to go in to do this policy that they are simplistic a camera will record everything no problem and no question there are questions about privacy and custody and who has access for the body warned carries and a chain of custody issues are multiplied and what are the standards for policy guidelines? and there is a role for the federal government to play not only that but of necessity for error criteria for admissibility and one of the toughest cases involved

the use of video in a drug prosecution where the video failed for a short period of time and a the defense was the critical and exculpatory for the defendant, when the video failed to create reasonable doubt because of the malfunction. we are not done with this topic for a camera is to be worn by police to ask all of you could you point us in

the direction in the of programs that are working and working well to have models for what should be done of the other states if you know, of any? >> working with several agencies doing things right the policies may differ they are thought fall about what they're doing oakland is one of the initial adopters they have had them since 2010 working with daytona beach florida and also rialto with one of the studies we have done. they're all agencies that

have done a good job and are still engaged. >> thank you for the question. there is only of few may have 22 agencies and i can think of a couple of the top of my head to come up on the year to have success with the police department to bring everybody to the table that has been approved by the aclu. as of model to follow in their own communities.

>> perhaps 28 percent of the laws or senate agencies use body carries in one form or another. it comes from the very small departments. . .

>> tuesday the senate commerce science and transportation committee held a hearing on the reauthorization of the federal aviation administration. faa administrator michael weber testified about efforts to modernize the air traffic control system and the next generation air transportation system next jan initiative. this is just over two hours. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> this hearing will come to order. good morning. today the commerce committee concludes his series of planned hearings on reauthorization of the federal aviation administration with an examination of the nation's air traffic control system. they may begin by thanking aviation subcommittee chair a out and make a member cap well for taking through several valuable hearings on the way to the school committee hearing. it's been a busy work period and a great deal of progress has been made thanks to their efforts. u.s. air traffic control or atc system involves thousands of dedicated air traffic controllers guiding tens of thousands of flights safely across the country on a daily basis. we can be proud of the system's safety record. the same time increasing demand the need to improve efficiency and changes in technology all underscore the need to modernize the system that is still radar base and operated using concepts and procedures developed decades ago.

efforts to modernize software and hardware have made progress but the long view negates modernization programs have often taken too much time and cost too much. we have sex or portion the deity's office of inspector general the government accountability office detailing the implementation delays the cost overruns that have plagued these efforts for decades and stymied leadership for multiple administrations. the most recent visible initiative is the next generation it air transportation system or nextgen. before was given the name the original goal was something called free flight which was expected to result in a genuine transformation of the system away from air traffic control to air traffic management to taking advantage of gps for navigation and surveillance was at the heart of this idea. faa would save money eliminating most radar and airspace operators would save time and money and fuel by choosing their own direct routes. with more than 15 years after the faa began talking about free flight we still seem to be more

than a decade away from anything resembling it. in fact a recent study by the national research council completed the nextgen currently seems to be more about increments of programs and improvements rather than a transformational change. also airlines another operators feel burdened with expensive effort of implementing changes that won't yield direct benefits for many years to come. this situation has led policymakers to question whether the current atc structure is best suited for the task at hand the long-standing difficulties of modernization on one reason to consider reform to the system's reliance on annual transportation appropriations and the vagaries of the political process make long-term planning for system capitalization management of the footprint difficult and probably more costly and the faa will always face challenges attracting and retaining the talent needed to drive major technological change when i must compete with cutting-edge businesses in the private sector. to address the challenges we

must consider if there's a better way to deliver atc services for the traveling public and airspace users and i'm open to considering all ideas. faa is a great record of safety regulators something that regulators something though continuous air traffic control services were moved out of the faa. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses about what reform of our system might look like and how reform could serve the needs of all airspace users. to be sure the matters we discussed today are part of a larger effort on reauthorization where we will address a host of other important issues. i'm looking forward to working with ranking member nelson is well a senator's ailing camp on members of the committee to end such legislation. lastly i want to stress their interest about atc modernization are not focused only on the current leadership team. as i mentioned before seems clear there are structural limitations that impeded success over the years principle is the

key question is whether we were to build an air traffic control system from scratch today would we necessarily conform to the old strictures or strike a better path? i look forward to this discussion i want to turn to my colleague senator nelson the ranking member for his opening remarks. >> thank you mr. chairman and senator thune joins me to acknowledge the families of those lost on colvin air flight 3407. your presence here is a reminder of how much is at stake with the safe operation of our aviation system so thank you for being here. obviously we have the busiest the most complex airspace in the world and thanks to the hard work and the dedication of the faa employees we have an agency

that is providing the safest most efficient airspace in the world yet the negative impacts of the uncertainty of the funding and the sequestration have led to widespread concern about the funding of federal programs and the federal operations. if you take a meat cleaver approach instead of a scalpel approach the sequester forces irresponsible budget decisions in our domestic and defense programs. some of you are going to suggest that the answer is to privatize the faa and air traffic control. the senator feels like we ought to get budget certainty and

repeal sequestration. if we do not, the situation will worsen when additional budget cuts return in 2016. the faa has faced unpredictability for too long. the last faa bill took four years and involves 23 extensions and a partial faa shut down. now the good news is that senator thune and i are working together and we are going to do everything possible to get this faa reauthorization going. in the past because of that uncertainty, because of that sequestration the faa has had to furlough employees, implement a hiring freeze, temporarily close their academy and hauled a lot

of the work that i've had the privilege of seeing with the administrator on the nextgen programs. this has set the f. a. a. back in its progress to advanced air traffic control modernization so the conversation about moving air traffic control into private not-for-profit entities has an impact far beyond you witnesses here today. take for example the department of defense. they share a responsibility for controlling airspace with the faa and they have for more than 65 years. today, the department of defense controls about 20% of our airspace for civilians as well as the military.

faa and d.o.t. coordinate activities to ensure our military can train warfighters test new concepts, equipment and defend the nation. air defense right here in the continental u.s.. no other country in the world has the defense assets of u.s. and we must ensure that our defense and jurists are not harmed by removing the government from air traffic control and i can tell you the department of defense has visited me and they don't want any of this privatization. well, look at the airlines. even the airlines are not in agreement. let me quote from a letter from delta. quote, rather than wasting months of collective energy only to find ourselves with a less

efficient, less responsive more bureaucratic like costlier new monopoly service provider we should instead focus our efforts on achieving real reform in the next authorization that brings about tangible benefits for operators and more importantly for the traveling public end of quote. that's delta. so since aviation is the backbone of our u.s. economy we must prioritize air traffic control investments for the good of this country. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you senator nelson. we have a great panel today led off by the honorable michael huerta followed by the honorable john engler former governor and the honorable byron dorgan

policy analyst at fox and former ally of ours are made to decode also a former member of this committee and mr. jeff smisek chairman president ceo of united airlines mr. paul rinaldi whose present of the air traffic controllers association and mr. mr. ed bolen who is ceo of the business association -- aviation association. a great time am i look forward to hearing from all of you and i will start on my left and you're right with the administrator. mr. huerta please proceed. >> thank you chairman thune ranking member and members of the committee thank you for inviting me to speak today about the reauthorization of the faa. they have reauthorization provides us with the opportunity to propel our next -- to foster the kind of innovative climate that has long been the hallmark of our proud aviation heritage. this reauthorization is provided a form for many industry and government to openly discuss

possible changes in the governing structure of the faa to help us create the aviation system that will sustain our nation's economic growth well into the future. we are open to having this discussion but we must all agree on the most important problems of reauthorization should fix. in our view is her budget and stability in the lack of flexibility to execute on our priorities. these challenges exist for the entire agency not just for the air traffic control system in the next gen organizations of some of suggested. in addition to finding agreement on the problem we are trying to solve the should agree on funding is to avoid unintended consequences. our ability to deploy nextgen technologies and capabilities hinges on interdependencies and relationships within the agency. next an is more than a installing technology in its and our air traffic facilities in aircraft that involves participation of safety organizations make sure technology is safe and the comptrollers and pilots know how

to use it. we believe any decision about governance must take into account these issues so we may best serve our nation and the public. some of our good for changing the faa has not delivered on air-traffic modernization. i would argue the faa has made major progress in modernizing our airspace system to nextgen. we completed the installation of the more powerful technology platform at their new high-altitude air traffic control system. the system will accommodate date applications of nextgen and handle the expected increase in air traffic. lester refinish the coast to coast and solution of the ads-b network that will enable satellites based air traffic control that on a parallel track your collaboration with industry would identify key priorities and implementing their nextgen air traffic procedures. we now have more of a satellite-based procedures and our skies than traditional radar base procedures. we have created new nextgen routes about some of our

business -- busiest areas saving millions of dollars in fuel decreasing carbon emissions and cutting on delays. in addition to these improvements we have set clear priorities and delivering more benefits in the next three years years. these range from improved separation standards for heavy aircraft that are poor nation of traffic on the airport surface and streamlined clearances using data communications. and nextgen srd of that $1.6 billion in benefits to airlines and the traveling public. in the next 15 years the changes we have already made to produce $11.5 billion in benefits. we recognize however it is not enough to rely on him projected benefits. that is why we go back and study the benefits that certain improvements have provided to users. for example in atlanta we safely reduced wake separation standards to improve efficiency at the airport. because of this change at landis jackson absent international airport is increased number of planes that can land by up to 5%

or five planes more per hour. delta airlines is saving up to two minutes a taxi time per flight and these improvements are saving them to between 13 million to $18 million in operating costs annually. clear where the criticisms of the faa's implementation of nextgen and i would like to explain our prayers. their theories about how to play technology in a complex operating environment. some take the position they usually start from a wide-ranging vision and work back from there on developing a range of scenarios. others suggest mapping out the entire picture and proceeding when you are sure of the endgame. others say to take a more pragmatic approach and this is the path the faa has chosen. based on close consultation with industry. this approach used by the office of management and budget matches investments with tangible benefits to airlines and passengers. we acknowledge it requires upfront investment but we are careful not to strand program in the middle of implementation.

when dealing with widespread change in the dynamic airspace system there is no margin for error. the system must transport 750 million passengers every year with the highest levels of safety. any technology we implement must be reliable and safe from the outset. to achieve this high standard we must remain nimble and we must have flexibility. our aviation system is a valuable asset for the american public. we should use the upcoming reauthorization to provide the faa with the tools necessary to meet the demands of the future and to minimize disruption to the progress we have made with nextgen in our work to integrate new users into our system. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and i'm happy to take your questions. >> thank you administrator huerta. >> are we live?

good morning mr. chairman committee members thanks for the opportunity to testify this morning. the business roundtable members include leaders of aerospace companies and every one of our members relies on air transportation as customers of cargo on passenger airlines as the 20th century drew to a close u.s. aviation set the standard for the world's largest safest most technologically advanced system. said we have lost their primitive position and their future leadership isn't dell. this air-traffic system remains the largest the world say this but not the most technologically advanced nor the world's most cost-effective. our air traffic control system relies on the same technology ground-based radar and radio transmission is it in the 60s but almost all of the surveillance technology is still analog. like any other stakeholders we are concerned about the halting pace of the modernization represented by the faa's nextgen

program. national academy report in this committee released this month clearly stated the problems. the original vision for nextgen is not what is being implemented today. airlines are not motivated to spend money on equipment and training for nextgen. in modern innovative air traffic control system would offer tremendous benefits to the users of the airspace, more efficient bypass, reduce fuel consumption lower emissions and less noise pollution, global commercial leadership leading to expanded exports and increase services to small community airports. so what are the obstacles? last year my seat mate here in faa administrator huerta offered one explanation in his speech at the arrow club of washington. quote there something away the faa can implement nextgen recapitalize their aging infrastructure and continue to provide our current level of

services without making serious trade-offs something senator nelson referred to in his opening comments. administrator huerta and i would agree i believe on this critical point the current voting system clearly does not provide the needed resources but the deeper problem is the broken budget tori process itself which prevents the faa from pursuing step-by-step technological improvement that a standard elsewhere certainly in the business world. an example of what works look at at&t and verizon. in the years the u.s. government has been talking about nextgen four generations of cellular technology to 4g video -- about dr. to the faa's funding of 20 billion-dollar modernization effort by an annual and unpredictable cash flow. most other transportation sectors issue long-term revenue bonds to finance large capital modernization but bonding is something the faa cannot do. states do it the private sector

does it but the federal government does not. i convened at the roundtable and expert group to help study this issue including fa and transportation department officials and knowledgeable policy advisers. their conclusion the status quo is simply too costly and too inefficient. they identified the necessary elements of alternative systems. separation of air traffic control operator from regulator to improve transparency and accountability and to further increase safety. an organizational structure that accounts for multiple objectives for safety and access are valued along with cost efficiency. governance of the air traffic control appointed by stakeholders. the revenue structure that enables air traffic control be fully self-supporting without government financial support and free the federal budgetary process.

to one in six x. turns -- wage and benefit structures to protect employees prevent employees career expectations and preserve a collaborative culture. over the last two decades most western countries have restructured the way air traffic control is funded and governed determining it's a high-tech service business part of critical infrastructure and -- infrastructure separating air traffic control into an entity independent of the rest of the faa is a manageable process. tools and precedence exist for addressing the risks that come with any innovation and a thorough planning process is necessary. in the end i hope u.s. senators responsible for the oversight of the faa used the reauthorization process to put america on a trajectory to a modern air traffic control system that is the gold standard for the world.

now is the time for decisive bipartisan efforts to restore america's global leadership. this is the roundtable looking forward to achieving these important goals. thank you for the opportunity members. >> thank you. senator dorgan. >> mr. chairman thank you for inviting me back. i have served on this committee for 18 years and no doubt badgered hundreds of witnesses so -- are the past two years i and former transportation secretary jim brimley have cochaired a project at the transportation institute looking at the subject of air traffic control and the structure of air traffic control. i was a chairman of aviation panel the last time we worked on reauthorizing the faa and i put up a headline from moment where we finally succeeded and is set after five years of debate, 23 short-term extensions and a partial shutdown congress

approved the final version of the faa bill. my hope this time around is that your headline will be shorter and your conclusions bolder for this reason. aviation is one of the major arteries of the american economy and the fact is the issue of effective air traffic control is essential to that industry. i think we have now come to an intersection where we have to decide can we retain our leadership in developing the new technology and the next generation air traffic control system? can we retain our leadership with the current atc structure? in my judgment we cannot. our conclusion at the institute after two years of work with stakeholders from around the system if we want to retain america's leadership with the most advanced atality moving from ground-based radar to next-generation satellite guidance which would be safer faster and more efficient if we want to retain that we are going

to have to restructure the air traffic control function. ..

>> >> that is the accounting that the faa has in the current budget. as much as we wish it would the budget picture will not change we will see more and more spending restraint with the impact of sequestration and layoffs with on-again and off-again stock in star funding from continuing resolutions. that is what the faa is confronted with nobody could or would bill the major new technology projects with those types of challenges. here is the headline from last week and though it causes heart ache but commack the faa is not delivered as promised''.

the first of the modernization that is why change is needed the consensus of the stakeholders was we need to restructure to a government corporation for a nonprofit organization that has stable funding and the ability to control and finance the march to modernization we have now reached the tipping point i am not the typical spokesperson to come to the table to suggest that is the case i would weigh in to have the agency do it there will not be stable funding to move to the leadership necessary with the next opportunity for air traffic control by a understand this is not easy to be discussed before but it needs to be

done now. a number of other countries have done this successfully in so cannery. we know the history data and '03 will learn to fly dash pc the bonfires for guidance then for ground-based radar and we have not changed me to go quickly and effectively the only way that will happen is of the different structure if a non-profit organization and can accomplish what we want to. one final point to know the word privatization has been used. i did not use it this structural focus from non-profit organizations that i think will solve the problem for this country to

insist the government retain anb is stakeholder in a new organization. mr. chairman thank you for the invitation is a pleasure to be sure. >> thank you senator dorgan spent a thank-you chairman and ranking member and members of the committee 40 opportunity to be here for the nation of the air traffic control system for users of air space in passengers and employees and the many stakeholders across the country that benefit. airlines for america is dedicated a tremendous amount of resources time and attention to a fact based study of air traffic control reform including a global survey of proper service providers. all of the work points to one conclusion, the american air traffic control system needs a complete

transformation to modernize to meet the demands of the future a of the time is now. we cannot continue with a status quo. today all users of this system is behold and to the world were to era system that is inefficient. for decades policy-makers and stakeholders unanimously recognized the need for modernization. long string of reports from commissions dot inspector general a gao and independent private sector experts have found the faa progress has not met exhortations calling into serious question in the agency's ability to deliver on its mission under the current structure. the problem is not the work force or the leadership of the funding and governance that we must fix many

countries around the world have successfully transformed their own air traffic control system. we have done extensive benchmarking we show the six basic success. number one is separation of the operation of the atc safety regulation function number to a nonprofit corporation with independent multistate kohler board of governors free from political influence. a professional management team incentivize to pursue efficiency without numerous constraints imposed on government agencies. number for a self funded user fee model based on the cost of services allowing access to capital markets and a steady predictable

stream of funding not subject to budgetary constraints. number five. managing assets and capital investments with far greater speed to market of technological information in which user fees so they know what they pay allow them to have full ability to recover cost. under their transformed atc system plus any new fees to fund the remaining should not exceed the total tax burden of today. with independent governments and operation and funding of the atc system the faa could turn the full attention to safety regulation and oversight for the transform atc system could maintain safety as the utmost priority while creating efficiencies delayed reductions in the environmental benefits for

the inefficiencies the delays and the cost will only grow over time so there is no better time to transform the atc system than now we are capable to rise to a challenge as many others have before us if we do this methodically and thoughtfully well as giving proper consideration to risk mitigation the results is a modernized air navigation service provider to better deliver the benefits to the users of the system of employees and passengers that they people of this nation expect and deserve. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman is editors of the committee thank you for the opportunity to testify that this hearing to discuss the future of our aviation system. riyal have a stake in the national airspace the economic engine contributes 1.$5 trillion to the gdp

provides over 12 million american jobs. reinvented aviation as an american tradition over the last 100 years we have created innovated implemented the unbelievable for current labor you run the largest most complex diverse system in the world it is income parable nine equaled and unrivaled by any other country. for example, the next largest aerospace is canada they have 12 million operations per year on average we have over 132 million operations per year the united states air space systems is considered the gold standard in the community by yet the reality is to keep that honor changes needed. currently we face many challenges to respond to a given problem so unpredictable funding stream concluding the inability to

finance long-term projects the inability to grow the airspace for new users the ability to modernize the aging infrastructure currently our centers throughout the country are over 50 years old with no plan to replace them. their struggling to maintain proper resources at the air traffic control facilities are certified air controllers are of the all-time low the of coming bill must address the lack of the of predictable stable funding stream for the hypercritical safety aviation operations and. we'll understand this stop and go funding problems leads to an examination of a structure change and we believe it is time the current system is not dynamic enough to address the needs of air-traffic control operations in the future but any such change

reform must be carefully examined to prevent the unintended consequences of safety and efficiency of national airspace system every stakeholder should work together to make sure the united states continues to be a global leader in aviation. any reform must address the safety and efficiency of the airspace system to be misunderstood to provide a stable and predictable funding stream. to adequately support staffing inspiring. any change must allow for continued growth in the aviation system and must be dynamic to provide all services for all segments of the community. any change that we make needs to be precision like to interrupt the day-to-day operation of the airspace it

is an american treasure. aviation is uniquely in american tradition. we cannot continue to shortchange it. we're still currently recovering from sequestration cuts of 2013. another round of cuts better set to take place this year will shrink the footprint for ever we need to make appropriate changes to secure a stable funding stream and establish a proper governance structure that is not laden with your credit lines of business or burgeoned with bureaucratic process we need a dynamic structure that will allow was to grow aviation and not shrink it and to modernize facilities and equipment procedures in a realistic time frame to give us the competitive edge to ensure

the future leadership in the global aviation community. thank you for the opportunity to testify collophore to answering your questions. thank you. >> mr. chairman and members of the committee general aviation is an important industry representing target billion dollars to our economy with over 1 million workers business aviation unit states foster's economic development and small town and roll committees and helps companies of all sizes be efficient and productive to help with a humanitarian efforts whether responding to forest fires or flooding or transplant organs. we're honored to be here today. we represent over 10,000 member companies of all

sizes. and in all types of industry we represent hospitals, universities and nonprofit. 85% of the numbers are small and mid-sized generally operating out this small towns and secondary markets generally flying tour from an airport with no commercial service. business aviation is fundamental to the economy smalltown and mid-sized communities in the united states. typical of membership status:washington schweitzer is a high-tech engineering company in a community with very little commercial service. but it can compete effectively in the international market because it has access to business

aviation. mr. chairman, every member of this committee has a company like schweitzer in a community. as a matter of perspective there are fewer than 500 communities in the united states with any type of airline service. 5,000 in the communities that rely on business aviation for support. the faa reauthorization bill has a lot to do with communities and companies like those. because the airspace above our heads belongs to the american public not to anyone stakeholder or industry segment the air transportation system must continue to serve all americans across this country the question on the table the fundamental

question of reauthorization is who will ensure that the public airspace serves the public benefit? will it be the public elected officials? or a combination of self interested parties? for decades suggestions have been made that congress wash their hands of the air traffic control system. to give over to other parties taxing authority to determine if you can access airports and airspace. this is something pushed long before next gen was the concept in before sequestration they have wanted sweeping authority to determine who gets taxed and who can fly where and when. mr. chairman the power to tax is called the power to destroy. today that authority resides

with the elected officials for also the power to insure nondiscriminatory access to airports and airspace. congress should not abdicate or relegate delegate or outsource its authority over taxes and access to. the congressional research service said to do so could become such -- and constitutional united states has the measures the largest and safest and most efficient and most complex and diverse air transportation system in the world. but the business aviation community is not content with status quo and no american should be. to be the best today does not mean the customer and complacency is our enemy. that is why the business

aviation community has been active and outspoken for its support for next general industry segment has done more. we have invested in technology we urge congress to do the same. serious problems to exist with the nextgen program programs have been delayed and implementation has been slow. we still have a lot of work to do to certify technologies it is time to focus like a laser on those problems. it is time to not be distracted by what we need to do. we need to use the faa reauthorization bill to make sure we make nextgen a reality and improve the certification we are protecting our nation's system of airports to

certify end employment and integrate in a safe way there is a lot of work to be done the member companies look forward to working closely with you but let's never forget the public airspace should serve a public benefit. >> thank you mr. bolen your very efficient everybody came very close to the five minute rule even hour former colleague. [laughter] over the weekend indicating is security research claim could barely take control by hacking into the in-flight entertainment system of true it is a disturbing incident

and to analyze those on passenger aircraft? >> so what they are finding is as it relates to the larger question of cyberit is something we've looked very carefully at that only in the operation of our system to how it changes for those rare of security to access to critical systems but a cyberis it will continue to be a challenge not just with aviation and

but a technology based sector tuesday ahead of. >> nothing to report at this time? >> the academy's student would require significant effort with those challenges going forward. to talk about that issue with the agency's efforts with the government faces of the private sector employers? >> do we offer a competitive job and composition? to ensure the net debt it is important 2.0 there is a

significant portion of the pool interested coming to work for the faa because of their belief of the mission in public service. >> we will never paid the top salaries that top technology companies pays so the focus to have an orderly process. >> to be interested in the cybersecurity support to begin touched with that subject. to turn back to the subject at hand talk about status quo is not be acceptable situation.

in bed with the system of the courage government model >> we have been studying the last 18 months the other countries when they broke off air-traffic control services from their government entity some have done well summer struggling. what we are looking at is a funding stream to change the structure was a thing we know for sure that we don't want is to put another hurdle in front of us to provide the most efficient system is the world's. >> there is a lot of discussion as the model for comparison. to a understand with some reluctance to copy that effort to that he finds most

appealing. >> i was there last week to look at the technical center to have day true collaboration to develop a the nextgen technology to work together from conceptual stage through training and implementation and deployment with their facilities to save time and money with the 30 year time frame because of the procure reprocess. >> in the context of the independent services provider some of the referenced of preference

several different models. can you speak to the difference of a federal corporation or federally chartered nine profit from the approach? >> reconvened this group in the consensus was a nonprofit corporation allowed to maximize shareholder corporation but also what happened is the ability to have that bombing authority to talk about the nextgen capital project we we're done in a fairly short period of time to continuously improve.

it is the entity but i would say those people tend to rely on the nonprofit corporation with the shareholder management if you will. it gets you the most bang for your buck and gets us out to the edge where we are not today. >> mr. cherry have submitted a research document for the folks that were involved have produced this shows the strength and weakness for what other countries have done but what it has indicated is the most important point the stability of funding of this

type is essential i served in congress 30 years in the lot i don't know but in the time of spending restraint is an sequestration and multiple continuing resolutions there will not be stable funding for this type of project in the future unless it comes through a bonding capability through another organization. i support and belief this will not get done unless we decide to do in a different structure. with the input including the of government.

>> the user fee structure as was mentioned as a stable stream of funding with stability and second this is governed by the board of directors from the department of defense said u.s. government the air carriers said union representatives said they are present with fiduciary duties and let not the employees with those fiduciary duties. also of the efficiencies driven from a nonprofit corporation we have evidence

from canada to the north. and with that management with the ability to attract and retain a workforce including cybersecurity experts. in that's enterprise is free of the political influence found today's. >>. >> i want to follow-up with the introduction of cyber attack. part of what we are looking to do with this next generation is air-traffic

control of the of satellites you can be a lot more efficient and a lot more awareness from the cockpit from the other airlines with that transition there is the question of the back up of the ground-based radar. so what happens if there is a cyberattack:the gps to shut down with mr. smisek with the ring true that you talk about who would bear the cost of the back up since that is the last

efficient operation and? america i am not an expert on the cybersecurity but it is necessary in any enterprise to have paid very expert investment. it is a risk as we become with the attack, and the gps system it would affect everything. >> given the private corporation. >> if as a result of concerns that were sufficient with the ability to bring down the gps system of which i have no knowledge at all. . .

>> that is one of the costs. mr. administrator, why is dod weighing in on this so heavily? they are concerned about this privatization? can you speculate how privatization would impact there relationship with dod?

would you be able to interact with a private entity or nonprofit corporation in the same way that you have existing opportunities to interact with dod? >> sen. nelson, i can certainly speak about the relationship and the working procedures that we have with the department of defense as they exist today. they are an they are an important partner in the provision of air traffic control services and they control certain airspace in the country. we control certain no space the country. we have a shared responsibility for an efficient and effective management of the safety of the air traffic control system. we often we often take advantage of the airspace they use exclusively during peak travel time to overcome eight additional traffic loads and work

collaboratively with them to ensure that they have access to airspace that they need for their mission requirements for training. >> i understand you were collaboratively with the. why do you think they are weighing and so vigorously? >> i cannot speak to why they are weighing and but what it ultimately depends upon is what would be the structure and an alternative model under which they would interact with their partners in the air traffic system? it would strike me that there would be a way to build protocols but it is entirely dependent upon the structure selected. >> why are the general aviation business manufacturer so concerned? folks like breyer -- we will go through all of them. gulfstream cessna etc.

>> the business aviation committee as i mentioned earlier 85% of our members are small and midsize companies flying into and out of airports with little or no commercial airline service. and so they are concerned about their access and are concerned about ensuring that their access to safe predictable, and affordable. i think one of the questions that came up earlier was financing the system. what we heard is that one of the plans for the future is to have bonding authority which is a euphemism for borrowing. the reality reality is what we have today is our system generates a largely but not entirely self-sufficient system. we have a combination of user funded taxes plus a general fund contribution they currently funds the faa

the question on the table as if we pull it out me will have a situation where all of those industry charges don't equal the amount we have today we can either raise good taxes to get to that amount, cut the system to get to that amount we will as you have heard go borrow the money. borrowing money comes at a cost. that has to be serviced. prolonged borrowing ends up creating an interest nightmare. there are issues that must be addressed. what we want to do is make sure the small towns and rural communities, secondary and tertiary communities are able to have business aviation located in their communities and are able to access airports and no space in major markets such. >> thank you. >> thank you. let me just begin. is every witness a part of this working group?

>> no. >> i tell you what. i think this is an excellent report. kudos. would you do this? in reading through this at some time there needs to be a page where the owners take ownership command i don't see that. we checked the website. spread that on the record for us. >> happy to do that. >> there are three -- are you part of this working group? >> we were part of the working group but did not feel our concerns were being reflected. we are no longer. >> that is probably accurate three options involve major structural change. an independent nonprofit and

private for-profit. the 4th option sort of basically tells congress that we ought to do our job. get the funding straight and make sure that it is reliable and steady. the 4th option system funding stream maintaining the system current government structure going on to say that this option could alleviate transition issues that are concerned with completely knew government structures. fair to say that your organization is more in tune with that 4th option. >> we have studied various structures around the world. we have looked at australia, new zealand, england, canada

in none of these markets do we see a robust business aviation community that is providing economic development in small and rural communities. serious access issues. australia business aviation is not allowed access to airspace in melbourne or sydney on a prioritize basis at all. we all. we end up waiting sometimes three, four, five hours on the tarmac for access. i was on i was on a panel recently with the head of the irish air traffic control system who said he just have to understand you will get priority. that is part of the natural selection process. as we have looked we saw after an economic downturn that privatize group needed a bailout from the taxpayers. canada has instituted user charges while continuing fuel taxes. what we have seen as we look

around his a lot of fundamental problems with some of the different structures, and we want to make sure in the united states we identify problems and finding targeted solutions to them. to simply to simply say we will pull this out and give it borrowing authority leaves concern about our ability to safely, predictably, and affordably access airspace and airports >> you are saying that the united states is unique in that we have the 5,000 communities that rely on business aviation as you mentioned and that access will not be the same if we go to one of these three structural changes. >> our study of the systems around the world has taken this action in a serious

access and affordability concerns. >> it sounds like you have a good.there. >> it depends on who is listening. >> i i spoke on the importance to the country. but the question before this committee is are we in fact going to have the system built and completed? the answer is without a change in structure we will not get their's. there are a lot of opposing interests. i will give you a list of everyone who participated. but you can't reach everyone because everyone has their own set of interests that they bring to these issues.

i mentioned that this is a heavy left. we didn't put together a pattern for important reasons. we would not have gotten agreement on a specific pattern. once asked if he would engage in a debate. zero yes if i if i can take the negative side. the negative side takes no preparation. look i understand that this is big and controversial and will make one more.if i might. >> one more. >> he came to our organization. he was not a participant but we invited them. i have great respect for him that is why we invited them. all of us should want the same thing.

there will not be stable funding in time is spending restraints which will probably include sequester uppermost in the budget as we saw it is year because $365 million out of we equipment account trying to climb this hill of in the modernization. >> a stunning indictment which may be correct. this one quick.most several weeks ago april 14th you appear before the full community on a similar topic faa reauthorization. we asked questions for the record particularly with regard to the contract our program still awaiting details and look forward to

receiving answers. >> absolutely. i think we're trying to schedule a step briefing to go over the methodology. >> okay. if we can squeeze those questions in. you could have answered them right on the spot. but do your best. we served together in the state. i i was a state senator. i recall you coming before me on the finance committee. here we are just a different capacity. it's great to see you again. i would like to pick up briefly on senator workers comments.

as i heard the testimony concerns about funding and budget. that 4th option it falls back on congress that we are not doing our job here in providing the resources necessary. the proposals put the proposals put together. that is where focus needs to be having said that i have a question. i understand the 2nd largest air carrier has a major presence in my state of michigan major have as well as a large employer has declined to endorse the a a4 a position that you have been advocating for today suggesting the current system can become more efficient and deliver substantial benefits through

improved collaboration efforts. delta fears that separating vat see system would lead the operational risks and pitfalls bureaucratic silos unforeseen costs that will accompany the transition and the loss of expert personnel a long list of concerns. please comment on those concerns and whether you agree those in the risks are ones that we need to consider? >> i would be happy to's. as you can imagine like congress we don't always get unanimity. however, we do except for one member. that member has expressed

its concerns. i will say that i think that our colleagues at delta have no evidence that the fa can become more efficient or deliver effective services. a perfect example of that. today the best technology in the world. i think you would agree. they they brought down the cost of the system to the users by 50 percent from our model of safety and are selling a technology to 3rd parties because they are so adept at working collaboratively with unions, working collaboratively with experts attracting and retaining experts. i would say that lacks evidence. in terms of risks of transitions of course there is. what we know is what we have

today does not work. we have candidly little to no confidence that there will be a stream of stable funding for the ability of the faa to attract and retain to implement stakeholders in collaboration. collaboration. this nation should reach for greatness and this is an opportunity to do so. if we keep doing the same thing we have been doing we will get what we deserve. >> administrator under the center proposal adc has spun off. the government must maintain a role in governance's.

since the faa is the guarantor of the public interest. the role of the faa to put safety of the traveling public 1st. are you concerned this might be diminished? >> well, i would envision that there would be a couple of different roles. the question of who oversees the safety. under under our current structure today we have an independent safety organization that provides safety oversight. with respect to some of the other questions that have been raised relating to access to the system or ensuring the public interest those interest those are all questions that would need to be carefully considered by this committee 's and would need to be reflected should there be a change in the governance model and whatever structure is put in place.

>> i think it is clear and certainly in the expanded testimony i submitted it is clear that the faa remains the safety -- they other regulator. i think you get better regulation by separating. right now we have an inherent conflict. they are judge and jury. i think that the separation allows them to do their job very effectively as they do in a lot of areas. there is a benefit in many respects to that command i don't think there's ever been a suggestion that somehow safety -- we are talking about the air traffic control system itself the operation of it the vision for it, the leadership has to come back. the other thing we need a

more effective way for the faa to modernize its own procedures. now they focus on that and get up-to-date on things where it does help improve the way we fly the way airlines manage operations. literally rules being months of my years behind. the ability to have a separation division of labor is one of what i believe to be the benefits. and i would suggest also as you pointed out in the structures it really isn't -- it is moving to a government corporation. a nonprofit corporation. far different than a private enterprise.

>> first i want to thank all of you. i think we look at the sizable we are dealing with your. i heard i heard all of you and all your statements and thoughts and beliefs and what we should be doing. statements coming from you all does not work. when you start looking at the size canada has 42 towers and seven centers. france. france, 82 towers five centers 16 towers for centers. mexico 58 hours for centers. united kingdom 16 towers and to centers. united states of america 512 towers 21 centers. they don't even come close. how are we saying the system

does not work and we are not able to maintain? the most used in the world. let me just go. my little state of west virginia told us that if you deregulate it is going to improve air service in rural west virginia. we were told that. a pioneer at that time's. 122 air force 86 of them are private strips. only seven of them have commercial flights and seven have towers. this is diminished because of the what's going on. and i'm just looking at the situation to where we are supposed to be improving a system by privatizing it. in some cases i have been all for privatization. i am also for public-private partnerships. they still come under the purview of the faa told that

they are in a private stream. that seems to have worked in west virginia. our towers would have been eliminated. five would have been gone. i'm looking at everything. go home and explain that we are making the system better and and start charging. if it wasn't for aviation we would be out of the communication completely. little towns were not have any industry whatsoever. they cannot go back and forth. with that if we take congress out of the equation and spin off the air traffic control system to some nongovernment organization how would that speak for rural america? >> sen. no one is suggesting that the government not be a a stakeholder in whatever is

proposed. i do not support privatization. but i spent a lot of time on this committee talking about how you can fly twice as far for half the price. you are talking about a different subject. you and i agree on that subject and it has nothing to do with the question of how you move airplanes' from one airport to another and whether we will continue to use a world war ii ground-based radar system or whether we will move to a different type of system using modern technology. this is not a question of what is but what will be. there is no conflict at all. unbelievably safe system. no conflict in saying that and observing that we are not moving as rapidly as some others are in order to embrace the knew technology and retain america's leadership. i met with the europeans and

others will retain our leadership. they will not be funding to do it. i believe we need to find a new structure but not one in which the government is not a stakeholder. >> sooner or later we will have to get a budget that works for this country. we have not done that because the political toxicity of this place we call washington has got to change. we can be picking and choosing. there have been reports congressional research service highlighted constitutional concerns of what we're talking about. one of my biggest concerns is the delegation of taxing authority to an unelected unaccountable board of directors to adjust user fees and living in taxes.

often driving federal appropriations. i would ask any of you all here do you think it is legal and appropriate to relinquish a constitutional authority? >> i don't purport to be an expert on the constitutional law. this these structures designed to cover the cost of the system. an appropriate reserve fund if there were reductions in travel in terms of the general aviation issues and

canada and it can be done here that sticker you put on your car. it's a process. today's the proportion of fun -- funding. we see the vast enormous efficiencies that can be driven from a nonprofit corporation. >> the amount of money being generated today from industry is less than what the faa costs.

it's all the same thing. funding the system have to go up or as has been discussed we can borrow the money if we can do that we would need to know pretty clearly what we are going tomorrow, what we will get to know when it will be ready, how we will pay it back and who will pay back. this authority tax was set by the 1st chief justice of the supreme court to be the power to destroy. we are concerned about that. we have heard some of the press announcements. cost shifting is been part of that. it it is a concern. >> the gentleman's time has expired.

>> thank you very much. welcome back. it is good to see you. you. i was just at the canadian embassy with the premier of ontario talking about some of there funding. .. smaller airports on public safety and other things and i wonder how compares to canada

and compares to what they have done with their roads and bridges and some of that which i found an interesting model. mr. rinaldi. >> thank you senator. i don't call myself an expert on this but i have been researching and canada along with the u.k. and mr. leah system. as far as from what i know of the system they haven't reduced services. that would be one of the things i would be deeply concerned about. they moved out of air transport canada which was their government structure in the early 90s and they started to transition about 1994. it took about five years to go through a full transition. it was a big transition that they went through and then stood up there corp.. they do have as ed bolen would

say they did keep their gas tax and that is to fund the safety and regulatory function that still remained in government and established a user fee of all the users in the system. >> and as i was looking at someone else brought up the delta letter since they have been out front on this. they talked about increase in the provision of service cost increases and airports look up to make up the trust fund money. this is a different model but in canada. any comments on that? >> i could speak to the u.s.. the amount of money that is raised from tax structure pays for the entire traffic control system that contributes additional monies to the operation of the faa and we don't propose that would change. i think the 15 year average of the fund contribution is around $3000 -- $3 quintillion so with

user fees to run the system initially it would certainly be with the current level of taxation a portion replaced by user fees and a portion retained by congress there would be money that with continued to be contributed to the faa whether that would go into their aib or the general faa -- >> in this reform system would you be willing to pay more? >> we would certainly from the u.s. aviation airline industry we are as you know one of the most heavily taxed industries. we are taxed like alcohol and tobacco like a sin and we are not a sin. i believe over time personally based on air canada and air canada model that the user fees would actually go down because of the efficiencies that would

be driven and operating system for example canada has gone down by 30%. >> senator from the business aviation perception it looks different in canada than in the united states. they don't have a lot of the small and midsize companies in the small and midsize communities that we do in the united states and as paul mentioned they do have user fees and the feel top -- packs up there so a double tax situation and it's fundamentally different because in addition to privatizing air traffic control they have privatized airports which have their own costs associated with it so for a lot of different reasons we don't believe in apples-to-apples comparisons. >> how would smaller airports fared under this model? i guess i asked the same thing as --

>> from my perspective we are very concerned about that access to those airports and airspace. today received a letter from operations and are concerned that we copy that model. what we hear from our members operate in canada is a concern about the way it works up there with regard to paying the user fees as opposed to the fuel tax. it's not nearly as efficient. it creates a costly administrative burden and they think it is harmed business aviation. senator dorgan. >> one of the arguments i would make those in the opposite direction that today we have technology that would allow for more airport access services to the small airports that we can't get fully deployed who are running behind and would be of benefit. as i look at this do we like

what we have got and are we confident we can do better if we stay the course and if we want to change what would that entail? we are getting into some the debate about what may be in the bill that questions that are being asked are able to be responded to through some of the work of the center is done in what the reporters looked at. >> senator dorgan. >> i think mr. bolen is concerned about the uncertainty and i understand that. my interest is not in creating a system and we have offered an approach here that doesn't have a lot of specifics. i have no interest in entering business aviation general aviation or small airports. one of the principle issues it here is every major airport has bonding investment so on.

i think one of the significant issues here is to give a new structure bonding capability to build the system and a robust way and we have explicitly not described a user fee or a structure system beyond that and i think mr. bolen and i fully understand his point. i don't have any interest in seeing a system that is going to injure general aviation business aviation or small airports. >> thank you. >> senator markey followed by senator mccaskill. >> thank you chairman very much. it's good to see byron dorgan bachan congress. i spoke along with ranking member nelson senator cantwell booker blumenthal and frank and i sent a letter to the department of transportation asking about airline's ability to engage in personalized pricing. personal license pricing is a

practice that would allow an airline to charge different prices to consumers that are trying to buy the same seat on the same flight at the same time time. the difference in airfare would be based upon personal situations that the airline has collected about the passenger. i and the other members are deeply concerned that if airlines are about to engage in personalized pricing they could discriminate amongst consumers charging customers different prices based on zip codes, income levels marital status or other characteristics. what if for example airlines consumers at good information offered special fares to consumers who live in more affluent zip codes to entice them to travel more frequently while failing to provide the same in lower income areas so mr. huerta the faa publicly refused last year to determine whether discrimination based on

income level marital status would constitute unreasonable discrimination. i believe that practice is discrimination. what can you tell the committee today? >> will the faa revisit that determination? >> first of all senator to clarify the economic regulation and oversight is authority held by the office of the secretary not at the faa and we can get your response for the record. >> i think that's important for the committee. mr. smisek your airline, would you discriminate based upon income status or merit of status or trip purpose? >> sir up what you are describing redistribution capability at a auto which is a technological advance for the ability of airlines to offer through third parties additional

services that the customers cannot get today, i don't view it as discriminatory. i view it as pro-consumer. >> i'm asking are you going to use marital status? >> we have no desire in doing anything like that. for example if you are primary member at united and buying through a third-party site today if you bought directly from us directly on united.com he would be able to get an economy plus seat for free but if you're buying three third party and don't know your loyalty status because of technology today where they are not able to offer that flight for free which is requires you to put through third party and come back to united.com and get your upgrade. >> on train to clarify is that you will not be using income status or marital status so is zip code to in any way in make

any of these -- >> senator united airlines has no desire to discriminate. >> that's very helpful, thanks. we have heard recent reports about cybersecurity threats there are travelers face. one security researcher claims to have hacked into the airline's control systems to the entertainment system changing the direction of the plane. i'm concerned about recent claims that the wi-fi on plains lacks basic security that make it easy for hackers to spy on customers using the network so let me first ask about hacking into airplane control. i know that chairman thune earlier asked administrator huerta about the faa separates and let me turn to you again mr. smisek. what is american airlines doing to prevent hacking into the

vital controls of the airline's? >> sir

. once the architecture so it's that kind of management of process and design and money there's no question i would say it's 50/50. >> is interesting i don't know how we ensure we get better at management by just changing the structure. unit look at the u.s. postal service. look at amtrak babies pay these are all examples of things we have done better structures were

we have tried to do something other than the traditional this is an inherently governmental function and the government is going to do it to. >> i would say look at fedex. >> yet but those are privatized for-profit. are we advocating going to for-profit? if that's the case my rural airports are totally host. >> we are not saying that but a private non-corporate is in my mind when i look at some of the decisions made in other countries and how they have approached it, i think they really to me offer that kind of flexibility. the faa is still the rule setter here. they are still the boss but now it's basically in the hands of the private company. one of the things on the funding side mr. bolen said