hear your concerns? 

Mr. FORREY. Not that I am aware of. 

There are surveys that are put out. I think the last survey that 

the Agency put out, the Employee Attitudes Survey, was they 

ranked, I think, a whole 13 percent of job satisfaction by the employees or 9 percent job satisfaction. 

They came out 243 out of 243 as far as employee dissatisfaction 

with their Agency based on a lot of these issues, a lot of the things 

that are going on with the Agency today, the state of the facilities, 

what their conditions they work in, the way they are treated by 

management, the way they are left out of the process of any decision-making. All those things have a morale so low in the FAA that 

you can only go up, quite frankly. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. That is deplorable. 

Ms. Gilbert? 

Ms. GILBERT. As far as the Agency, I was a little disturbed to 

hear testimony earlier from the first panel that funds were available and they have yet to use those funds to maintain their facilities. 

I would say in addition to the collaboration piece, working with 

their employees to improve the working conditions, they should 

also look closer at their workman’s comp claims and not controvert 

those as they come into their desks and actually look at these people and take them serious instead of what Mr. Johnson did in his 

testimony which is advocate that those people had a chance to 

leave New York TRACON. 

I immediately heard it when I went into my building the very 

next day that those controllers, from FAA management perspective, 

made the whole story up. Forget the story that they went into a 

hospital after the fact and did test positive for carbon monoxide in 

their system. 

So workman’s comp claims, I think if they paid attention to 

those, it would help quite a bit as well. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. What cost will it take, Mr. Brantley? Have you 

done some estimates of annual or recurring costs needed to upgrade facilities? 

Mr. BRANTLEY. Mr. Chairman, I think part of the answer is that 

it depends because the way the FAA currently performs the maintenance on its infrastructure is they wait until it is completely failing, and the cost then is so much higher than it would be if you 

fixed it originally. So the cost should be much lower than it will 

ultimately be. I believe the estimates are somewhere between $250 and $350 

million for the current backlog on the manned facilities. The other 

22,000 that were discussed earlier, I have no idea what that cost 

would be, and consolidation isn’t the same kind of a panacea for 

39

unmanned facilities that some believe it is for the manned facilities. Most of these are navigation systems, communication systems 

that have to be there regardless of where the TRACON or tower 

is located. 

They have to begin doing it now, and they have to begin doing 

it right or the problem is going to snowball until it is something 

that is unmanageable. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Let me ask your help in preparing for the Committee in the next week or so before we hopefully bring the FAA 

Reauthorization Bill to the House Floor. A compilation of facilities 

that you would rank in some order of urgency of need of repair and 

a ballpark cost estimate, get that to us, and let us see if there is 

some way that we can work with that before we bring the authorization bill to the House Floor. 

Mr. BRANTLEY. Absolutely. I would be happy to do. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I think we ought to do that. We owe it to you. 

The FAA owes it to you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Chairman Oberstar. 

Ms. Gilbert, you mentioned in your testimony that there are at 

least 40 facilities that you are aware of that have reported problems with mold. 

We have heard testimony earlier. You heard me ask the question 

of Mr. Johnson from the FAA, how many facilities that they actually made an FCI assessment on, and it was the Committee’s information that 89 of 401 facilities actually had been assessed, obviously a very small number. 

My question is if, in fact, you are aware of 40 facilities that have 

mold, do you have a list now? Either NATCA or PASS, have you 

compiled a list based upon the complaints from your members, listing those facilities that have mold, that have other structural problems or other problems that present unsafe or unhealthy conditions? 

Ms. GILBERT. Yes, we do have a list of those facilities, and we 

can provide that to the Committee. Of the facilities that we do 

know of that have, at least 40, and I am saying at least 40. There 

may be more. 

My facility itself has roof leak issues, and so there are facilities 

around the Country. You don’t know what kind of problems you 

have when the leaks don’t get fixed and the mold is allows to get 

worse in facilities. So we can provide that. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The list that you have, is it prioritized starting 

with the facility that you believe should be addressed first based 

upon the existing conditions? 

Ms. GILBERT. Yes. It is a result of our survey. We can gather further data from those that did not respond. We did rank them based 

on the type of issues they had in their facilities and the severity 

of those issues. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I heard in your testimony and I would like you 

to clarify for me that you were somewhat surprised when Mr. Johnson talked about some type of list that the FAA has that apparently you were not aware of, is that correct? 

Ms. GILBERT. That is correct. 

40

Mr. COSTELLO. Clarify that for me. You were not aware that they 

have a list at all? 

They obviously had not solicited your opinions, solicited information from you or your members. Is that a correct statement? 

Ms. GILBERT. That is correct. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Obviously, and I think I pointed out with the first 

panel that Mr. Poe from Texas made the point on the TRACON 

and tower consolidation effort by the FAA, that there has been a 

horrible lack of communication not only with Members of Congress 

and our staff and the Committee but also with the stakeholders, 

with the controllers and with everyone involved in the system. 

Obviously, that is a problem with this situation as well, that they 

are not soliciting information from their own employees, from members of PASS, members of NATCA and others to ask for your help 

in reporting these problems so that they can be addressed. 

Also, I made the point over and over that, of course, Mr. Johnson 

does not have the final say on the FAA’s budget, on the F&E account, but this Congress approved a $3 billion authorization for the 

F&E account. For the last three years, the FAA has requested less 

than the authorized amount. They have requested $2.5 billion 

versus $3 billion. They have left $500 million behind, and that is 

one of the reasons why in my judgment that we have all of these 

maintenance challenges that they are not undertaking. 

The Congress recognized the problem, and the Congress authorized the money, but the FAA has not used the money or requested 

the full authorization level. 

I have a question about process. You heard me ask Mr. Johnson 

the process if, in fact, an employee feels that they have health 

problems as a result of the conditions in the tower or the facility 

where they are working. What is the process, and he said, well, the 

employee fills out a form and files the form with the Agency. 

One, Mr. Forrey, I would ask you to walk us through the process 

from the employees’ perspective, from your members’ perspective, 

and I would ask Mr. Brantley to do the same. What is the process? 

I will have some other questions when you are finished explaining. 

Mr. FORREY. The process is when an employee gets injured on 

the job, it is a workman’s comp claim, what they refer to as CA1 

or a CA2 or an occupational disease meaning long exposure to some 

condition at work. 

In all these cases, the Agency is controverting every single claim 

filed by the employees. They have hired people from the Department of Labor that understand workman’s comp claims and are 

showing them how to beat them in court or how to win them back. 

It is actually pretty disgusting what they are doing in my opinion. 

I have employees right now that the answer to any claim that 

is approved by the Department of Labor, a lot of times the answer 

by the Agency as well, is they have their claim, that is their compensation, but yet these people have to go back to work sometime. 

I have a couple of people at Detroit that were affected by the 

mold. The one has stachybotrys antibodies in his blood system. His 

brain is deteriorating. There is no way he is ever going to be able 

to go back to work. The Agency fights his claim, and now the guy 

41

is looking to filing bankruptcy. This is the kind of stuff that is 

going on in the field. 

The employees down at Jacksonville where the contractor let the 

toxic chemicals come through the ceiling, where controllers were 

complaining about the smell. It was making them nauseous, and 

they were having a difficult time concentrating and seeing. They 

got a hard time with the manager there because they don’t want 

to interrupt the operation. 

It took five days—five days—for the Agency to do something. The 

result was they brought in some big fans to blow air, and then they 

test the air in front of the big fan and say, see, the air is fine in 

here. 

At Detroit, they won’t even test the mold. They won’t even test 

it to verify that it is black mold any recent time. 

We offered as a union to supply the money to put air scrubbers 

and to monitor the air when they did these projects when they first 

started, and they refused that. So now they spent millions of dollars trying to remediate that building, and it has still got mold 

growing in it. 

That is the kind of fighting that the Agency has been doing with 

us, and I don’t understand why. We are there to help them. I mean 

we even offered to pony up to say we will pay for the air scrubbers 

if you don’t want to do, and yet we find out that they have 500 million that they don’t even spend. I don’t understand that at all. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Brantley? 

Mr. BRANTLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I agree with the process as described by Mr. Forrey of when an 

employee is exposed to something or is injured on the job. They fill 

out the form, and then they begin defending themselves for the 

next several months or years, however long it takes to get resolved. 

When it comes to an employee maybe not being injured but finding a problem, it is a very similar process. It is a different form, 

but they will fill out a form. They will make an entry in a maintenance log for that facility, saying that they found whatever the 

problem is. They will report it to their supervisor, and that is 

where it sits. 

It is kind of ironic that one of the things that we noticed first 

after you announced the hearing was upcoming was the word got 

out to the field that if anyone had any maintenance problems, they 

should get them in so that they could get them into the budget. I 

am sure as soon as any attention blows over, that is going to become irrelevant again, but it kind of illustrates how the Agency 

views it. It is a problem when someone is paying attention and 

other than that, there is no process to actually resolve them. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Also, the statement that you made about the 

word went out for an assessment certainly goes to the point that 

aggressive oversight by the Congress and by Committees of the 

Congress, in particular in this case, this Committee. Aggressive 

oversight gets results from Federal agencies, and the lack of oversight gets no results. 

Mr. BRANTLEY. Yes, sir, and we thank you for that. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Let me ask you. In your judgment, when an employee files a workman’s comp claim, does it trigger an FCI assessment by the FAA? 

42

In other words, if an employee files a claim, a workman’s comp 

claim, if they are either injured or have some type of problem, 

health problem, as a result of working in a particular facility, does 

the FAA come out and make an assessment, Mr. Forrey? 

Mr. FORREY. I am not aware of that. I mean that was the first 

I heard of this FCI assessment today anyway. I had no idea they 

were doing that. I would not know if that triggers anything in their 

mind. 

Mr. COSTELLO. So you had no idea before the testimony today 

that there was an FCI assessment that even existed? 

Mr. FORREY. No, I wasn’t aware of it. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Ms. Gilbert? 

Ms. GILBERT. No, I was not aware of that. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Brantley? 

Mr. BRANTLEY. I was made aware in the last week in preparing 

for the hearing, but no, to my knowledge, it doesn’t trigger any 

kind of analysis. 

Something, if I might add, our internal experts have told us that 

they believe the FCI assessments are maybe not being done as well 

as they should be or as thoroughly either, that it may be more of 

a checklist that someone is going through and not actually doing 

an analysis to figure out where problems are. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Final question and then I will turn to the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee. 

You have indicated in your testimony, Mr. Forrey, and I think 

you as well, Mr. Brantley, that some of these conditions, you believe are in violation of OSHA standards. So my question is have 

either you on behalf of your members or any of your members filed 

a complaint with OSHA and asked OSHA to come out and make 

inspections to determine if there are violations? 

Mr. FORREY. Yes, we have in several locations, and OSHA has 

come out in several locations and filed a complaint or a notice to 

the Agency that they need to fix a certain situation ongoing. 

Then there is some gray area as to what OSHA requires under 

like remediation for mold and what the industry standard requires. 

So we play games back and forth about that instead of just doing 

what is right for the employees, and that is unfortunate as well. 

Yes, we have gotten OSHA involved in many of these situations. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Brantley? 

Mr. BRANTLEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we have also done that. 

When it involves a situation where employees are or there is an 

immediate threat that they will be in some way injured or their 

health will be at risk, we have had good luck with OSHA being 

willing to come. 

One of the things we find is if it is just a potential risk, OSHA 

is very reluctant to even come do an inspection. They have their 

marching orders too, and I think as much as possible they are told 

to leave the Federal Government alone unless they have to do 

something. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Well, in addition to Chairman Oberstar’s request 

of providing a list to us of facilities that have problems, I would ask 

you to provide a separate list of those that you believe are in violation of OSHA standards. 

43

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, if I may interrupt for just a moment if the Chairman would yield. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Yes, please. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I find it astonishing that FAA is hiding behind 

the excuse: We need to modernize to NextGen our air traffic control 

facilities. Therefore, we can’t improve these facilities. 

The comment, in fact, by an FAA witness was that our transition 

to NextGen would be at risk. The result would be aviation gridlock. 

They are not going to have NextGen in place for 10 years. Meanwhile, they are going to ask all these air traffic controllers to suffer 

in the mold and the insects and the disease visited upon them by 

these wretched facilities. That is appalling. We have to fix that. 

Thank you. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr. Petri, for any questions or comment. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much and thank you for your testimony here today. 

I guess I am kind of sitting here, thinking about what we can 

do to improve the situation going forward. It is easy. It is not easy, 

but it is important to point out problems and it is frustrating. 

We have very talented, dedicated, able people who are air traffic 

controllers with a lot of responsibility. I met with the Association 

of the Supervisors, and they are gung-ho and hard-focused people 

as well. 

There must be some way we can do a better job of involving people in coming up with solutions for managing the environment that 

they are working in properly. It is not just money. In fact, there 

might be ways of saving money if it is done with better communication and more involvement. 

One of the frustrations in any of these large organizations is that 

you fill something out and nothing happens. If there is better communication and there is some way of solving a problem, it helps 

morale and the glass is then half full instead of half empty. 

I don’t know if there are ways we can be helpful at all, and this 

hearing may help some, not in a gotcha exactly, but it focuses on 

a problem. We need to focus on areas of making the job more satisfying and making the environment better and making sure we 

helping morale. That helps safety in the long run if people feel that 

they have respect and if they have a problem. 

We can all be wrong, too. In some areas, it may be that there 

is a reason why things are the way they are. 

I don’t know if you have any comments on that, but if there are 

some things because we are working on a reauthorization now. It 

can be put in a political context, but this has been going on for 

many years in one Administration or another. It is sort of a bureaucratic organizational problem. 

I know you are new, so you would like to try to help, I suspect. 

If there are some ways that we can be constructive going forward, 

I would be eager to work with you on it. 

Mr. FORREY. Thank you, Mr. Petri. I may be new in this position, 

but I have been involved with the FAA for almost 23 years now 

and as a representative of the union for almost 19. 

44

I think up to a few years ago, we worked quite well together between the Agency and the unions as far as collaboratively to make 

things better and looking into the future. 

I don’t know what the rationale behind the Agency is that they 

don’t want to spend money appropriated to them or authorized for 

them to spend on their maintenance of the system. I mean I am 

somewhat cynical after working for the Agency and dealing with 

them for the last 23 years, that if they let these buildings go into 

disrepair, it is much easier to consolidate. That is, I think, some 

of the motivation here, to be honest with you. 

Again, we are not opposed to consolidations. This is the 21st Century. We need to think ahead to the Next Generation of the air 

traffic control system which right now is nothing more than a concept anyway. To do that together is the best way to do that. 

But we can’t forget the here and now. I mean we still have 314 

facilities across this Country that are providing safety services to 

the public, and we need to make sure that the people operating 

those facilities can do the jobs that they were hired to do and 

trained to do. 

Collaboratively, I think you guys touched on it in H.R. 2881 as 

far as the process for consolidations. The whole deal with air space, 

the whole deal with modernizing the system, they need to bring the 

experts into this process and right now we are not in this process. 

We have been shut out of this process. 

Until that changes and you, by this Congress, can change that, 

it would be the best thing to do to get us moving in the right direction. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the Ranking Member. 

The final question that I have before I go back to the Chairman 

of the Full Committee, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Forrey and Mr. Brantley, 

in particular, you are aware of the process that we have set up in 

the FAA reauthorization bill for the consolidation of the TRACONs 

and towers. 

My question is that, obviously, what we attempted to do is to 

bring the stakeholders, to get everyone’s opinion, to have a process 

where obviously one of the problems here with the unsafe and 

unhealthy working conditions is that the FAA is not talking to or 

listening to the employees who have to work in these facilities 

every day. With the consolidation and closing of TRACONs and 

towers, we want to make certain that the stakeholders are involved, that the people who work in those facilities every day have 

input as to what should happen as far as consolidation is concerned. 

The question that I have, you have had an opportunity to review 

the language in the legislation that passed the Full Committee and 

hopefully is on its way to the House. I wonder if you might comment on the process that we have established in the bill. 

Mr. FORREY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have. I think that the language in the current bill is very good 

language. I think it could be tightened up quite a bit. 

Again, it is my cynicism of dealing with the Agency over the last 

several years. They want to continue forward with the consolidations that they have on the table right now, but they have not evaluated whether that is a safety issue, whether service to the users, 

45

and they want to just barrel ahead because that is the way they 

have done things. 

That would be my only, for lack of a better word, criticism of the 

bill is it still gives them the ability to forge ahead even though they 

are listening to us. They are listening, but that doesn’t mean they 

are going to take anything into account that we say. 

So I think that would be helpful, something in the language of 

the bill that would tighten that up a bit, that would at least force 

the Agency to adopt some of these issues that these user groups 

are coming up with that meet within obviously the budget and the 

admission of the Agency. I mean that is all I can say on that. 

Mr. COSTELLO. In the process, of course, as I mentioned in my 

opening statement, the Congress has the last say. 

Mr. Brantley? 

Mr. BRANTLEY. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think the language is extremely good and helpful because I 

don’t see it stopping anything. What I do see is it requiring good 

decisions made for the right reasons and done in the light of day, 

and I think that is always much better than just doing something 

and making everyone come along, whether it is a good idea or not. 

I think it is something that could help the Agency consolidate 

where it makes sense—when it makes sense. 

If I might, if I could beg your indulgence for a moment, something just struck me that I would like to respond to from a couple 

of remarks earlier about the idea of the maintenance either not 

being done properly or even there was a comment that maybe it 

is too hard to fire people if they can’t do their jobs. 

The reality is when we are talking about people responsible for 

the maintenance of these facilities, there is no one left to fire. That 

workforce has been reduced so much that they don’t send them out 

to do maintenance. The bulk of their time is spent on new construction, new installation. There is just, frankly, no one left to do the 

work. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

I understand that Mr. Boozman may have a question. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. I just have a question, a couple questions, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The gentleman is recognized. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you very much. 

I guess the question I would have is that these things, I know 

you have had some challenges working with the Administration the 

last few years or whatever as you alluded to, Mr. Forrey. These 

things don’t just happen overnight, though. In other words, things 

just don’t go in disrepair. 

I have a great deal of sympathy for people that are working in 

adverse conditions, and it is something that we need to get fixed. 

I guess my question is, again, this is something that hasn’t just 

happened. There is something systemically wrong in the system or 

we wouldn’t be in this condition. 

In other areas, the VA and things like that, the authorizing Committee specifically working, in the case of the VA or whomever, 

works with that. Hopefully, they work with everyone within the 

agency, and then they come up with a list of hospitals and things 

46

that need work and this and that to try and depoliticize the process. 

I guess my question is do we need to look at the process? Do we 

need to look at maybe doing some things like that that perhaps 

would make us a little bit more efficient? 

I think there is probably two things going on. Just a lack of 

money, a lack of resources, and certainly that is out there. The 

other thing is that there probably is some politicization of the process, and maybe money is at times getting there because of a 

squeaky wheel that it winds up getting in that situation. 

Could you comment on that? Would that be helpful if we looked 

at perhaps? 

Again, I am not advocating that we do that tomorrow but start 

looking in that direction, maybe we as the authorizing Committee 

getting a little bit more involved with specific projects authorized 

based on input from the workers and the FAA. 

Mr. FORREY. I think anything that the Committee can do that 

would include all the stakeholders like the current language does 

in the bill is a positive step in the right direction. 

What would concern me about, and maybe I heard you wrong 

and I think what has happened in the past is that certain constituencies have kind of stolen some of that money to do something in 

this district instead of working on a project that was in disrepair, 

that needed fixed over here. I think some of that has gone on in 

the past and probably will in the future. 

But I think the maintenance of the facilities, it is like the infrastructure problem that Tom Brantley brought up earlier. It is not 

seen. People don’t see it, and people don’t have to look at it every 

day, day in and day out, and they don’t understand how bad it is 

and in how much disrepair it is. 

I think that anything that you could have, any process that is 

in place that provides input from all users and all the stakeholders, 

that identifies that and prioritizes what needs to get fixed would 

be great. We don’t have that right now. 

Mr. BRANTLEY. Thank you for the question. 

I think I agree that any input or any help that the Subcommittee 

could give to help bring people together and actually talk through 

the problem and try to find solutions that make sense would be 

more than welcome. I think figuring out what the real problems 

are might be harder than it seems on the surface. 

I think, as you mentioned, lack of resources. I personally have a 

hard time with the Agency talking about other priorities getting in 

the way and then the money is then diverted for something, whether it has been earmarked by a Member or whatever. The fact is if they need $350 million and they ask for $60, you 

can’t take something away that they never got. So I think the 

whole idea of that is just to me, ludicrous. 

I think they need to be a little more forthcoming about why. 

Frankly, I don’t care why, but they need to start asking for what 

they need. That is very important. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes the distinguished Chairman of the Full Committee, Chairman Oberstar. 

47

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank our panel 

for their thoughtful observations and for the factual presentation. 

We do not allow earmarks in the FAA authorization bill. Sometimes they creep into appropriations bills for one or another facility 

but usually in Committee report language and not in bill legislative 

language. 

Over all my service in Congress, we have trusted the FAA to 

make good decisions within the scope of the NAIP, the National 

Aviation Investment Plan, for what is in the best interest of aviation nationwide, for investment in runways and taxiways, the hard 

side of airports to create the greatest opportunity for capacity enhancement. 

We have trusted the FAA to make its decisions on installation 

of new technologies at air traffic control facilities. When the DSR 

was installed, we didn’t say put it in this place or in that facility. 

When the STARS was installed, we didn’t tell them which facilities 

to start with. When the VSCS, Voice Switching and Control System, was put in place, we didn’t tell FAA which facility to start 

with. We trusted to their judgment. 

We are not proposing—I am not proposing at least—in asking for 

a listing of facilities to categorize those in a bill but to give FAA 

specific direction to deal with their health of their workers in the 

workplace. 

When flight attendants said smoking is damaging our health, it 

is causing us increased expense to maintain our work uniforms, 

this aluminum tube is our workplace, this Committee held 10 

hours of hearings, 10 hours of markup to fix the problem. Eventually, we had to take it to the House Floor and impose, through an 

amendment impose first a limitation and then elimination of smoking in that workplace. 

Well, we need to address the workplace of air traffic controllers. 

I don’t care if NextGen comes in next week. They need to fix those 

facilities now. There is no excuse to have mold, rain dripping in 

your workplace, snow blowing into the windows, flies in the wintertime asbestos circulating through the workplace. That is intolerable. 

The FAA cannot hide behind modernization of air traffic control 

and say, oh, by the way, we can’t fix these facilities because we 

want to consolidate them. That consolidation is going to take five 

or ten years. It is nonsense. 

I am sorry I missed the FAA panel. I wanted to tell them that 

firsthand. But they are following this. They will hear it, and they 

are going to hear it from me directly. I hope that by the time we 

get to the House Floor, we will be able to fix it in the authorization 

bill. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks Chairman Oberstar and thanks 

our panel of witnesses. 

Let me not only thank you for being here today to present your 

testimony but also to let you know that we intend to continue to 

provide oversight over the Agency and this will not be the last time 

that we visit this issue. I assure you we will revisit the issue and 

make certain that the FAA proceeds with a plan to address these 

facilities. 

We thank you, and the Committee stands adjourned. 

48

[Whereupon, at 12:42 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

49


36964.149
50


36964.150
51


36964.151
52


36964.152
53


36964.153
54


36964.154
55


36964.155
56


36964.156
57


36964.017
58


36964.018
59


36964.019
60


36964.020
61


36964.021
62


36964.022
63


36964.023
64


36964.024
65


36964.025
66


36964.026
67


36964.027
68


36964.028
69


36964.029
70


36964.030
71


36964.031
72


36964.032
73


36964.033
74


36964.034
75


36964.035
76


36964.036
77


36964.037
78


36964.038
79


36964.039
80


36964.040
81


36964.041
82


36964.042
83


36964.043
84


36964.044
85


36964.045
86


36964.046
87


36964.047
88


36964.048
89


36964.049
90


36964.050
91


36964.051
92


36964.052
93


36964.053
94


36964.054
95


36964.055
96


36964.056
97


36964.057
98


36964.058
99


36964.059
100


36964.060
101


36964.061
102


36964.062
103


36964.063
104


36964.064
105


36964.065
106


36964.066
107


36964.067
108


36964.068
109


36964.069
110


36964.070
111


36964.071
112


36964.072
113


36964.073
114


36964.074
115


36964.075
116


36964.076
117


36964.077
118


36964.078
119


36964.079
120


36964.080
121


36964.081
122


36964.082
123


36964.083
124


36964.084
125


36964.085
126


36964.086
127


36964.087
128


36964.088
129


36964.089
130


36964.090
131


36964.091
132


36964.092
133


36964.093
134


36964.094
135


36964.095
136


36964.096
137


36964.097
138


36964.098
139


36964.099
140


36964.100
141


36964.101
142


36964.102
143


36964.103
144


36964.104
145


36964.105
146


36964.106
147


36964.107
148


36964.108
149


36964.109
150


36964.110
151


36964.111
152


36964.112
153


36964.113
154


36964.114
155


36964.115
156


36964.116
157


36964.117
158


36964.118
159


36964.119
160


36964.120
161


36964.121
162


36964.122
163


36964.123
164


36964.124
165


36964.125
166


36964.126
167


36964.127
168


36964.128
169


36964.129
170


36964.130
171


36964.131
172


36964.132
173


36964.133
174


36964.134
175


36964.135
176


36964.136
177


36964.137
178


36964.138
179


36964.139
180


36964.140
181


36964.141
182


36964.142
183


36964.143
184


36964.144
185


36964.145
186


36964.146
187


36964.147
188

Æ


36964.148